The Unpolished Spoon

[scameter]

I have been considering recently, in more depth, the cause of my dificiencies, and of deficiency in general in life, and I came to a few conclusions, though somewhat speculatory, but based in observation and experience.

1. Life is objective and impersonal, and only becomes subjective, personal and emotional, taking on characteristics such as good and evil, painful and pleasureful, beneficial and hinderance when experienced by subjective beings of all kinds, not just humans.

2. Due to the fact that many people die before the age of one, and that many other people who live a long time are not always exposed to everything in life, and other points, nothing specific must be required of individuals humans by anything divine or spiritual that is behind life, including baptism, Enlightenment, and similar requirements of many religions, unless that which is behind existence is malicious or vendictive.

3. Logic and reason tend to be two of the most predominant features of life in that they govern the events in objective life, and also assist humans in recognizing those objective things, as well as discerning wisdom, acting wisely in social situations, discerning between good and evil, etc.

4. Emotion is the subjective drive behind the lives of animals intelligent enough to not be driven entirely by instinct in their daily life, such as chimps and humans. Without emotion, we would not be driven to do anything, because we would neither want nor not want to do it, including acting logical, focusing on spiritual matters, mating or anything else, since instincts no longer drive us to do those things without emotion.

5. Skill-oriented expertise, intellectual prowess, and physical prowess are not requirements in life and do not reflect on any real value of the individual person; they are merely things that may be acquired in life by those who desire them.

6. Deficiencies in the individual, excluding physical/objective disorders such as insanity or disease, are either caused by a malfunction or perversion of health and happiness by an individual for some reason in the case of moral evil, or are caused by one's expectations of oneself being made in ignorance of one's talents, qualities, personality and experiences, such as when a person expects themself to accel in mathematics but their thought speed is not as quick as someone else, they are deficient only in their view, because they made the expectation and desire to be good at mathematics while ignorant of their natural inapptitude for it, though that inapptitude is not a deficiency, only a physical characteristic that is as impersonal and objective as any other.

7. Due to the unresponsive nature of existence to questions of a spiritual or theological matter, one who is incapable of finding a specific religion they prefer but fall into the place of constant doubt and uncertainty should either choose agnosticism and profess that they do not deny that something spiritual is there, they simply don't know anything certainly about it; or, if they are still driven by curiosity and/or passion, they should use their logic and experience to attempt to piece together some idea of what is spiritually behind life, and if their doubt continues through their search, simply say, I'm trying but I'm not certain.

Sorry for the length.

[scameter]

The Unpolished Spoon Theory: Section Two

1. The issue of a person being able to understand the things that go beyond their personal experience, such as before their birth and after their death, as well as things such as the existence of a creator God, karma, etc., is not resolved generally, but is an individual resolution that each person, usually, in their lifetime considers and comes to some conclusion on, then choosing a religion, philosophy, or other belief system or lifestyle to that answer, or at least satisfy in some way whether through answers or denial or some other method, the questions that go beyond one's personal experience.

2. Though questions that go beyond one's personal experience are answered subjectively, if one feels the desire to pursue these questions for themselves in a more objective way, complete objectivity, clear perception and piercing insight is required to see what is behind life so to speak, such as it's creator, purpose, value, etc.

3. Though physical life itself is entirely objective in nature, the closed systems of order that occur within existence, especially those that have information-processing capacity such as animals, particularly the more highly intelligent and sentient ones, give way to the capacity for subjective experience by those closed systems.

4. Judging the validity of these subjective experiences by individual closed systems is difficult due to the subjectivity of the experience-recognizing and processing faculties present in the individuals that often give them limitation and/or bias, but if one makes oneself unbiased, one's mind is as it would be without bias: that is, a mirror of existence.

5. Through examining this mirror image of existence in our minds, we may formulate abstract ideas regarding it's nature, depths, meaning, origin, fate and other attributes. This is essentially the foundation of science. But, it can also be the foundation of philosophy, and if one desires to understand life with pure objectivity and if they do not have a religion, as I described such a person previously, one should pursue philosophy scientifically, in a sense.

6. The scientific means of pursuing science is done, roughly, by this method as I have sketched it out (note, this is merely a sketch and a brainstorm, not a final decision, though it is valid, however incomplete):
The Philosophic Method
Inquire: ask a (philosophical) question about life or something in it
Summarize: consider one's own personal experience of life in regards to one's inquiry
Analyze: analyze and examine one's experiences summarized in the previous step
Compare: share one's experiences with others and compare/contrast the information
Theorize: accumulate information gathered from previous steps into one theory, after organizing it.

7. This method, the Philosophic Method as I have called it, is the requirement for understanding life, in it's depths, truly and with real objectivity. One must recognize that in order for one to understand life in this manner, that one is faulty and full of error, and thus must not rely purely on one's own aptitudes, but rather on, as I said, making one's mind a reflection of existence and then coming to understand it gradually over time. This is probably best done in a group, but it can also be done alone, as I myself essentially do it.

[bhujjy]

Hi Scameter,

Part I

I find myself nodding my head at so many of the things you've said.
Of the 2 posts, I would like to comment on paragraph 1.7.

I was born with a tendency to obsessive-compulsive disorder.
I was also born into a religion with complex rules and rituals over interior and exterior life. Moral issues and responses were all mapped out and only required absorption and compliance. I believed everything I was told with unquestioned loyality. Per instructions, I scrutinized every thought for compliance against the standards I had internalized.

All this, by the time I was 8 years old.

At a time I might have been opening to wonder, curiosity and experiment, I was immersed in scholarship, conformity, and obedience.

When puberty hit, my worst hell began. By 15, after years of miserably ending each day with a conscientious accounting of my very worst sins committed (ie. 'bad' thoughts), I was searching for a way to end the agony. A kindly clergyman opened a door for me by giving me 'permission' to leave. I had become like the dogs in the experiment who learn to accept shocks rather than walk out the door. Learned helplessness. I went through the motions after that, and cut my ties completely when I left home. By disengaging my energy from the old mental framework, my OCD subsided. It felt so good.

I began focusing on others and developed friendships. 3 years later, my best friend discovered he was gay. I responded with a fear and disgust that was immediate and visceral. (The Aphid described this process accurately in Akamu's post on Celibacy) Yet I knew he was a good person. The dissonance was unbearable. I realized that it was I who was the bad person. I saw that the invisible infrastructure of the old framework was still there. The trunk was irretrievably bent. I became very angry. That anger remains a breath away. To this day.

I regard the old framework as a mental hell. For me.

Later, having a predisposition to the theological/philosophical (due in large measure, I am sure, to the old framework), I decided to choose a religion for myself. It was more heart-centered and very positive. It was very good; the people were completely accepting. The tenets appeared to be flexible and accomodated diversity. It emphasized personal exploration and creativity. So nice. It also had a membership hierarchy. I had (and still have) a strong aversion to hierarchies. But this one appeared more egalitarian than the one in the old framework. However, there came a time when I was advised that there were now expectations and responsibilities and conformity and an Authority to obey.

And I got out of there real quick. (end of Part I)

[bhujjy]

Part II

One day I met an old chess student of mine. He was 25 yrs old by then. I hadn't seen him in years. He was brought up in and was currently a member of my old framework religion. He wanted to talk about how he was failing at the career path his father had set him on. We talked about life in general and the topic turned to the after-life. He froze and couldn't say anything. I asked him why. He said he preferred not to speculate, as it might lead him to doubt his faith.

He was afraid. Afraid to think!

I was overcome with pity for him. Poor kid.

I am not a Buddhist now, but I enjoy many aspects of it. I am approaching it as a consumer. It's safer that way, for me. I pick what I like or appears useful. For example, I read that Buddhism looked unfavourably on homosexual behaviour. Well, I look favouably on it, and it provides me with a necessary reminder to never let go of my own sense of what is good ever again. On the whole, I am finding it very helpful. I would like to achieve equanimity. But I will never take vows. It will be my last religion, if my relationship can be called that.

Last week, thanks to The Aphid, I realized I was a determinist. After all these years I never knew. And once through that door, I had my own understanding of emptiness that was, for me, mind-blowing. This relates to your paragraph 2.6 : sharing/comparing ideas. So valuable if we can keep these things impersonal and not identify with our most cherished notions. (I do realize that this post is a bit personal, but you know what I mean.)

I am not even cognizant of the basic contradictions inside me. That's why the rigorous philosophy you describe scares me. I unknowingly hold the scaffolding of views that cannot logically be reconciled. Part of that comes from my own limitations. I struggle with very basic stuff. But, also, the old framework used logic very well. So did the 2nd religion. Logic can be a very wicked tool if those who wield it forget to admit that it often, in matters of religion/philosophy, begins with assertions that are unproveable.

All things proveable are true, but not all true things are proveable. (Godel)

Kindness is true.

Thanks for this opportunity to respond. I value you and your opinions.

[scameter]

Thank you for replying. I don't mean to be unkind or anything, I thought your post was very interesting, but what did it have to do with my theory?

[bhujjy]

Scameter,

I was responding to Part 1, paragraph 7, which I interpreted as a request to declare a category for oneself. My short answer could have been, I'll have some Buddhism please, shaken, not stirred. (ie. interested in ideas more than systems)

I then tried to demonstrate the value of the point you made in Part 2, paragraph 6, item: "sharing/comparing". In my example, I wasn't being intentionally obtuse with The Aphid, but I couldn't, on my own, figure out what piece I was missing. With his/her forebearance and consideration, he continued to clarify his position until I finally realized why I disagreed. Agreement was, in that case, not the prize. For me, it was, as you so aptly put it, 'examining the mirror image of existence in our minds'. Thus the value of "sharing/comparing".

The reference to kindness being true was an instance of the 2nd part of Godel's gift, meaning that I regard kindness as true, but unproveable. It was not a personal reference.

But my last sentence about your value was a personal reference. I sense you are a good person. And I sense that we are different enough that occasions of mutual insight may arise.

[scameter]

I see. Thanks again for your input. What do you think of my philosophic method as an objective procedure for acquiring knowledge of the truth though? I meant it to be used in a similar way the scientific method is for acquiring scientific knowledge, but instead for gaining insights into the truth.

[bhujjy]

Hi Scameter,
I think your Philosophic Method is very good.

Your use of the word 'objective' troubled me. But I am working on that concept at the moment (ie. 'thoughts are things'.)

[scameter]

Well, I don't really mean objective in the sense of thoughts are things; that's more of philosophical idealism, in a sense. I meant objective in the sense of viewing my Philosophic Method, as well as my Unpolished Spoon theory, as a philosophy, rather than only as an interpretive analysis, though it is also certainly very personal. To me, the Philosophic Method is a method for gaining the truth that, as a philosopher, I want and love.

[bhujjy]

Would the step involving sharing/comparing be optional?
This step looks to me like an analogue to the requirement in science of repeatability.

As I understand it, this would lead to a shared 'consensus' by any number of 'closed subjective systems'. (I understand 'closed subjective systems' to mean individuals.)

Would there have to be a unanimity of consensus to achieve objectivity?