AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:46 pm
Well this is silly... I imagine if you had any philosophical arguments to back that claim up you would have made them already. And based on your response to Cleric, it looks like your criticism of JP boils down to the same tired criticism which started off this thread - a vague distaste for Western philosophy and metaphysics, especially of the religious variety.
My distaste is for people who don't understand philosophy or mysticism but go around talking as if they do. JP would be a prominent example. He should stick to politics and matters of opinion. .
Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 3:59 pm
This does raise an interesting inquiry. Like Bernardo, JP deeply respects and refers incisively to Jung, who was arguably a realized sage in the sense of a being modern 'western' shaman, and as BK makes the case in DJM, indirectly pointed to the primacy of consciousness. Yet, Rupert Spira, also arguably a realized sage, more from the Ramana Maharshi/Advaita Vedanta lineage, who teaches the direct path to grokking the primacy of consciousness, seems a very different kind of sage than Jung. Furthermore, it seems neither Jung nor Spira would define themselves as philosophers; while I suspect that neither BK or JP would claim to be in that realized sage state. And whereas BK references both eastern and western approaches toward mysticism and self-realization, with both informing his metaphysics, JP seems primarily focused on the western, especially Judeo-Christian, tradition. So one wonders what either of them would make of the Jung/Spira comparison. Also, as 'metaphysicians' on the path, as opposed to 'mystics', and both scholars of Jung, how would JP and BK understand each other? Seems a chat between the two would be intriguing in that regard. Shall we lobby for that?
Jung was not a sage by any common definition. Spira seems a good one. He''s a 'different kind of sage', as you put it, because he knows so much more than Jung. I'm a fan of Jung as a philosopher, but a sage is a successful practitioner. As you say, neither BK or JP would claim to be a realised sage because they know they are not one.
A discussion between Bk and JP would undoubtedly be interesting, but I can't image it would do either any good. BK has nothing to learn from JP, and JP seems unwilling to learn much about metaphysics.
Sorry to JP fans, but I don't get why he is widely held in such high regard. In respect of the nose-dive of philosophy I would say he is part of the problem.
Good job we don't all agree, which would be dull and boring.
..
Peter Jones wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:34 pmMy distaste is for people who don't understand philosophy or mysticism but go around talking as if they do. JP would be a prominent example. He should stick to politics and matters of opinion. .
At any rate, cheap insults won't change my mind.
Not sure what might change your mind, but it seems a dialogue between JP and BK, which BK has said he's up for, if invited, would be a good place to start to reveal just how much JP does or does not understand about philosophy, with the helpful edification of Bernardo. I suppose if JP is not interested, and were to nix such a meeting of minds, then it might be evidence of some disinterest in philosophy ... Hopefully we'll get the chance to discern just how deep JP can go into ontology, if such a meeting should happen. In any case, 1,500,000 views if nothing else surely would bring BK's cogent case for idealism to the attention of more minds than all of the interviews he's done so far combined.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Peter Jones wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:34 pmMy distaste is for people who don't understand philosophy or mysticism but go around talking as if they do. JP would be a prominent example. He should stick to politics and matters of opinion. .
At any rate, cheap insults won't change my mind.
Not sure what might change your mind, but it seems a dialogue between JP and BK, which BK has said he's up for, if invited, would be a good place to start to reveal just how much JP does or does not understand about philosophy, with the helpful edification of Bernardo. I suppose if JP is not interested, and were to nix such a meeting of minds, then it might be evidence of some disinterest in philosophy ... Hopefully we'll get the chance to discern just how deep JP can go into ontology, if such a meeting should happen. In any case, 1,500,000 views if nothing else surely would bring BK's cogent case for idealism to the attention of more minds than all of the interviews he's done so far combined.
What would change his mind is JP renouncing Christian faith and endorsing Buddhism or certain forms of Hinduism.
On the whole, people who think they have nothing to learn from JP philosophically and think he is primarily a political commentator are the ones who have never considered his work. Anyway, as you say, a interview between BK and JP would make clear how wrong Peter is here, among many other delightful results. Maybe we should start a thread dedicated to brainstorming ideas on how to make that happen? I noticed JP has remarked a few times that he has been reading the comments on his YouTube videos, so maybe that's the place to start. We could post some quote from BKs book on Jung that would grab his attention on every video.
"A secret law contrives,
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:24 pmAnyway, as you say, a interview between BK and JP would make clear how wrong Peter is here, among many other delightful results. Maybe we should start a thread dedicated to brainstorming ideas on how to make that happen? I noticed JP has remarked a few times that he has been reading the comments on his YouTube videos, so maybe that's the place to start. We could post some quote from BKs book on Jung that would grab his attention on every video.
On that note, see my recent post of BK's latest interview, and my comments therein
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Peter Jones wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:53 pm
Sorry to JP fans, but I don't get why he is widely held in such high regard. In respect of the nose-dive of philosophy I would say he is part of the problem.
It's not complicated. Those on the path of mountain hike hold in high regard the spirit who walks the hill with them. If they would keep on looking at a bird flying high, they would not see their own steps and could stumble and fall.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:24 pm
What would change his mind is JP renouncing Christian faith and endorsing Buddhism or certain forms of Hinduism.
What would change my mind is if he gave up faith and concentrated on knowledge. I couldnt care lees whether he calls himself of Christian, a Buddhist or a Hindu since I see them as the same teaching.
On the whole, people who think they have nothing to learn from JP philosophically and think he is primarily a political commentator are the ones who have never considered his work.
This is remarkably arrogant thing to say. To be arrogant back, I would say that people who think they have something to learn about philosophy from JP must be starting from a very low base.
Anyway, as you say, a interview between BK and JP would make clear how wrong Peter is here, among many other delightful results.
I rather think it would prove my point,. Time will tell.
Maybe we should start a thread dedicated to brainstorming ideas on how to make that happen? I noticed JP has remarked a few times that he has been reading the comments on his YouTube videos, so maybe that's the place to start. We could post some quote from BKs book on Jung that would grab his attention on every video.
I feel BK has better things to do, but agree that it would generate useful publicity.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:24 pm
What would change his mind is JP renouncing Christian faith and endorsing Buddhism or certain forms of Hinduism.
What would change my mind is if he gave up faith and concentrated on knowledge. I couldnt care lees whether he calls himself of Christian, a Buddhist or a Hindu since I see them as the same teaching.
On the whole, people who think they have nothing to learn from JP philosophically and think he is primarily a political commentator are the ones who have never considered his work.
This is remarkably arrogant thing to say. To be arrogant back, I would say that people who think they have something to learn about philosophy from JP must be starting from a very low base.
I am just repeating what you already admitted - that you don't read JP's books. Then you channeled John Lennon in your response to Cleric - "Imagine if most people knew that the doctrine of Upanishads is the only global theory that makes sense and explains metaphysics... Imagine if everybody understood the monotheism is a dumbed-down explanation of Reality". You don't think those are arrogant things to say?
If you started off saying "JP doesn't understand philosophy and here is why - X,Y,Z" then maybe I could take you seriously and we could have a discussion on X,Y,Z and perhaps learn something from one another. But you didn't do that, and when asked to elaborate, your answers became even more stubbornly parse. So I have no reason to take your 'matter of fact' opinion of JP's philosophy seriously and I am confident it can be attributed to prejudice against Western spirituality.
"A secret law contrives,
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
One thing we may perhaps agree on is that while JP feels that we should live and act as if a Divine agency/telos is at the core of it all, as far as one can tell he remains ontologically agnostic as far as stating what such a Divinity might actually be in essence. Once, as I recall, when asked if he believes in God, his reply was along the lines of: 'It depends what you mean by God.' I'm also not sure that he would necessarily commit to idealism as BK explicates it. But it would surely be intriguing to see if he could be at all swayed in that direction.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 2:39 pm
One thing we may perhaps agree on is that while JP feels that we should live and act as if a Divine agency/telos is at the core of it all, as far as one can tell he remains ontologically agnostic as far as stating what such a Divinity might actually be in essence. Once, as I recall, when asked if he believes in God, his reply was along the lines of: 'It depends what you mean by God.' I'm also not sure that he would necessarily commit to idealism as BK explicates it. But it would surely be intriguing to see if he could be at all swayed in that direction.
My opinion is a bit different on that one. I think JP is operating along the same lines as Jung - first priority is to maintain scientific/empirical credibility, which means not committing to any spiritual or metaphysical ontology as a certainty. In fact, we would all do well to remember that is actually the proper way to go about it. JP's reply to the question of "belief in God" is also what we should reply - "what exactly do you mean by 'belief' and by 'God'?", because it's not at all self-evident what those terms mean, and if you ask 100 people you could very well get 100 different definitions. Based on the totality of his lectures, though, I am confident he believes in a spiritual realm that is foundational and gives rise to all that we perceive in the 'material' realm. His usual way of expressing this belief is to reference pragmatic philosophy and ancient mythology and point out that we moderns are in no position to question the Reality of that which is expressed in mythology, since Reality is "that which selects" for survival of the human species.
"A secret law contrives,
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
