Getting Real

[Soul_of_Shu]

I believe the silent ones are 'winning'.

Or just not interested in your clearly not silent game.

[SanteriSatama]

It is under "my" view, meaning the view informed by a great number of idealist philosophers. I know many will claim there is nothing within objective idealism which necessitates a spiritual reality, i.e. conscious beings which are influencing us and the world we live in, but I disagree. Anyway, the point was, we can strive for spiritual freedom independent of any external agents while also adhering to societal rules, which should be rather obvious, and therefore Lou's claim that it was "utter nonsense" based on the need for Covid regulations is a terrible counter-point, so terrible that it makes me think he has no interest in metaphysics whatsoever.

Sure, spiritual reality necessitates some sort of idealism. Objective idealism sounds weird to me, at least in the wiki definition:

Objective idealism is an idealistic metaphysics that postulates that there is in an important sense only one perceiver

Perception theories in all forms, ie. something perceiving an objective reality, are subject-object dualism. "Only one perceiver" sounds like another way of saying: solipsism.

Wiki is in bad shape in this regard. "Analytical idealism" (by Ewing, not further explained) takes to article about "Objective idealism", which is short stub. Analytical idealism should have it's own article, with main reference to BK's theory instead of Ewing.

Oh, and no article for BK yet...

Sorry, I was digressing. BK's analytical idealism seems closer to Berkeley's subjective idealism, when we switch Berkeley's 'subject' with alter, and 'god' with M@L, and don't go too deep in theology. For me, the question between asubjective ontology, and ontological subject-object dualism is crucial. Cosmic solipsism maintains S-O dualism, asubjective ontology, where perspectival S-O relations can arise and cease, associates naturally with animistic spiritual reality (at least based on Finnish linguistic evidence) and complex networks of intentionalities (distributed Will). Agentivity could be a matter of degree and contextual perspective.

'Independent' is problematic concept, as in my view it's always a matter of degree, not absolute either-or. There can be various degrees of ontological, ethical, spiritual etc. independence, with complex relations and dependencies between various areas. I like the term 'spiritual anarchy' better, as ethical refusal of becoming a ruler. The story of temptation of Christ, and his refusal to rule over world, is an exemplary story of what spiritual anarchy means. Naturally, the ethical choice of spiritual anarchy presupposes spiritual freedom, otherwise the choice can't be genuine.

[Lou Gold]

I believe the silent ones are 'winning'.

Or just not interested in your clearly not silent game.

Same thing.

[Shaibei]

On the philosophical level, our tendency to define suffering as real is interesting. It reminds me of Schopenhauer's claim that
“Pleasure and well-being is negative and suffering positive, the happiness of a given life is not to be measured according to the joys and pleasures
it contains but according to the absence of the positive element, the absence of suffering.”
Or in the words that a chassidic master put into the mouth of one of his characters:
"For, each and every voice in the world is only about needs, since everybody screams about his deficit, that is, what he hasn't got;
and even all the world's celebrations are all exclusively about deficits, as someone rejoices over what he didn't have whereas now he has what he didn't have"

[Lou Gold]

On the philosophical level, our tendency to define suffering as real is interesting. It reminds me of Schopenhauer's claim that
“Pleasure and well-being is negative and suffering positive, the happiness of a given life is not to be measured according to the joys and pleasures
it contains but according to the absence of the positive element, the absence of suffering.”
Or in the words that a chassidic master put into the mouth of one of his characters:
"For, each and every voice in the world is only about needs, since everybody screams about his deficit, that is, what he hasn't got;
and even all the world's celebrations are all exclusively about deficits, as someone rejoices over what he didn't have whereas now he has what he didn't have"

Or, perhaps, pain is real but suffering is optional. Of course, as soon as one clings (positively or negatively) the opposite emerges.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Same thing.

Well, insofar as the heyoka game of the 'trickster' starts to become blatantly transparent, what's the trick?

[Lou Gold]

Same thing.

Well, insofar as the heyoka game of the 'trickster' starts to become blatantly transparent, what's the trick?

The trick is revealed by what you do with it.

[Shaibei]

On the philosophical level, our tendency to define suffering as real is interesting. It reminds me of Schopenhauer's claim that
“Pleasure and well-being is negative and suffering positive, the happiness of a given life is not to be measured according to the joys and pleasures
it contains but according to the absence of the positive element, the absence of suffering.”
Or in the words that a chassidic master put into the mouth of one of his characters:
"For, each and every voice in the world is only about needs, since everybody screams about his deficit, that is, what he hasn't got;
and even all the world's celebrations are all exclusively about deficits, as someone rejoices over what he didn't have whereas now he has what he didn't have"

Or, perhaps, pain is real but suffering is optional. Of course, as soon as one clings (positively or negatively) the opposite emerges.

Maybe. Although this is not an easy task. After writing the comment above I looked at it again and understood why "the quiet ones win". They do not need to talk because they win ... (alternatively they keep everything in their stomachs until things explode)

[Soul_of_Shu]

The trick is revealed by what you do with it.

Which in this case was to reveal its transparency.

[Lou Gold]

On the philosophical level, our tendency to define suffering as real is interesting. It reminds me of Schopenhauer's claim that
“Pleasure and well-being is negative and suffering positive, the happiness of a given life is not to be measured according to the joys and pleasures
it contains but according to the absence of the positive element, the absence of suffering.”
Or in the words that a chassidic master put into the mouth of one of his characters:
"For, each and every voice in the world is only about needs, since everybody screams about his deficit, that is, what he hasn't got;
and even all the world's celebrations are all exclusively about deficits, as someone rejoices over what he didn't have whereas now he has what he didn't have"

Or, perhaps, pain is real but suffering is optional. Of course, as soon as one clings (positively or negatively) the opposite emerges.

Maybe. Although this is not an easy task. After writing the comment above I looked at it again and understood why "the quiet ones win". They do not need to talk because they win ... (alternatively they keep everything in their stomachs until things explode)

Exactly!

Martial art Aikido founder Ueshiba said something like, "I have placed myself in harmony with the Universe. The mere thought of attacking me will defeat the attacker. I call this harmony Love." It may be that silence does not work because it wins but because it transcends (lets go of) winning.