Recommended Posts

I'm embarrassed to "thank you for this," I hope my pressing the button does not translate into "thank you for having nothing left to say."  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm embarrassed to "thank you for this," I hope my pressing the button does not translate into "thank you for having nothing left to say."  :)

 

We should be so lucky ;-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm embarrassed to "thank you for this," I hope my pressing the button does not translate into "thank you for having nothing left to say."  :)

All my thoughts were good Taomeow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should be so lucky ;-)

That ain't never gonna' happen with you my friend.  You have a way of bringing out the worst in me. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All my thoughts were good Taomeow.

If only they stayed that way......just thoughts. :-)

Edited by Karl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That ain't never gonna' happen with you my friend.  You have a way of bringing out the worst in me. :)

 

And long may it continue :-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Montaigne is one of my favourites. His essays have a distinct classical Daoist flavour with their scepticism, naturalness and spontaneity. His thoughts are embedded in real life experience, rather than the disembodied theories of so many philosophers.

 

“Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (28 February 1533 – 13 September 1592) was one of the most significant philosophers of the French Renaissance, known for popularizing the essay as a literary genre. His work is noted for its merging of casual anecdotes and autobiography with serious intellectual insight; his massive volume Essais (translated literally as "Attempts" or "Trials") contains some of the most influential essays ever written. Montaigne had a direct influence on writers all over the world, including Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Albert Hirschman, William Hazlitt, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Friedrich Nietzsche, Stefan Zweig, Eric Hoffer, Isaac Asimov, and possibly on the later works of William Shakespeare.”

 

(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_de_Montaigne )

 

Sarah Bakewell has written an superb biography entitled How to Live: A life of Montaigne in one question and twenty attempts to answer. Each of her answers is explored chapter by chapter in her book…..

               

Don't worry about death

Pay attention

Be born

Read a lot, forget most of what you read, and be slow-witted

Survive love and loss

Use little tricks

Question everything: All I know is that I know nothing, and I'm not even sure about that              

Keep a private room behind the shop

Be convivial: live with others

Wake from the sleep of habit

Live temperately

Guard your humanity

Do something no one has done before

Do a good job, but not too good a job

Philosophise only by accident

Reflect on everything; regret nothing

Give up control

Be ordinary and imperfect

Let life be its own answer

 

In 1572, Montaigne retired to his estates in order to devote himself to leisure, reading and reflection. There he wrote his constantly expanding 'essays', inspired by the ideas he found in books from his library and his own experience. He discusses subjects as diverse as war-horses and cannibals, poetry and politics, sex and religion, love and friendship, ecstasy and experience. Above all, Montaigne studied himself to find his own inner nature and that of humanity. The Essays are among the most idiosyncratic and personal works in all literature. An insight into a wise Renaissance mind, they continue to engage, enlighten and entertain modern readers.

 

He wrote whatever was going through his head when he picked up his pen, capturing encounters and states of mind as they happened. He used these experiences as the basis for asking himself questions, above all the big question that fascinated him as it did many of his contemporaries. Although it is not quite grammatical in English, it can be phrased in three simple words: 'How to live?'

 

This is not the same as the ethical question, 'How should one live?' Moral dilemmas interested Montaigne, but he was less interested in what people ought to do than in what they actually did. He wanted to know how to live a good life — meaning a correct or honourable life, but also a fully human, satisfying, flourishing one. This question drove him both to write and to read, for he was curious about all human lives, past and present. He wondered constantly about the emotions and motives behind what people did. And, since he was the example closest to hand of a human going about its business, he wondered just as much about himself.

 

A down-to-earth question, 'How to live?' splintered into a myriad other pragmatic questions. Like everyone else, Montaigne ran up against the major perplexities of existence: how to cope with the fear of death, how to get over losing a child or a beloved friend, how to reconcile yourself to failures, how to make the most of every moment so that life does not drain away unappreciated. But there were smaller puzzles, too. How do you avoid getting drawn into a pointless argument with your wife, or a servant? How can you reassure a friend who thinks a witch has cast a spell on him? How do you cheer up a weeping neighbour? How do you guard your home? What is the best strategy if you are held up by armed robbers who seem to be uncertain whether to kill you or hold you to ransom? If you overhear your daughter's governess teaching her something you think is wrong, is it wise to intervene? How do you deal with a bully? What do you say to your dog when he wants to go out and play, while you want to stay at your desk writing your book?

 

In place of abstract answers, Montaigne tells us what he did in each case, and what it felt like when he was doing it. He provides all the details we need to make it real, and sometimes more than we need. He tells us, for no particular reason, that the only fruit he likes is melon, that he prefers to have sex lying down rather than standing up, that he cannot sing, and that he loves vivacious company and often gets carried away by the spark of repartee. But he also describes sensations that are harder to capture in words, or even to be aware of- what it feels like to be lazy, or courageous, or indecisive; or to indulge a moment of vanity, or to try to shake off an obsessive fear. He even writes about the sheer feeling of being alive.

 

Exploring such phenomena over twenty years, Montaigne questioned himself again and again, and built up a picture of himself — a self-portrait in constant motion, so vivid that it practically gets up off the page and sits down next to you to read over your shoulder. He can say surprising things: a lot has changed since Montaigne was born, almost half a millennium ago, and neither manners nor beliefs are always still recognisable. Yet to read Montaigne is to experience a series of shocks of familiarity, which make the centuries between him and the twenty-first-century reader collapse to nothing. Readers keep seeing themselves in him….

 

(from Sarah Bakewell’s book)

Edited by Yueya
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Philosophy is written in this grand book, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth."
- Galileo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Philosophy is written in this grand book, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth." - Galileo

 

That sounds like Pythagorean philosophy ? The dark labyrinth Platos cave ? Comprehending the language is Aristotlian. It seems like that is a kind of hidden puzzle ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't do well with puzzles.

 

Galileo was obviously under political pressure so was very likely coding his thoughts and communications to obscure their meaning.

I read somewhere that after his trial where he was forced to accept the religious explanation of the universe, he left the court saying under his breath 'it still does not make it so'. He was part of a secret society that opposed religious power and it is said he consorted with members of the church who were equally opposed to the suppression of scientific knowledge. It was all very revolutionary, so, no doubt his writings were equally subversive and heavily disguised. After all, if you didn't say something explicitly, then effectively you were abiding by the accepted rule of secrecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Galileo was obviously under political pressure

I have watched a few documentaries about him.  No, he never changed his mind.  He did change the words that came out of his mouth so that he wouldn't be burned at the stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have watched a few documentaries about him.  No, he never changed his mind.  He did change the words that came out of his mouth so that he wouldn't be burned at the stake.

 

I was reading something about the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls and the people who were sent to transcribe them. One of the people was a layman unconnected with the church. He was told not to publish the translated scripture for several years and, when he did finally publish, the other transcribers who were of the church, did not publish for several decades more. The idea was to trickle out the information to prevent any religious instability. I'm certain the church knew full well that they would eventually need to allow the works of Gallileo to be expounded publicly, but they were fighting to try and maintain authority and control over the potentially damaging revelations. Given a number of decades it would have been relatively easy to change scripture and attitudes to cover the newer paradigm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't do well with puzzles.

 

 

here ... catch ...

 

 

rubik2.jpg

 

 

 

I dont want it any more ... I fuckin' hate those things ! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here ... catch ...

 

 

rubik2.jpg

 

 

 

I dont want it any more ... I fuckin' hate those things ! 

 

Peel the stickers off and then glue it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here ... catch ...

 

I dont want it any more ... I fuckin' hate those things ! 

I have never owned one.  I have played with other people's though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once saw a gal suck the insides out of a pickle, which folks finished the cube,, I forgot..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never owned one.  I have played with other people's though.

 

I think that's generally how it works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once saw a gal suck the insides out of a pickle, ...

 

really ? 

 

I call mine  ' Mr Pedro '   . 

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never owned one. I have played with other people's though.

change 'rubic cube' to 'ideas' in the above and this is a quote from every philosopher.

 

;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like Pythagorean philosophy ? The dark labyrinth Platos cave ? Comprehending the language is Aristotlian. It seems like that is a kind of hidden puzzle ?

 

No, it's straightforward to a student of sacred geometry.  The ancient Greek assertion that "god is a geometer" is the basis of the only kind of philosophy that can yield any meaningful philosophical discourse with reality.  That's what Galileo asserted in the passage I quoted and elsewhere. 

 

God_the_Geometer.jpg

 

That's what taoists (not "later" taoists influenced by this or that philosophy, ideology, religion, agenda or populist view, but the ones who inherited the traditions of Fuxi and the sacred dance of Yu and the Changes of Zhou) put in the foundation of their philosophy, to be transmitted via the Great Silk Road first to the Middle East and then to Greece and thence, having been reinterpreted as "The Greek Miracle," to the rest of Europe.  Which, however, put a plug in this cornucopia of philosophical wisdom in no time.  Which, however, is not impenetrable to the inquisitive mind like that of my favorite modern, current,  philosopher/scientist/sacred geometry literatus who, even though he inherited Galileo's (et al) tradition, I pray won't inherit his fate. 

 

Live long and prosper, Nassim Haramein! :)

Edited by Taomeow
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a chance to meet a British (currently teaching in the US at one of the best colleges) philosopher a couple of months ago, and among other things, asked him who his favorite philosopher is.  He said, Iris Murdoch.  I know her as a very good novelist, but I had no idea she's also a philosopher.  He said, yes, and her definitive work on philosophy is his personal favorite.  Has anyone ever encountered that?  I keep meaning to find out but I have a huge back burner of this kind...  the to-find-out-more-about authors, subjects and projects.

She is a reasonably inspired choice. Not my cup of tea due to my own interests, but I remember spending an afternoon with Sovereignty of Good and it more or less renewing my interest in philosophy and cleaning the debris of a certain school of thought  out of my head in one shot.

 

Now if only I had paid slightly more attention at the time, I would have avoided some rather unfortunate professional errors. Even more, if only I could express anything so clearly and convincingly.

 

Cheers...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites