The issue with etymologies Paul is that they are not always as transparent as this. There are several explanations as to what the word “explore” originally meant, and the most accepted one is that it originally meant “to scout the hunting area for game by means of shouting” (hence the word “cry” in its etymology).
In this derivation the word points to a scoping out of the ground to be covered - which in this case involves using the tools of memory, reason, and observation (rather than “shouting”) to scope out the area you are calling “the world” (by which I assume you mean the world within and the world without).
Erik responded by saying that, for him, the singular fact about the world (that is, the world without) is the destructiveness of human beings fighting and killing each other, living in constant friction, division (not only with each other, but also with the earth).
Your own preferred starting point (Paul) is the world within, which for you is captured by the reaction of self-pity.
There is no reason why one ought to assume that the objective destructiveness of human beings is an occasion for self-pity.
So all that you are saying is that the reaction of self-pity is your preferred starting point, rather than beginning with the outward destructiveness that Erik mentioned.
Dear Paul, the identifier might be biased. But we have to find that out. We cannot start by saying he is biased. How do we know? We should start with what we both observe within and without and that is suffering and destruction. Can we explore that and find out what it is? Following your saying even the going through a painful emotional response can be caused by a bias. Every direction we follow can be build on a bias. So lets start with what is, the suffering and destruction. We live in a world that is full of suffering and destruction between humans and of the earth and nature. And we are part of that world. So why does that happen? And is change possible? Are we in contact with that suffering and destruction or violence? Or is it separate from us?
Actually @anon78228991 I was not being totally honest, from my own point of view I cry because of the perceived suffering - when someone dies, or I don’t see them anymore, I don’t lose anyone. Though I am relieved when apparent suffering ends.
Therefore what is happening within us when we look at the world outside? What is going on within those of us who are observing this mad world? Calling it suffering and destruction is already a bias. There is no unbiased, objective observer. When I say, ‘I am suffering,’ or, ‘Those people are so destructive,’ what is it within me that is making this assessment?
It is not about a preferred starting point. Seeing the world, it affects me: it makes me smile, it makes me angry, it makes me wince, it makes me laugh and sometimes it makes me cry. First of all, am I aware of these inward responses? That’s all. Before I try to change anything at all out there in the world, is what is seeing the world able itself to undergo change? For if I myself can’t change, why on earth am I bothered about changing the world?
But apparently it is Paul. You see, in your next sentence you say
So your preferred starting point is not with actually observing the facts “out there”, but with diving straight into the facts “in here”. To put it uncharitably, you want to immediately make it all about “me, me, me”. That is a preference clearly, because it is quite valid to start any exploration of the world with observing the facts “out there”, before moving inward to establish or observe the facts “in here”.
Who is saying anything about changing the facts “out there”? All that Erik began with was
Your reply to this is to question whether there is suffering and destruction in the world (apparently this is not obvious to you), and to question whether objective observation is possible at all.
This approach is clearly dictated by your preference to look away from the facts “out there” and dive immediately into the so-called facts “in here” (about which you feel more definite). However, your questioning of the objectivity of any observation would apply as much to the “inner” as to the “outer”.
K often said that without the observation of outward, objective facts about the world, one lacks a criterion to explore the inward world of thought, feeling, desire, will etc (the facts “in here”). This is why K invariably began by pointing out the facts “out there”, the facts of conflict, division, human destructiveness (as Erik has mentioned).
I agree with you James. If we do not find out if change is possible why bother at all about changing the world. And Paul, how do we know that calling something suffering or destruction is already a bias. Again that would be a conclusion. We percieve the world in- and outside of us and see that this world is in crisis in conflic. I live in the Czech Republic and there is terrible war taking place a few hundred kilometers from here and people suffer. We talked to some. In north-east Africa the people are at the brink of severe famine which might bring millions death. People suffer there severely. We have friends in that region. Here in Europe people suffer because they fear a winter without heating and an econonmic crisis etc. I could go on endlessly. There is suffering and conflict and the destruction of nature. Look at the wildfires, the shortage of water or the dying of fish in the German river Oder. That is a fact. How do we face all this? With which mind do we explore what this conflict and suffering is? How it comes about? There is just suffering and conflict and we do not know if it is a bias but it is what is. If we do not understand that how will we ever find out if it could be changed?
Don’t you? Don’t you want to start really close? There is nothing uncharitable about it - I am a self-centred human being.
Yes, but don’t you suffer in watching them suffer? What is it in you that suffers? I don’t know why we are resisting a rather simple question.
Where is the suffering actually taking place? Out there or in you?
But it is not that obvious. What does it mean for the ‘me’ to suffer? Has it ever actually suffered a thing? I doubt it very much. Surely the self has done everything else except suffer: it has resisted; it has reacted; it has analysed; it has explained; it has justified; it has described a thousand ways to transcend itself. But it has never just suffered. Because that would be the end of the self.
Dear Paul, you can observe the suffering with other people and yourself. No question about it. That was my question. Is suffering different from us or separate from us? No it is not. But do we understand suffering? What is it, why does it exist? And how do we approach this question? You come already with answers and explanations when you say, “that if we would have just suffered it would be the end of the self”. You are not exploring. What is suffering? Why should it involve the self? What is the self? Does physical suffering involve automatically the self? There are so many questions arising with the topic of suffering. But are we starting to explore it or just give answers? If you prefer the latter there is no working together, no finding out together.
Yes - I would start with the world I live in, the world I share with billions of other people like me, and begin with observing what is going on there, in the world I and other human beings just like me have created. With this criterion, I can then move inwards (the inner is not separate from the outer) and find out what I am, what my consciousness is.
My criticism of your approach is that you begin by completely ignoring the outer, the actual world we live in, and so your approach to the inner contains a quality of dogmatism, already-arrived at assumptions, conclusions. This naturally limits the potential for a free enquiry.
Obviously both - unless one is a psychopath. Other people suffering because of war or poverty are not abstractions, are they? The outer has created the inner and the inner has created the outer. So when you ask
the same question can be asked of you. Why do you so totally discount the outer world of society - of war, famine, drought, wild fires, etc? Obviously it is your own bias, your own filter that leads you to do this.
If you were genuinely open to an exploration of the world you wouldn’t discount (as you have done) what Erik has shared with you about what he has witnessed in Czech, in north-East Africa, in Germany and Europe.
It’s a good joke, but it is also an interesting question: can ‘I’ be there when death happens?
If ‘I’ am present, then death is not. And if death is present, then ‘I’ am not. So can ‘I’ ever actually experience death at all (or only the forethought of ‘my’ own death, which is not in fact death)?
I believe this is the Epicurean and Stoic way of dealing with death.
As you know, for Tibetans the opposite is true - they believe that there is a whole roller-coaster of activity that comes into being at the moment of death, and one’s complete attention is required to keep up with proceedings! (though not, of course, an attention limited to the little ‘me’).
How so? If I could make a simplistic simile : say we tied someone down (so they couldn’t escape) and tortured them? Are you saying that after a while the suffering/self would necessarily end?
Paul, why don’t you listen to our questions first before deciding whether they are right or wrong?
It is clear to me that you are not interested in an actual open exploration - on equal terms - with anyone here. You just want to stick to your own preconceived preferences and bias, and “teach” from there. And some of us clearly are not interested in being “taught” by anyone.
Dear Paul, are you listening? You are talking about the self while we face suffering. What you are talking about is first of all speculation. There is suffering, we can all observe it and feel it. But we do not understand it. To answer your question we would have to find out first what the self is and if it exists at all what its connection would be to suffering. Maybe the self and suffering are one and the same. But we have to find out, explore. I have the feeling you are not doing it. You already know.
No, I don’t know. I have found something interesting and I want to look at it. If you want to go elsewhere, that’s fine. But I want to look at this. Fortunately, the nature of the medium allows me to look, to come back to it. In other dialogues we wouldn’t have a chance.
Has the self ever suffered a thing? It is a very simple question, deceptively so, and it addresses all those other concerns of yours about what horrors are happening in the world. The self is you. Have you ever suffered anything? This is not a personal question; it is a question to everyone.