501: Buddhist Awakening

In lecture 498 I already brought a question to your attention, which still is on my mind. It is about human behavior and Buddhism, but also Christianity.

The historical Buddha did not write down any of his teachings, they were passed down orally from generation to generation for at least three centuries. Neither did the historical Jesus or Mohammed.

Decades or even centuries later books are written, which are regarding the content attributed to these historical persons and people, whole nations or should I say “tribes” gather around these ideas and call it a belief, a religion. At least something that transcends our (biological) reality.

In China  from Buddhism the Taoists borrowed their whole scheme of temples, priests, nuns, and ritual. They drew up liturgies to resemble the Buddhist sutras , and also prayers for the dead. A process of centuries.

In Europe you see the same happen. A system of temples, which we call churches, liturgies and rituals emerge through the centuries, also assimilating aspects of pagan rituals.

Among all living creatures on this globe, the homo sapiens is the only one who displays this behavior. And I wondered….. why is this behavior conly related with three individuals of thousands of years ago?

Then I realized , that this isn’t special or unique behavior at all. Sure, it doesn’t happen every day. We are dealing here with very slow historical processes, but it has happened recently again.

That is, around 1848, Karl Marx. He wrote a book. Whole masses adopted the ideas from the book and thus built their belief. And you see the same behavior: gathering in large groups, prayers… well they call it militant songs, the building of temples, which they call a mausoleum or  the Hall of the Proletariat.

So yet it appears to be common human behavior as a consequence of having the brains, we have. We don’t observe it in other animals or you might suggest ,that all that all these peculiar mating rituals of other animals are perhaps related to our behavior.

As I told you before, I want to discuss Confucianism, Taoism and also Buddhism as a philosopher, even though  some like to call these -isms religions.

We don’t need to deny the existence of religiosity in the homo sapiens. We only have to differentiate between two layers here. On the one hand a first layer, which contains all beliefs, rituals, temples, churches etc. and which are regarded as symbols of religions

And on the other hand the second layer, which all these historical developments have in common: ethics. Whether it is Buddhism or Marxism, they both try to explain the essence of human existence, its goal and thence what is good and bad, right and wrong.

Due to the social position of a (dominating) religion in a society this ethical debate is a permanent feature of our consciousness. This makes me think of something else.

When material wealth increases like in our highly developed societies, we observe a proces of secularisation, people abandoning their religious beliefs. Not only among christians, but (at least in the Netherlands) equally among muslims. 

And it almost seems to me that, what is left as a permanent feature of consciousness today, is simple greed and craving for material wealth, in stead of the permanent ethical debate.

What is the input of Buddhism here? The story according to Jack Kornfield, an American author and teacher in the vipassana movement ( in the Buddhist tradition it means insight into the true nature of reality) in American Theravada Buddhism.

After the Buddha was enlightened he was walking down the road in a very happy state. He was supposed to have been quite a handsome prince before going off to be a monk. 

So here's this handsome prince now recently enlightened, wearing golden robes and obviously quite happy, and very special from all accounts. And he met some people and they said, 

"You seem very special. What are you, are some kind of an angel or a deva?" He seemed inhuman in some way. 

"No." 

"Well, are you some kind of a god then?" 

"No." 

"Well, then are you some kind of a wizard or magician?" "No," he replied. 

"Well, are you a man?" 

"No," he said. 

"Then what are you?" 

And he answered, "I am awake."

And in those three words --"I am awake"-- he gave the whole teaching which Buddhism contains. To be a Buddha is to be one who has awakened, awakened to the nature of life and death and the world in which we live, awakened to the body and mind. 

So the purpose of practicing meditation, the Buddhist and other traditions, is not to become a meditator, or a spiritual person, or a Buddhist, or to join something. Rather, it is to understand this capacity we have as humans to awaken.

So, if you have fallen asleep during this lecture, the next lectures on Buddhism may perhaps awaken you.

The Discussion

[13:22] Nectanebus: heheh

[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you :-))

[13:22] CONNIE Eichel: :)

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: hahaha

[13:22] Nectanebus: nice

[13:22] Zanicia: hehehe

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ¨no im just meditating

[13:22] Lizzy Pleides: lol

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: not sleeping

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:22] Nectanebus: Almost anthropological, if truth be told ;)

[13:22] Merit Coba: Hmm.. what?

[13:22] herman Bergson: Good!

[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes, Nectanebus ...seems so

[13:22] Zanicia: (politely stifles a yawn)

[13:22] Gemma Allen: i have to disagree on the idea of it being a religion... many people of all religions follow the buddhist way of life

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: inded buddhism is a bit different

[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma, I agree...

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: and i like how it wrks

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: maybe you can call it a religion because there are still some people who do practize it that way

[13:23] Nectanebus: The opening parts about monkeys and religion made me think of 2001, and the idea that religion acts as a moral ballast is something I have been talking about with a few friends...with nothing to take the place of divine authority, along come base desires....

[13:24] herman Bergson: That is the point Ciska....

[13:24] herman Bergson: There are temples with big statues....

[13:24] herman Bergson: incense is burned...rituals are performed

[13:24] Gemma Allen: true

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: one difference is here you don’t pray for a supernatural being but a real person

[13:24] Gemma Allen: but not worshipped

[13:25] Zanicia: that isn'y philosophy, that is conforming to and inventing tradition

[13:25] bombadail: Is the lecture part over?

[13:25] Merit Coba: it is when it is

[13:25] Gemma Allen GIGGLES!!

[13:25] Gemma Allen: ...LOL...

[13:25] Gemma Allen: yep now we can talk

[13:25] FreeWee Ling: The label is irrelevant. Religion, belief, credo, ethic.

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: i guess buddhism is something between religion and philosophy you can say

[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes it is Bombadail :-)

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: and i like the ideas it have

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: some folks call that spirituality Bejiita ,)

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: its trying to catch the center of it all.

[13:26] Laila Schuman: there are different kinds of Buddhism... i feel... some have no supernatural beings and some have them

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: if there is one religion id liked mostly id say its buddhism

[13:26] Laila Schuman: and that is confusing

[13:26] FreeWee Ling: What I learned from Buddha is sitting under a tree and thinking about things until you figure it out for yourself.

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: and its peaceful, no wars violence and so like in other religions

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: and no oppression of women and similar

[13:27] Nectanebus: I should say I fail to see a distinction between religious symbology and its patterns of thought, rather that they seem to be interlinked. The Jesuit Seal or Bagua Trigrams instantly spring to mind as examples of how macro/micro, or even exo-/eso-teric, can be mutually linked....

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: this religion is not to gain power over people but to see natures way

[13:27] herman Bergson: Well, the basic idea of buddhism is yet 'suffering'

[13:27] Nectanebus: Truth, Herman :)

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:27] FreeWee Ling: Suffering was Buddha's truth.

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: might be but the concept of buddhism is yet very different

[13:28] Nectanebus: Samsara is pretty much the core of the techings, along with moksha....sorry, "Nirvana" ;)

[13:28] herman Bergson: We'll elaborate on this concept in coming lectures

[13:28] FreeWee Ling: What he figured out for himself was a path for himself.

[13:28] Gemma Allen: I have mixed feeling about the original Guatama himself

[13:28] Nectanebus: I prefer Bodhidharma, but I'm biased towards people that stare at things.

[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: true freewee

[13:28] herman Bergson: There is no authentic Gautama, I would say Gemma

[13:29] Gemma Allen: I mean the one who sat under the tree

[13:29] herman Bergson: Only three centuries after his historical appearance his ideas were written down

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:29] Gemma Allen: after abandoning his wife and family to go do that

[13:29] Nectanebus: The Laozi enigma again and again...

[13:29] herman Bergson: That is just a story to me...

[13:30] FreeWee Ling: He was a bit of a jerk. lol.. "I gotta be me!"

[13:30] Zanicia: hehe

[13:30] bombadail: Are you speculating a herman that humans are the only ones with a drive to organize around a moral compass...it seemed so to me...yet very clearly in experiments it has been observed that animals exhibit a very strong sense of fairness and sense of justice too...they just obviously don't have our language and brain attributes.

[13:30] Gemma Allen: WaaaHaHAhahAHA! AhhhhHAhahhAHhahHAH! haha!

[13:30] herman Bergson: About Rousseau, who wrote on education, we know that he left his wife and children indeed :-)

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: The ego trip of loosing that one ;)

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:30] Gemma Allen: my feelings freewee

[13:30] Corronach: Rousseau was the worst mysoginist around

[13:31] Corronach whispers: :)

[13:31] Dag: here we go from philosophy into psychology

[13:31] herman Bergson: I know you are refering to de Waal's experiments with the Capicin monkeys Bombadail

[13:31] Nectanebus: I disagree, Freewee, I'd recommend re-reading the Pali Canon....he found a middle path, and as far as his attitude to his family...well let's just say that things are products of their times in moralistic regards and Buddhism is an Indian base....also, asceticism has rather strong bindings...

[13:32] Gemma Allen: true

[13:33] FreeWee Ling: I was being facetious. His personal life is irrelevant. His philosophy was about pain and suffering and compassion.

[13:33] herman Bergson: I guess it is no waste of time to spend some more lectures on Buddhism...:-)

[13:33] Nectanebus: Ah, hard to see that textually, I guess.

[13:33] bombadail: what I am saying then is the desire to decipher right from wrong is not unique to humans

[13:33] FreeWee Ling: But I still contend that what he found was personal truth, not universal. Buddhism is a corruption.

[13:34] Nectanebus: I'm surprised we haven’t moved on to situational ethics already, it's not like any moral stands up to the gun to you kid test anyway unless someone's cutting their nose to spite their face.

[13:35] Nectanebus: And as far as personal versus universal goes...that's the problem of communism on paper vs reality again, I'd wager. It's work if everyone could just get along, but that's an unlikely prospect.

[13:35] herman Bergson: One correction here FreeWee...I don't think it was a personal Buddha, who generated these ideas but a cuture during three centuries of oral tradition

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: well in a way he stated that with the four reliances freewee

[13:35] Gemma Allen: that would relate back to the written about not by

[13:35] Nectanebus: I doubt ANY of the historical bigwigs existed as written, we just happen to have paper trails to the origin of the mythos. Jesus is a good example: he's there in the Roman records at around about the right time, the rest is hearsay.

[13:36] Gemma Allen: interesting

[13:36] herman Bergson: That is true Nectanebus

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: yes nectanebus

[13:36] FreeWee Ling: That's my point. Buddha himself may have had a great idea. What developed later as Buddhism was not his idea.

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: we want "heros" seem to be our nature

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: might be

[13:37] FreeWee Ling: Role models anyway.

[13:37] herman Bergson: That you cant say FreeWee....because we have no idea of what Buddha himself ever has said

[13:37] Gemma Allen: Yes-ah!

[13:37] Gemma Allen: it seems

[13:38] herman Bergson: The most interesting point to me here is that such a collection of ideas get such a status in society

[13:38] Mikki Louise: How are these figureheads different from people today? Such as the leaders of the Mormon religion... why do people look at these men as con artists? Is it purely passage of time and spread of (their / interpreted) teachings?

[13:38] herman Bergson: which then are assembled under one name....Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed....

[13:39] herman Bergson: That is in line with what I wondered Mikki....

[13:39] FreeWee Ling: The problem is not so much who's right, but when they start insisting everyone else is wrong.

[13:39] Zanicia: yes

[13:39] Gemma Allen: :-)

[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: maybe the basis is our need for the belief that someone knows it all - if not we ourselves - a security thing.

[13:39] herman Bergson: why did it happen to these three persons...?thousands of years ago?

[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: true freewee.

[13:40] herman Bergson: If you add Marx to the debate there may be an explanation

[13:40] Nectanebus: ?

[13:40] herman Bergson: Marx 'Das Kapital' became the bible for a society in social unrest...social exploitation of people

[13:40] FreeWee Ling: Why do you single out these three? There were many others. These 3 just got a lot of Facebook followers.

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: ahahhaha

[13:41] Qwark Allen: for some reason, when you said its hapening now, i thought you were going to talk about "john frum"

[13:41] herman Bergson: That must be the explanation FreeWee :-)

[13:41] Zanicia: hahaha sweet modern girl!

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: interesting this for sure

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:41] Qwark Allen: i can imagine in 2000 years john frum will be a divinity like the other ones

[13:41] herman Bergson: Who is John Frum?

[13:42] Qwark Allen: the one from the cargo cult

[13:42] Nectanebus: As long as Dawkins isn't hailed as a hero, I'm fine.

[13:42] FreeWee Ling: Springsteen.

[13:42] herman Bergson: Doesn’t ring a bell :-)

[13:42] Mikki Louise: lol

[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: ow - some folks will try Nectanebus

[13:42] Qwark Allen: we didn`t talk about the cargo cult here last year?

[13:42] Merlin: Dont worry we wont last 2000 years

[13:42] Gemma AllenGemma Allen GIGGLES!!

[13:42] Gemma Allen: ...LOL...

[13:43] Qwark Allen: hahaah you have to look for it then

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: indeed its true that ideas get manipulated along the way before they take the final shape of a religion

[13:43] Nectanebus: I think the obligatory Nietzsche quote needs to be put out there, who's game?

[13:43] Qwark Allen: that is the most interesting example of nowadays born of a religion

[13:43] Nectanebus: oops, I mean Voltaire  

[13:43] Qwark Allen: it started back in the 2d WW

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes, isn’t children of corn and wicker man based on that?

[13:43] herman Bergson: Nietzsche might do too :-)

[13:44] Nectanebus: I was thinking of If God did not exist, we would have to invent him

[13:44] Nectanebus: but Got ist Tod works as well, different trains of the same though I guess

[13:44] .: Beertje :.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

[13:44] herman Bergson: We did Nectanebus

[13:44] Nectanebus: sorry, having trouble keeping up...for once...

[13:45] Qwark Allen: when a reporter asked a cargo cult priest about their wait for the return of john frum, the priest asked back - aren`t you waiting for the return of jesus at 2000 years? well we have not waited that much then

[13:45] Nectanebus: Zing!

[13:45] herman Bergson: Ok....to save Nectanebus' brain....thank you all for your participation again....

[13:46] CONNIE Eichel: :)

[13:46] herman Bergson: in the meantime you can wait for the return of Jesus then :-)

[13:46] Zanicia: Thank YOU Proff!

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: hehehehe

[13:46] herman Bergson: Thank you all

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: now this was great

[13:46] Gemma Allen: what is this field trip herman???

[13:46] herman Bergson: Class dismissed

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:46] Nectanebus: thanks Mr. B

[13:46] herman Bergson: See you again on Thursday :-))

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: cu soon all ㋡

[13:46] Corronach: thanks Herman

[13:46] Nectanebus: Back to the bike sheds...

[13:46] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman!

[13:47] Guestboook van tipjar stand: Qwark Allen donated L$100. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!

[13:47] Merlin: bye Herman and every one

[13:47] herman Bergson: Bye Merlin

[13:47] Mikki Louise: Thank you Herman, good to see a full house ㋡

[13:47] CONNIE Eichel: great time, as always :)

[13:47] Bejiita Imako: yes were lots of people here today

[13:47] herman Bergson: Thank you CONNIE

[13:47] Gemma Allen: Yes-ah!

[13:47] CONNIE Eichel smiles

[13:47] Gemma Allen: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[13:47] Gemma Allen: for now

500: Philosophical method

After 499 lectures on all kinds of philosophical subject you might expect, that it is about time to come up with some real answers to all those complex questions, which we discussed here.

The primary task of a philosopher, however, is not to come up with the right answers, but with the right questions. He or she can clarify that, what looks simple, in fact is not that simple at all.

Take the question of my previous lecture: "Who am I and what am I?" In the discussion afterwards Laila Schumann thought that one important question was forgotten: "Why am I?"

Let's have a close look at the questions.

"Who am I" already implies the knowledge that I am someone. It means that I can ask "Who are you?" and I can conclude, that you are not me, in other words, this suggest that I may have a personal identity.

"What am I?" leads to quite different conclusions. I could ask "What are you?" and we could conclude that in some sense we even are identical. But what am I? Some object among other objects? Or, because I can ask these questions, am I more than just an object? Questions are no objects, like stones ore trees.

"Why am I?" is perhaps the biggest question of all, because it transcends me as a person or an object. In search of an answer it looks for something beyond be.

As you see, these three apparently simple questions aren't that simple at all.

For instance, who am I? Well, that is simple I am Herman, the person giving a lecture right now. Ok, but who is this little boy in this photograph? Well, isn't it clear? That is me when I was 10 years old!

Did you give lectures then too?

Of course not! 

Then you and that 10 year old boy are really different from each other?!

Well…..yes and no…

Ok, what then changed and what stayed the same that makes both Herman?

To cut it short, this is what philosophers call the problem of personal identity. For those who are interested, dig into it. It really is a serious and complex philosophical discussion. What is it to be a person from birth to old age?

Equally difficult is the question "What am I?" The answer "I am a human being" doesn't get us anywhere, for what is a "human being"? OK, one thing is clear. I am at least a body. No one else is my body. I am my body.

But that is not all. I KNOW that I am my body. And here we can think of Descartes (1596 - 1650). He said, that this KNOWING is something completely different. I mean, I also could KNOW that I am not a body, but something else….stardust or thin air…and yet KNOW, that I am.

Good. Then I am not just a body but also this KNOWING ability. We have a word for that 'knowing'. We call it Mind. Thence what am I? I am a body and a mind or consciousness.

I spent 115 lectures on this subject and finally concluded: Everything we know about the brain is, that consciousness is causally reducible to brain processes;

and for that reason I deny that the ontological irreducibility of consciousness implies that consciousness is something ‘over and above’, something distinct from, its neurobiological base.

This, of course has serious philosophical consequences for the answer to the question "WHY am I?" Especially because a lot of people assume that we not only have a body and a mind, but also a soul.

Let's first have a close look at the WHY  itself in this question. It is fundamentally different from the 'why' in the first two, because this one asks for a reason, which transcends our material being. The reason is supposed to come from somewhere else.

Why we think this way is, because the homo sapiens had discovered causality. Event B happens after every event A. Not as a coincidence but all the time. Thence we say A causes B. Like "brain" —+ "consciousness", "no brain" —+ "no consciousness",

So the "why" implies that there is something outside me that causes my existence. Isn't the answer quite simple? A male and a female had a pleasant night together et voilá, there I was after nine months.

No,that is too easy, for there is more in that question. We ask for more than just a simple material cause. We ask for a reason and when we know the reason we also know the meaning of something.

But we have a problem here. Every question already assumes an answer. That is, every question already implies specifics about the answer. Just take the questions "Who is a vulture? and "What is a vulture?"

And what I forgot to mention is, that when I ask "why am I ?", I do not mean specifically my personal material being. I mean it more in a general sense. You know, meaning not only whether there is a cause of my existence, but more in the sense of "is there a REASON" for my existence.

But then the question "Why is a rock?" and "Why am I?" are two completely different questions! Using "why" in this general sense makes the question about the rock a bit silly.

But isn't the question "Why am I?" in that sense also a silly question, a meaningless question. Grammatically correct, but semantically a problem?

As Gemma Cleanslate - Allen often remarked, also in the discussion after lecture 499, "there have always been more questions than answers here", I'll not elaborate on all possible  answers here.

If you have attended my lectures and paid some attention, you'll know my answer after this 500th lecture. For the rest, I leave it up to you to give the answers.

Thank you… ^_^

The Discussion

[13:24] Gemma Allen: It is still true

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you professor

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:25] herman Bergson: It is Gemma :-)

[13:25] ἀρετή: Why is the question not why are we?

[13:25] herman Bergson: Otherwise it would be the end pf philosophy :-))

[13:25] Gemma Allen: wonders what the next 500 will be about

[13:25] Laila Schuman: purpose can also be ...that which one chooses...from inside...to devote their time/life to... a child, art, helping someone, robbing banks... working on a farm...

[13:25] CONNIE Eichel: :)

[13:25] herman Bergson: Good question ^_^

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: indeed:) will be exciting for sure

[13:26] Laila Schuman: why/purpose

[13:26] herman Bergson: Sure Laila....one of our abilities is to give meaning to our existence

[13:26] Laila Schuman: existential

[13:26] herman Bergson: very true

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:27] Merlin: Have we left Eastern Philosophy now Herman?

[13:27] Faithfull: would you it never leaves

[13:27] herman Bergson: But as you may know there are all kinds of belief systems that like to tell what the meaning of life is

[13:28] herman Bergson: No Merlin...will be continued

[13:28] Merlin: ok ty

[13:28] Gemma Allen: ah good i thought there were holes

[13:28] Faithfull: the great continuum

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes, we just got started on it so hope there will be lot more in that subject for sure ㋡

[13:28] ἀρετή: are we not the sum of our genes + time + culture + time + experience?

[13:29] ἀρετή: -time

[13:29] herman Bergson: I just used the questions of last lecture for this one....

[13:29] herman Bergson: more general than to continue on Buddhism

[13:29] Merlin: Well one thing I like to hear, your opinion of Consciousness agrees with Dawkins

[13:30] herman Bergson: I don’t know exactly what Dawkins tells about consciousness Merlin

[13:30] Merlin: I find it a bit uncomfortable but you cannot deny the truth

[13:30] herman Bergson: But is he says that the brain causes consciousness..then I agree with him

[13:31] Zanicia: yes

[13:31] Merlin: Dawkins says we evolved it as a mechanism

[13:31] Merlin: All part of our survival strategy

[13:31] herman Bergson: that might be quite true....we are just a moment in evolution

[13:31] MerlinMerlin nods

[13:32] ἀρετή: what about machine intelligence?

[13:32] CONNIE Eichel shouts: hi dings, welcome there, come :)

[13:32] Merlin: Yes ] ἀρετή:

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: but can u make a machine aware if what it is doing really?

[13:32] Dings Digital: Hello :) still rezzing

[13:32] Merlin: that stuff about machine consciousness is all nonsense to me

[13:33] herman Bergson: that is what it is Areyn...machine intelligence....machines

[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Merlin

[13:33] herman Bergson: I agree

[13:33] Merlin: ㋡

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: computers are digital and work with lot of simple switches, can you ever make something like that feel?

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: thats interesting

[13:33] ἀρετή: not really but a lot of the applications, search and all that we are using are evolving towards our reliance on the "smart" technology... and machine intelligence is just another term for what they referred to as A.I.

[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: intelligence is a complex thing with many aspects

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: thats true, you can make machines that program and "learn"

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: themselves

[13:34] Merlin: I know you said Intelligence, but I said consciousness

[13:34] herman Bergson: intelligence isn’t the same as consciousness

[13:34] ἀρετή: it's not going to be in the form of robots.. it's already in use.. that control the temperature in your home, your smart phone, your google search.. ads.. all that

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: nope

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: a machine can never be conscious i think

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: works in a complete other way then a living organism do

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: but intelligent maybe

[13:35] herman Bergson: That is all pretty mechanistic Aryen

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: in a way

[13:35] ἀρετή: I'm just asking because I like to to read about future technology based on current science

[13:35] herman Bergson: not intelligent at all in the sense that it has the capability to come up with solutions for new problems

[13:36] Qwark Allen: this will be a interesting discussion to have in 30 years, when some AI will be around trying to find out, if they have a mind or not

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:36] Qwark Allen: i mean, to discuss this with themselfves

[13:36] Zanicia: I'm Alive...Johnny Five!

[13:36] herman Bergson: I dont think so, Qwark...that still is science fiction to me

[13:37] Gemma Allen: a lot of past science fiction has come true however

[13:37] Gemma Allen: and is now fact

[13:37] herman Bergson: We not even understand the phenomenon of consciousness in relation to the material brain

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:37] Qwark Allen: just look at the rate cpus double the speed, and hard drives to save data grow

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: they are researching the possibility to make a real warp drive at NASA

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: like in start trek

[13:38] Qwark Allen: the future is arriving fast

[13:38] CONNIE Eichel: ^^

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: indeed

[13:38] Zanicia: trillions spent while humans starve to death

[13:38] Merlin: Its a global world too :P

[13:38] Dings Digital: how is this future different from the 18th century?

[13:38] herman Bergson: Then I suggest we focus on my future of the next 500 lectures first :-)

[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: but our brain and instincts are still in stone age

[13:38] Gemma Allen: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:38] .: Beertje :.: the future is only tomorrow...or in 5 minutes...not faster than is was in the old days

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:39] Gemma Allen: how long will christmas break be??

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: the future is the next seconds

[13:39] Laila Schuman: is there going to be a celebration of the five hundredth lecture?

[13:39] herman Bergson: Ahh Gemma ..THAT is our future...indeed

[13:39] Gemma Allen: yep

[13:39] herman Bergson: Xmas holiday...

[13:39] herman Bergson: I suggest that I resume lecturing in the third week of January :-)

[13:40] Gemma Allen: Aristotle and Alarice both sent congratulations

[13:40] herman Bergson: Gives you all lots of time to go skying and being back in time here

[13:40] Gemma Allen: as did Ze

[13:40] herman Bergson: Nice

[13:40] Anske Beattie: where is snow right now Herman? lol

[13:40] CONNIE Eichel: hehe, i will go to the beach here, if possible :)

[13:41] .: Beertje :.: we'll have a green christmas

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: no snow here yet also

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: only rain rain and rain

[13:41] Gemma Allen: snow here

[13:41] Gemma Allen: but melting

[13:41] Anske Beattie: will be a warm Christmas

[13:41] Gemma Allen: Yes-ah!

[13:41] Lizzy Pleides: if my bones are still ok i'll be here then

[13:41] Gemma Allen: here too

[13:41] herman Bergson: yes indeed..here too Anske ^_*

[13:41] Anske Beattie: ohh realy Herman??

[13:41] Laila Schuman: i am rather ill rl.. if there is no celebration, i need to return to bed

[13:41] herman Bergson: Well you are dressed for a warm winter :-)

[13:41] Gemma Allen: i have already been eating too much!!!

[13:41] ἀρετή: get well soon

[13:41] Anske Beattie: get well soon Laila!!

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes hope u get better soon

[13:42] Gemma Allen: ah laila

[13:42] herman Bergson: You better hit your bed Laila!!!!

[13:42] Zanicia: yes get well soon

[13:42] Gemma Allen: Yes-ah!

[13:42] Gemma Allen: take care

[13:42] Lizzy Pleides: yes get well Layla

[13:42] Gemma Allen: please

[13:42] herman Bergson: Get better again soon plz...

[13:42] Laila Schuman: thank you.... congratulations on your 500th herman

[13:42] CONNIE Eichel: get better :)

[13:42] Anske Beattie: happy hollidays!

[13:42] Laila Schuman: baiee... and best wishes to all

[13:42] Dings Digital: bye Laila, take care

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: bye Laila

[13:42] Zanicia: Bye bye tc

[13:42] herman Bergson: I wish you all Happy Holidays and we'll be back in 2014 :-)

[13:43] Zanicia: Good

[13:43] Gemma Allen: you tooo !!!!

[13:43] ἀρετή: Happy Holidays

[13:43] Gemma Allen: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: nice

[13:43] Anske Beattie:                 *•.¸('*•.¸ ❤ ¸.•*´)¸.•*

[13:43] Anske Beattie:             .•*❤¨`•APPLAUSE•´¨`❤*•.

[13:43] Anske Beattie:                 ¸.•*(¸.•*´ ❤ `*•.¸)`*•.¸ 

[13:43] Qwark Allen: thank you

[13:43] Zanicia: Thank you Professor

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: yes happy holidays all!

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:43] Qwark Allen: glad i could come today

[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: thank you herman , the same to you!

[13:43] .: Beertje :.: Fijne feestdagen herman

[13:43] Anske Beattie: well doen professor!!!

[13:43] Gemma Allen: i hve that tree infront of our house

[13:43] CONNIE Eichel: congrats professor :)

[13:43] Qwark Allen: .........................✴♬✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen: .......................✴*♥*✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen: ......................✴⊱〠⊰✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen: ........….……..✴.*⊱♫⊰*.✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen: ......……….. ✴• '*♥* ' • ✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen: ........……. ✴'*•♫♫ ♫•*'✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen: ........….. ✴' *, • '♫ ' • ,* '✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen: ........….✴' * • ♫*♥* ♫• * '✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen: .......… ✴* , • ღ☆☾☯ • , *  '✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen: ......…✴* ' •♫♫*♥*♫♫ • ' * '✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen: .......✴' * ' • .ღ☆☾☯☯* • ' * ' '✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen: .....✴' ' * • ♫♫♫*♥*♫♫♫• * ' '✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen:          ✴ MERRY CHRISTMAS  ✴

[13:43] Qwark Allen:             ✴    FELIZ  NATAL    ✴

[13:43] Dings Digital: Congratulation to the 500th session. it is the first i finally managed to attend :)

[13:43] Bejiita ImakoBejiita Imako ♪♥♪APPLAUDS!!!♪♥♪

[13:43] ἀρετή: Well done on the 500th :)

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:43] Gemma Allen: omg really dings?

[13:43] Gemma Allen: OMG!!!

[13:43] CONNIE Eichel: yes, wishing more and more classes :)

[13:43] herman Bergson: Congrats Dings :-)

[13:43] Gemma Allen: join the group so you will get notices

[13:44] Dings Digital: hehe, thank you. happy to be here

[13:44] Anske Beattie: happy hollidays to you all!!

[13:44] herman Bergson: Needed 499 lectures to get Dings here!

[13:44] Dings Digital: oh dear, I am so sorry

[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ook forward to even more nice interesting lectures here

[13:44] Anske Beattie: and me Herman ;-)

[13:44] CONNIE Eichel: hehe

[13:44] Dings Digital: I am slow

[13:44] ἀρετή: :)

[13:44] herman Bergson: True Anske ^_^

[13:45] Qwark Allen: nice new av btw bej

[13:45] Qwark Allen: love it

[13:45] Qwark Allen: ^^

[13:45] Gemma Allen: i dont like it

[13:45] Gemma Allen: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:45] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°

[13:45] Qwark Allen: lol

499: Philosophy and religion

First of all I want to thank everybody for the warm support and good wishes I have received because of what has happened to me. It really helped me to feel better. Thank you all, who showed such kind compassion.

[13:08] herman Bergson: I guess I'd better begin

[13:09] herman Bergson: This is actually the lecture of October 24 :-))

[ hB suffered a heart attack in RL on that day, but after six weeks is fully recovered now]

[13:09] Gemma Allen: :-)

[13:09] .: Beertje :.: smiles

[13:09] herman Bergson: First of all I want to thank everybody for the warm support and good wishes I have received because of what has happened to me. It really helped me to feel better. Thank you all, who showed such kind compassion.

[13:09] Nectanebus: :)

[13:09] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:09] Bejiita Imako: your welcome

In my quest to understand what the relation is between philosophical thinking and religion, especially while this plays such an important role in Eastern thinking,

I want to elaborate some more on the ideas I developed in my previous lecture. What fascinated me in the previous lecture was and still is, that in the development of the human mind we time and again see the same pattern. 

A wise man (not a woman) appears on stage. He appears to be rather influential with his teachings in his time. Then after his death a lot  of his teaching including all kinds of ideas added by others are committed to "paper":  

this happened to Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, Mohammed. And only a 350 years ago scientific thinking was added to our repertoire to understand life.

Now my primary assumption is, that the homo sapiens is a result of evolution.

My second assumption is that in general all humans biologically have the same brain. That is, a limbic system and a prefrontal cortex and some other parts. Thence , theoretically, we all are mentally wired in the same way.

My third assumption is, that survival, survival of the individual and then survival of the group, is the primary drive in nature. In this process, the organisms best adapted to their environment, survive.

If you assume that philosophy begins with wonder, then somewhere in the history of mankind the homo sapiens formulated the wondering question: "Who am I and what am I?"

Let me return to "The Problems of Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell (1912): 

-quote-

If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. 

But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. 

It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. 

The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton's great work was called 'the mathematical principles of natural philosophy'. 

Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. 

Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, 

while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy.

-end quote-

Now look at the passage "…as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible…"

It means, that our primary question in life :"Who am I and what am I?" is gradually answered by science.

And here, from an evolutionary point of view, I disagree with Russell. For thousands of years our mind generated "definite" knowledge and yes the subject ceased to be philosophy and became RELIGION and only a 350 years ago the subject became science,

The evolutionary meaning of religion has been crucial for survival of the group. It answered all uncertainties. It offered a perspective and a destiny of existence.

It strengthened the cohesion of the group. Created the binding feeling of a "WE" against the "OTHERS". It answered the questions about good and evil. It answered our primary question: "Who am I and what am I?" This is especially evident in, for instance, Confucianism.

This doesn't mean that the basic assumptions of all those religions were definite knowledge. They were just treated as if it was definite knowledge and it fulfilled its purpose in the evolving society.

Many religious answers now go the way philosophical answers did. As soon as it became clear that it was a virus that caused the disease, it no longer was the will of gods or evil spirits, but a medical issue that could be treated.

In Russell's days science was the future, the true knowledge. Today, science is an effective way of interpreting reality, but not the complete answer to our primary question: "Who am I and what am I?"

So, there is still plenty of time for another 500 lectures on philosophy after next Thursday.

The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you :-)

[13:21] Nectanebus: heh

[13:21] Chantal: ㋡

[13:21] Nectanebus: Nice, that was certainly worth the wait

[13:21] Daruma Boa: thank u herman

[13:21] Daruma Boa: so no class after thursday?^^

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:22] Gemma Allen: on i doubt that

[13:22] herman Bergson: How do you mean Daruma?

[13:22] Gemma Allen: forget that idea

[13:22] Daruma Boa: u wrote another 500 lectures on philosophy after next Thursday.

[13:22] herman Bergson: I was planning another 500 ;-)

[13:22] Gemma Allen: probably

[13:22] Gemma AllenGemma Allen GIGGLES!!

[13:22] Gemma Allen: ...LOL...

[13:22] Gemma Allen: see

[13:22] Daruma Boa: ahh okeee

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:22] Gemma Allen: but it is a milestone

[13:22] Gemma Allen: i was at the first class

[13:23] Chantal: Herman 2.0 has enough to share ㋡

[13:23] Gemma Allen: imagine

[13:23] .: Beertje :.: do you think those next 500 are enough Herman?

[13:23] herman Bergson: Next Thursday is Lecture 500 :-))

[13:23] Nectanebus: I found it interesting you mentioned the "trial and error" methods employed as social programming, and its parallel with scientific method. I always thought Russell overlooked things like alchemy and theology in his statement.

[13:23] herman Bergson: Dont think so Beertje....we always have to keep on thinking critically

[13:23] Nectanebus: Wow, seems I missed a few haha

[13:23] Laila Schuman: one important question is WHY am I... i think a lot of people really need a PURPOSE in life... they long for purpose... not just who and what

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:24] Daruma Boa: right nectan

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: i guess so

[13:24] .: Beertje :.: i think ..just TO BE..is enough

[13:24] herman Bergson: Ahh yes ..the WHY question.....

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: same here

[13:24] Nectanebus: That's a very Chan viewpoint, Bejita ;)

[13:24] herman Bergson: There is a problem with that question....

[13:24] Velvet: I think we decide the WHY, individually

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: I am just me

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:25] Daruma Boa: well just to be i guess is not enough

[13:25] herman Bergson: The thing is....we have the word WHY.....

[13:25] Daruma Boa: it sounds like u have no will^^

[13:25] herman Bergson: but the question is....is every sentence which begins with WHY meaningful?

[13:25] Daruma Boa: to think about being here is an important question

[13:25] Laila Schuman: or the reverse is that one has no passion

[13:25] Daruma Boa: and only humas are able to

[13:25] Daruma Boa: humans

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: Im a nice guy who do many good things and like to hage fun and be with friends

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: thats good enough for me

[13:26] Daruma Boa: ok^^

[13:26] Laila Schuman: ants and trees are here...

[13:26] Daruma Boa: 4 me often not^^

[13:26] Laila Schuman: we have minds

[13:26] Gemma Allen: fortunately

[13:26] Nectanebus: I think post-(post-post-post-)modernism proved that if life has no meaning, we shall ascribe it one that suits us.

[13:26] herman Bergson: yes...and that mind makes us believe a lot of things

[13:26] Gemma Allen: ah

[13:27] Laila Schuman: like communism ascribes meanings... or church?

[13:27] Merlin: Well before we digress too much I had a comment early on but did not want to interrupt.....

[13:27] herman Bergson: Different from other organisms we are indeed capable of giving meaning to things

[13:27] Chantal: Thinks the pursuit of being the best YOU possible could be a real could why

[13:27] Merlin: Another example of people who did not themselves write but was written later.....

[13:27] herman Bergson: No no...Merlin.....

[13:27] Nectanebus: more like hedonism and monasticism being sufficient reasons for life to their adherents, to use a more base example

[13:27] Merlin: Socrates

[13:27] Chantal: could=good

[13:28] herman Bergson: let's return on our steps and Merlin, plz repeat your comment

[13:28] Merlin: Ok

[13:28] Merlin: Socrates is another example to add

[13:28] Merlin: people who did not write themselves

[13:29] herman Bergson: Ahhh indeed...Plato did all the work :-)

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:29] herman Bergson: A good example, which makes the list less religious :-))

[13:29] Merlin: Oh good I am glad I got them round the right way. I sometimes get it wrong

[13:29] ἀρετή: hi quaezar

[13:29] ⓆⓊⒶⒺⓏⒶⓇ: A very good day everyone :)

[13:29] Velvet: And we can just hope that Plato got it right!

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: hi Quaezar

[13:30] Lizzy Pleides: hi quaezar

[13:30] herman Bergson: hello Quaezar :-)

[13:30] Daruma Boa: hi quaezar

[13:30] herman Bergson: ok...so we have to expand the existential question to WHo , what an why I am.....

[13:30] ⓆⓊⒶⒺⓏⒶⓇ: A very good evening Herman :)

[13:31] Merlin: It is interesting to consider that Jesus might have been illiterate

[13:31] Gemma Allen: that is where we started

[13:31] Nectanebus: who what when where how?

[13:31] Nectanebus: heheh

[13:31] herman Bergson: I hope you al see that the WH and What are of a different nature than the WHY

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:31] ἀρετή: why are all the important questions beginning with the letter 'w'?

[13:31] Velvet: You're right, Merlin, we only have others' accounts of what he said

[13:32] Merlin: ty Velvet

[13:32] herman Bergson: another one Merlin :-))

[13:32] Nectanebus: I think Socrates is a literary troll of ancient Greece, a...what's the word for when people create something that is representative of them as a whole anthromorphously? Sorry, weird fragmentation there...

[13:32] Nectanebus: also typos haha

[13:33] herman Bergson: Doesn't matter Nectabebus...I wouldn't know the answer anyway :-))

[13:33] Nectanebus: nvm, you get the idea

[13:33] Nectanebus: like King Arthur or whatever

[13:33] herman Bergson: a myth

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: aaa ok

[13:33] Merlin: hehe

[13:34] Nectanebus: that's an easy way to say it I guess haha, I do tend to overthink some times

[13:34] Velvet: myths are meant to communicate ideas rather than history

[13:34] Velvet: so, they are philosophical

[13:34] Gemma Allen: there have always been more questions than answers here

[13:34] Chantal: and with every answer...new questions arise

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: indedd

[13:34] herman Bergson: Has to Gemma, otherwise there wouldn't be a next lecture :-))

[13:35] Daruma Boa: i guess its good to have more questions than answers^^

[13:35] Gemma Allen: Yes-ah!

[13:35] Daruma Boa: it keeps life going

[13:35] Merlin: Yes indeed Chantal

[13:35] .: Beertje :.: that's why we need a lot more lectures than 500 Gemma ㋡

[13:35] Gemma Allen: that is why there are 500 morecmoing

[13:35] Merlin: A good example is the power of telescopes

[13:35] Nectanebus: Life would be boring without navel gazing

[13:35] herman Bergson: But on the other hand it is an observation that makes sense

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: hehe indeed

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: if all questions were answered would be more booring for sure

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: alwase need something to chase after

[13:35] herman Bergson: Only questions drive us to new answers and solutions....

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:36] Velvet: I vote for more solutions!

[13:36] herman Bergson: So...has anyone  still a question about the subject of today?

[13:37] herman Bergson appreciates the silence

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: dont know hehe

[13:37] Velvet: this topic can head off in many directions!

[13:37] herman Bergson: Time to think it all over again perhaps :-)

[13:37] Nectanebus: I'm a bit tired today unfortunately, I'm not up to my usual standard :(

[13:37] Daruma Boa: lol

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: maybe that

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:37] Nectanebus: can't elucidate or conjugate at all today heh

[13:38] herman Bergson: Then  I thank you all for your participation again.....

[13:38] ἀρετή: Earlier.. it was mentioned that "A wise man (not a woman) appears on stage." Were there really no women philosophers in history?

[13:38] Velvet: Herman, are we heading into religious territory?

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hmm also been tored all day, dont know why probably got awakened at wrong moment

[13:38] Gemma Allen: I would like to thank Herman for all the research and work that he has put into all these classes... and giving us vacations and allowing us to miss class .. and never allowing us to graduate ... and no tests... I was really scared the first year he kept promising a test soon!!

[13:38] herman Bergson: It was a real pleasure to have you all here again....

[13:38] .: Beertje :.: thank you Herman and have a goodnight ㋡

[13:38] Velvet: should I bring my seatbelt?

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: then doesn't matter how long i ve slept

[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: thank you herman!

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: will be a wreck

[13:38] Corronach: thanks Herman