![\"wiki](\"http:\/\/truehope.info\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/yin-yang-e1408572900714.gif\")
<\/a><\/p>\nTrue hope resides in symbol use that embraces change\/stewardship.<\/em> Many of us graduate from our education system very unclear of the nature of philosophy. We graduate knowing that it is something to do with a person’s belief system and the meaning of life.\u00a0 At the same time we feel uncertain that philosophy has anything to do with our daily lives.\u00a0 How does this dissonance arise?<\/p>\n A probable answer is that our education system inculcates in us the belief that philosophy is a rarefied discipline, the exclusive domain of a few people who are very clever with words and ideas and who are paid to argue about “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. We are each our symbol and we are exquisitely tuned to each others actions. Thus the lifestyle of\u00a0 a self-described\u00a0 “philosopher” ultimately reveals his or her notion of philosophy.\u00a0 We find the lives of “philosophy experts” vary greatly. Some are conservatives of the flows and balances that sustain humanity. Others are non-conservatives. Such deceit and confusion\u00a0 indicates our contemporary notion of philosophy is strongly influenced by the ego with its tendency to deny change\/stewardship.<\/a>\u00a0 We are caught in the paradox that even as philosophy is about meaning we do not know the meaning of philosophy.\u00a0 Fortunately we can employ physics of true hope<\/a> to transcend the limitations of the ego, thought and paradox. When we embrace the great principles of energy we are better able to enjoy true hope in philosophy.<\/p>\n True hope resides in symbol use that embraces change\/stewardship.<\/em> In brief the Conservation Principle of Energy reminds us that energy is so bounteous it can usefully be described as a constant and that it continuously transforms. In other words,\u00a0 all is change and change is a constant. The human ego, which arises in the division of the psyche with the advent of self-awareness, tends to deny the universality of change with its intimations of our mortality. It can create all manner of ingenious deceits and false hopes in this denial.\u00a0 We can identify these deceits by exploring the evolution of our behaviour and associated use of symbols.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n philosophy (n.)<\/a> Meaning “system a person forms for conduct of life” is attested from 1771.<\/p>\n philosophize (v.)<\/a> empiricism (n.)<\/a> [Philosophical problems] are, of course, not empirical problems; but they are solved through an insight into the workings of our language, and that in such a way that these workings are recognized — despite<\/span> an urge to misunderstand them. The problems are solved, not through the contribution of new knowledge, rather through the arrangement of things long familiar. Philosophy is a struggle against the bewitchment (Verhexung<\/span>) of our understanding by the resources of our language.<\/em> [Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Philosophical Investigations,” 1953]<\/p>\n A prime message of this website is that we are better able to transcend both the ingenious trickery of the ego and the limitations of thought and paradox when we embrace the pivotal role of the ego in our lives and employ the great principles of physics as our guide in language use. However his framing statement “[Philosophical problems] are, of course, not empirical problems; but they are solved through an insight into the workings of our language…<\/em>” is perhaps unhelpful because it reflects the general malaise that arose with 16th Century dualism. Mind and body came to be understood as two separate entities rather than as integral to each other. This division denies the essential change of the human condition and the greater wisdom of the total being of the human psyche. In brief, true hope resides in our mindfulness that our every action, including our use of language,\u00a0is a rigorous experiment with living in harmony with the flows and balances that sustain humanity.\u00a0 True hope also resides in knowing that information is physical, it is inherent in all things and knowledge is information livened by sentience.\u00a0 Thus experience and knowledge cannot be divorced in reality. Such divorce denies the universal change we are part of and disrupts the sustainable learning process. We\u00a0become vulnerable to the deceits of the ego and trapped in the paradox of knowledge. As a consequence, our behaviour tends to become delusive.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n True hope <\/strong>Philosophy is our way of being i.e. we philosophy. Footnote re the etymology of\u00a0 philosophy: “love of knowledge, pursuit of wisdom; systematic investigation,<\/em>” from philo-<\/span> “loving” (see philo-<\/a>) + sophia<\/span> “knowledge, wisdom,” from sophis<\/span> “wise, learned;”<\/em> Delusive hope: <\/strong><\/span>Philosophy is “knowledge, a body of knowledge,”\u00a0 and\u00a0 a “system a person forms for conduct of life”.<\/span> This redefinition is a common trick of the ego and it performs it with such sublime deceit that we may be completely unaware that we invert the meaning of a symbol. Observe how this trick of language\u00a0 denies our roles as stewards by asserting that philosophy is a body of knowledge or a system somehow separate from our active state of being. Philosophy is no longer experienced as the vital informing of our every action.\u00a0 Consequently\u00a0 knowledge ceases to be a moral force in our daily affairs, which is very convenient for the ego.<\/p>\n In other words,\u00a0 we\u00a0 believe we can use knowledge as we please regardless of the principles of physics. The advent of this ethos of self-deceit and denial\u00a0 enables the commodification of knowledge in general, as we see with the simultaneous arise of copyright in Britain in the 16th Century, the associated conversion of universities into debt-generating devices and the vast demeaning of the English language.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n True hope<\/strong> Symbol not used False hope<\/strong> Humans philosophize.<\/span> <\/p>\n True hope:\u00a0 <\/strong>True philosophy occurs with science. Delusive hope:<\/strong> Philosophy and science are two distinct, parallel bodies\u00a0 of thought (knowledge).<\/span> <\/p>\n True hope\u00a0 <\/strong>Philosophy\u00a0 includes the action of reasoning.<\/em> Delusive hope<\/strong> Philosophy is reason (or is similar to reason) Such statements confound philosophy of true hope and generate delusive hope. They are an exemplar of the ego’s propensities for divisiveness and denial of change. http:\/\/www.visualnews.com\/2013\/12\/06\/stanford-university-holds-technology-innovation-competition-and-conference-to-promote-public-compassionate-action\/<\/p>\n True hope\u00a0 <\/strong>Philosophy\u00a0 is loving open inquiry of existence with its associated sensations of humility, stewardship, wonder, awe and transcendence.<\/em> Delusive hope <\/strong>A philosophy is\/is not a religion.<\/em><\/span> Again we an observe the fascinating phenomenon whereby “In English, meaning “particular system of faith” is recorded from c.1300; sense of “recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers” is from 1530s.<\/em>” Draft 7 Oct 2014 Summary reminder about this guide. Our world view is simultaneously shaped by and reflected in our use of symbols. The human ego can easily generate very subtle and sophisticated rationales for any use of a symbol. This guide employs deep psychoanalysis founded in the profound wisdom of the principles of physics. … <\/p>\n
\n Delusive hope resides in symbol use that denies change\/stewardship.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nPrelude<\/h4>\n
\n(Note:\u00a0 our education system inculcates us in similar way that “science<\/strong><\/a>” and “art” are the domain of similar small elites.)<\/p>\n
\nOften we observe how in one moment they may argue with exquisite logic and meticulous detail for a belief and then in the next moment they may perform an action that completely contradicts that belief. They may be\u00a0 completely oblivious to the dissonance created.<\/p>\nReiteration: The Sustainability Principle of Energy<\/h4>\n
\n Delusive hope resides in symbol use that denies change\/stewardship.<\/em><\/p>\n
\n\u00a0Online Etymology of Philosophy Symbol<\/a><\/h4>\n
<\/a>c.1300, “knowledge, body of knowledge,” from Old French filosofie<\/span> “philosophy, knowledge” (12c., Modern French philosophie<\/span>) and directly from Latin philosophia<\/span> and from Greek philosophia<\/span> “love of knowledge, pursuit of wisdom; systematic investigation,” from philo-<\/span> “loving” (see philo-<\/a>) + sophia<\/span> “knowledge, wisdom,” from sophis<\/span> “wise, learned;” of unknown origin.<\/p>\n<\/a>1590s, from philosophy<\/a> + -ize<\/a>. Related: Philosophized<\/span>; philosophizing<\/span>. The earlier verb was simply philosophy<\/span> (late 14c.).<\/p>\n<\/a>1650s, in the medical sense, from empiric<\/a> + -ism<\/a>. Later in a general sense of “reliance on direct observation rather than theory,” especially an undue reliance on mere individual experience; in reference to a philosophical doctrine which regards experience as the only source of knowledge from 1796.<\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/dt>\n
\nWittgenstein is fundamentally correct that “our problems… are solved through the the arrangement of things long familiar”. That is why this website places great importance on identifying contemporary flawed uses of our prime symbols and reminding us in their ancient wise use.
\nThis ancient wisdom is evident in the inherent acceptance of change\/stewardship ( i.e. our mortality) in the symbol use.
\nThe lack of wisdom in our contemporary use is manifest in an English language that generates global waste, pollution and mass misery.<\/p>\n
\nIt perhaps more helpful to frame our situation thus,\u00a0“[Philosophical problems] include empirical problems and they are solved through an insight into the workings of our language…<\/em>”<\/p>\n
\nSymbol Philosophy<\/em><\/h4>\n
\n<\/em>Comment<\/strong>: Philosophy is an active state of being. It is a verb. All human beings\u00a0 philosophy and so it is meaningless to describe any human being as a philosopher because this denies our common condition.
\n<\/a>However existence is paradox and it is helpful to speak of philosophy of true hope and philosophy of delusive hope with these two states co-existing and co-evolving together. It is helpful because we exist in this finite form as elements of the continuous universal change and the survival of humankind depends on our constant evaluation of our actions in the cosmos.
\nAction and hope are both paradox.
\nA sustaining action in one moment may become non-sustaining in the next and vice versa.\u00a0 See the “energy efficiency<\/strong>” symbol<\/a>.
\nSimilarly true hope and delusive hope are of each other even as they are different.
\nThe truer our philosophy; the greater our awareness of our delusions.
\nWe can transcend all these paradox by enjoying compassion<\/strong><\/a> and embracing the physics of hope.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n
\nPhilosophy is the active process of learning with our every action. True philosophy resides in\u00a0 “loving knowledge, pursuing wisdom; systematic investigating,<\/em>” which is in accord with the ancient wisdom of the symbol.<\/p>\n
\n<\/em>Comment:<\/strong> This recent use of the “philosophy” symbol transforms it in a noun i..e. philosophy is a thing rather than a state of being. This\u00a0redefinition is convenient for the ego because it\u00a0 strips the symbol of its associations with compassion and denies the essential change of the sustainable learning process.<\/p>\n
\nSymbol Philosophize<\/em><\/h4>\n
\n<\/em>Comment<\/strong>:\u00a0 Philosophy expresses a state of being or the action\u00a0 of the psyche i.e. it is a verb.\u00a0 To make a verb of a verb makes nonsense.<\/p>\n
\nComment<\/strong>: This verb arose in the 1590s and is associated with the denial of philosophy as a process of change or action. It is a consequence of the redefining of philosophy as a thing or body of knowledge i.e. as a noun.
\nA great trick of the ego is to confuse the action with that which is acted upon.\u00a0 Verb is conflated with noun so the essential action (change) is no longer expressed.
\nSimilar examples include the conflation of power<\/strong><\/a> (the measure or rate of change) with the change being measured and energy<\/strong><\/a> with the forms it may take. This trick conveniently denies the essential universal change\u00a0 in all manner of ways.<\/p>\n
\nSymbol Philosophy (Science)
\n<\/em><\/h4>\n
\n<\/em>Comment<\/strong>: Science<\/a> is a profound moral way or process of being that arises with the experience of compassion<\/a>. This state of being enables the development of\u00a0 sustainable learning processes and philosophy of true hope to prevail.
\nScience is the active sustainable learning process and philosophy is the loving of this experience<\/p>\n
\nComment:<\/strong> The delusion arises from the denial of the essential human condition amidst the continuous universal change.
\nTo reiterate, our condition is characterized by the schism in our psyche that arises with self-awareness and the ego’s tendency to be divisive and to deny our mortality<\/strong>.\u00a0 <\/a>The relegation of the “philosophy” and “science” symbols to nouns rends them morally impotent and confounds the learning process. This demeaning of these vital symbols enables the profound denial of stewardship.<\/p>\n
\nSymbol Philosophy (Reason)
\n<\/em><\/h4>\n
\n<\/em>Comment<\/strong>: Our psyche consists of a vast sentience, of which self-awareness is a trace element. This trace element is the domain of thought and reason is one of the processes by which we connect thoughts. It involves the self-aware connecting\u00a0 of ideas in a process of inquiry, experimentation and reflection. This reasoning process has two major limitations:
\n(1) The thought process is incapable of fully embracing\u00a0 paradox.
\n(2) The thought process is very vulnerable to the incredible, ingenious deceits of the active interface of the self and non-self awareness (the ego).
\nThus while cognitive activities such as intellectualizing, thinking\u00a0 and reasoning are necessary processes of human beings, they are not sufficient to sustain us. Philosophy of true hope involves engaging the greater wisdom of the full psyche by the active experience of compassion<\/a> so the state of science<\/a> can prevail. We are opened to the bounty our greater potential\u00a0 when the reasoning process is founded in humility and informed by its own limitations.<\/p>\n
\n<\/em><\/span>Comment <\/b>See http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Reason<\/a>
\nReason<\/b> is the capacity for consciously<\/a> making sense of things, applying logic<\/a>, for establishing and verifying facts<\/a>, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs<\/a> based on new or existing information.[1]<\/a><\/sup> It is closely associated with such characteristically human<\/a> activities as philosophy<\/a>, science<\/a>, language<\/a>, mathematics<\/a>, and art<\/a>, and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature<\/a>.[2]<\/a><\/sup> The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality<\/a> and sometimes as discursive reason<\/b>, in opposition to intuitive reason<\/a>.[3]<\/a><\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n
\nTrue hope resides in the experience of compassion, which enables the experience of the state of science, which in turn enables the development of all manner of sustaining arts (skills) including sustaining language and civics. In this active state we understand that\u00a0rationality or “discursive reason” and “intuitive reason” are complementary activities, not contradictory activities. We philosophy i.e. we enjoy pursuing the truth.
\nDelusive hope resides most fundamentally in the lack of compassion so that reason confuses rather than elucidates our situation. Both philosophy and science are deemed to be amoral ways of thinking and an exclusive bodies of knowledge. Art (skill) in general\u00a0 is conflated with few few specific skills that exclude the essential skill of language while mathematics\u00a0 is excluded from language.<\/p>\n
\nSymbol Philosophy (Religion)
\n<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/a>
\n<\/em>Comment<\/strong>: Philosophy cannot be equated with our contemporary use of the “religion” symbol because philosophy is a verb and religion is a noun. To the extent a person experiences philosophy of true hope\u00a0 they can be described as being religious and as experiencing religiousness. Their lives are characterized by reflection (relegere<\/span>), mindfulness (religare<\/span>) and caring (religiens<\/span>) of the flows and balances that sustain humanity. See etymology in next paragraph.<\/p>\n
\nComment<\/strong> These seeming contrary hopes are actually the same in that both express the belief that philosophy is a body of knowledge rather than an active state of being.
\nThe etymology of the “religion” symbol is unclear. It is interesting to note that Online Etymology<\/a> records various possible origins of the “religion” symbol and all involve active states of being:
\n– relegere<\/span> “go through again” (in reading or in thought), from re-<\/span> “again” (see re-<\/a>) + legere<\/span> “read” (see lecture<\/a> (n.)).
\n– religare<\/span> “to bind fast” (see rely<\/a>)
\n– religiens<\/span> “careful,” opposite of negligens<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/a>
\nThis is fascinating because the evolution of the symbol mirrors that of other prime symbols in the English language in that there is an escalating denial of change\/stewardship.
\nThis is typical of the ego’s trickery.\u00a0 Associations of the essential change are removed by transforming verbs and adverts into nouns. The symbol is associated with reverence for a higher entity (god)\u00a0 rather than with the experience of transcendence.\u00a0 Stewardship is delegated to a god or gods with the modern god being an entity called “The Market”. Thus planned obsolescence (diseconomy<\/a>), waste and pollution prevail.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"