John Caputo

[tariki]

Well I'm gradually getting my mojo back after a two month period of severe mental health problems - this caused by an attempt to taper off of my meds (paroxetine) I'm now convinced that I am on them for life. Not sure exactly what this means in terms of "nature" v "nurture" or any of the other puzzles of authentic life. All my waffling and rambling never saved me from a mental torment that in all probability many others have known all too well.

Fortunately, I have also known - and know now - periods of deep well-being. Where does this come from? Certainly not from my own "will" or any particular "understanding", certainly not from any "wisdom" of my own. From "paroxetine"? Well, once I never needed it. Anyway, all I can do is walk on, seeking to realise and bring forth a growing gratitude in my mind/heart toward Reality itself, which I am gradually learning to trust.

Anyway, here I am in the Cafe, and will speak of John Caputo, who I am really getting into at the moment - his books on "Truth" (in a world without facts) and "Hermeneutics" (in our world of information) are well worth looking at. Now his various Notes and Papers have been issued on Kindle at a very cheap price (the whole 4 volumes were only about £10) and they look like quite heavy reading - probably a lot of it beyond my own intellect, but sometimes we have to stretch ourselves.

Anyway, I have waffled enough so will simply cut and paste a short passage from Caputo's book on Hermeneutics, a passage where he is speaking of the philosopher Heidegger and which touches upon our current Media, source of so many ills. Caputo is speaking of an "inauthenticity" that can overcome us if we allow the "spirit of the age" to be our sole guiding light - we must seek to go deeper, to the heart of things.

The quote:-

"We are everywhere just as busy as busy can be, but we ignore the ultimate business of life. We are making expeditious progress, but we have no idea where we are going. We are everywhere swept up in our daily concerns but neglect our ‘ultimate concern’ (Tillich), which is to raise the question of being true to the being which we ourselves are. Like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard presciently described the ‘public’, the ‘they’, as a new phenomenon of nineteenth-century life. This new category for philosophy – if this is to be called philosophy at all, a new existential philosophy – is a function of the newly emerging media, the newspapers and the telegraph. Today, with social media and the internet, the power of the ‘public interpretation’, of the ‘they’, has been unleashed with unprecedented power."

So we must escape the "They" with all its presumptions.

Well, off to Oxfam now to the Music Dept, after a break of six weeks or so when I was simply not up to it. I have a few of my own CD's - T-Rex, the Stones, Willie Nelson. And I see that Bob Dylan will be at the Royal Albert Hall for three dates in November. Tickets go on sale on the 19th. Possibly out of my price range, but would love to actually see Dylan "in the flesh".

Best wishes to you all.

[romansh]

7 hours ago, tariki said:

but we have no idea where we are going

Perfect!

Does the universe know where it is going? Does it need to? I am a child of the universe, following my dharma of an ever-increasing entropy.

[PaulS]

14 hours ago, tariki said:

Not sure exactly what this means in terms of "nature" v "nurture" or any of the other puzzles of authentic life. 

Fortunately, I have also known - and know now - periods of deep well-being. Where does this come from? Certainly not from my own "will" or any particular "understanding", certainly not from any "wisdom" of my own. From "paroxetine"? Well, once I never needed it. Anyway, all I can do is walk on, seeking to realise and bring forth a growing gratitude in my mind/heart toward Reality itself, which I am gradually learning to trust.

I think the 'science' of it all is simply that our thoughts and feelings are simply chemical reactions going on in the brain, and some bodies produce more/less chemicals than others.  Some people are genetically good 'feelers', others perhaps genetically academically inclined.  Others again perhaps simply need help producing some chemicals.

Welcome back to the Forum, @tariki

[romansh]

Nature versus nurture ... the debate about how much of our behaviour is a product of genetics versus society/culture/family (environment).

Science seems to posit it is about 50/50.

Of course, our genetics are a product of environment too ... selection and all that.

 

[tariki]

On 7/16/2024 at 7:46 PM, romansh said:

Perfect!

Does the universe know where it is going? Does it need to? I am a child of the universe, following my dharma of an ever-increasing entropy.

 

Hello again, as I'm now bolstered by paroxetine I am getting back to my waffling best. 

Keeping on-topic (I'm on another forum where any drift is "punished" by a deletion of your post!) I'm still reading John Caputo - this in between a sci-fi novel of Iain Banks and cracking another level of Soda Candy Crush Saga. 

A little phrase of Angelus Silesius is one Mr Caputo makes much of:-

"The rose is without why; it blossoms because it blossoms; It cares not for itself, asks not if it’s seen."

Being without "why", much like the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart who has said:- "Love has no why".

John Caputo wears his learning lightly. I have been dipping into his 4 volumes of Philosophical Notes that trace his own "journey" to wherever he thinks he is, and to be honest most of it is way beyond me. He gets down to the German word for "essence" as used by Meister Eckhart, and contrasts it with the Latin word used by Thomas Aquinas, and then seems to draw conclusions! All lost on me! I'd would like to say/claim that I'm one of those who just "got it" when the Buddha held up a flower, but I've given the game away by mentioning anti-depressants! 

Why do I persist in reading such stuff? Initially it was to conquer the fundamentalist claptrap that had once held me in its grip; now I think more to create a store of knowledge that forms a barrier against a world/media that seems always to be trying to convince you of something (for whatever purpose - usually for your money or your vote) 

Samuel Beckett said once that we can never have enough knowledge, but not in order to judge. 

Wise words. 

I think this is where I part company with John Caputo. The way his book is going ( "Hope Against Hope:  Confessions of a Postmodern Pilgrim") he seems to be fast approaching a final conclusion about Reality. I simply do not like "conclusions". Yes, seek to live like the rose, that blooms simply because it blooms, but why add "because that is all we've got going for us"? 

Of course, I wouldn't like to try to argue with Mr Caputo about this! I must say that in his books on "Truth" and "Hermeneutics" he wears his learning lightly and both are reasonably easy to understand. 

Do we need to know where we are going?

 

 "Whether heading for the Pure Land

Or heading for Hell

All is in Amida's hands.

Namu-amida-butsu!"

 

 (Amida = Reality-as-is

Namu-amida-butsu, loosely translated:- "Thank you")

 

Much like the words of Meister Eckhart (again), that if the only prayer we ever made was "Thank You" it would be enough. Thank you in ALL circumstances, which is the key. Which is the difficulty, the challenge. 

As per the Great Way of the Hsin Hsin Ming ( "Faith in Mind" ):-

"The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences."

Well, I've waffled enough. My coffee is getting cold. 

All the best to you

Derek/Tariki/Dookie and (as I am now known on a Mental Health Forum, "Telegram Sam")

[tariki]

On 7/17/2024 at 2:52 AM, PaulS said:

I think the 'science' of it all is😀 simply that our thoughts and feelings are simply chemical reactions going on in the brain, and some bodies produce more/less chemicals than others.  Some people are genetically good 'feelers', others perhaps genetically academically inclined.  Others again perhaps simply need help producing some chemicals.

Welcome back to the Forum, @tariki

Thank you. Yes, "chemical reactions". I've had the way paroxetine works explained to me. All to do with serotonin:-

Serotonin (/ˌsɛrəˈtoʊnɪn, ˌsɪərə-/ or 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) is a monoamine neurotransmitter. Its biological function is complex, touching on diverse functions including mood, cognition, reward, learning, memory, and numerous physiological processes such as vomiting and vasoconstriction.

(Wiki)

Apparently some have more of it than others. 

So we can either look at the Buddha holding up a flower, or just keep taking the tablets!

😀

 

 

[PaulS]

37 minutes ago, tariki said:

Thank you. Yes, "chemical reactions". I've had the way paroxetine works explained to me. All to do with serotonin:-

Serotonin (/ˌsɛrəˈtoʊnɪn, ˌsɪərə-/ or 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) is a monoamine neurotransmitter. Its biological function is complex, touching on diverse functions including mood, cognition, reward, learning, memory, and numerous physiological processes such as vomiting and vasoconstriction.

(Wiki)

Apparently some have more of it than others. 

So we can either look at the Buddha holding up a flower, or just keep taking the tablets!

😀

I had it explained to me once that serotonin is like brake fluid.  Due to our circumstances and life events, we hit the brakes a number of times and use up some brake fluid (I know that's not quite how cars work, but let's run with it ).  For some people, they have to hit the brakes a lot more times than others, and subsequently can run low on brake fluid (serotonin).  That's all.  Prescription medicine and other strategies can help top up that brake fluid and help the driver get back on track.  Like all cars, models vary!  

[tariki]

On 7/20/2024 at 11:04 AM, PaulS said:

I had it explained to me once that serotonin is like brake fluid.  Due to our circumstances and life events, we hit the brakes a number of times and use up some brake fluid (I know that's not quite how cars work, but let's run with it ).  For some people, they have to hit the brakes a lot more times than others, and subsequently can run low on brake fluid (serotonin).  That's all.  Prescription medicine and other strategies can help top up that brake fluid and help the driver get back on track.  Like all cars, models vary!  

Thanks. Apparently, serotonin does its work then is reabsorbed by our bodies. Antidepressants such as Paroxetine and Sertroline inhibit the reabsortion therefore leaving more to go around. 

[tariki]

Well, I'm ploughing on with Mr Caputo's "Hope Against Hope", this alongside Candy Soda Crush Saga (now at level 4630 and not a penny spent on boosters!) and a biography of Brian Jones, who founded the Rolling Stones and sadly died too young. 

 

John Caputo's book is becoming slightly repetitive, this in the sense of saying the same thing in many different ways. The rose that blooms simply because it blooms, or as per the Dharma, the gift that has no giver or receiver. Mr Caputo makes much of the word "insists" (rather than God existing or not existing, He insists)

As explained:-

.....the pure gift would be found only where no one knows that anyone gave anyone anything. The pure gift does not exist. Let us say that it “insists”—watch this term. I will deploy it throughout to mean something that does not quite exist but still makes itself felt; something that calls upon us, lure us, solicits us.....

 

Mr Caputo explains this, or seeks to, from every angle, after his own journey through modern philosophy. The best thing is that a child can understand it as a living truth, while - as the Good Book says - the wise are sent empty away. 

Well, I might not finish the book, but will finish the biography of Brian Jones, a real page turner. Not lurid or sensational in any way, but bringing forth the part he played in the genesis of the Rolling Stones. A great musician, expert on the slide guitar as well as impregnating young ladies. 

That's it for the moment, I have a nice cup of coffee in front of me, still hot, and shopping to get.

[tariki]

I've mentioned reading the biography of Brian Jones. I've always loved biographies, often of artistic people. There is a lot of sludge amongst the "pop" biographies, with sleaze, sex and pure sensationalism taking up much of the text. But you can find some good stuff on those like Frank Zappa who had much to say and often said it well. But even books on the Marc Bolan's of our world can provide some entertaining stories and information.

I tend to like the early days of the various artists and groups. I've read a few on the Rolling Stones and the pre-first single release days are very interesting, capturing the times of the early sixties, particularly in London in the music scene. Those early days of the Stones makes me think of a quote from Keith Richards, who has said:-       

They come up to me in the street and say 'How do we get to be really big and earn lots of money? What do you have to do to make a good group?' and I say 'Well, look, why don't you try starving?'

 

Keith (known affectionately as Keef) is the guy who has just five strings on his guitar. He has explained about this in detail in his own Auto-biography but even though I do play the guitar I never understood a word.

 

But Keef has said:-

Five strings, three chords, two fingers, one arsehole and you've got it.....

.....which explains it in simple language that even I can understand, maybe like a zen koan......😀

Sometimes amid the usual stories something surprising pops up, like in a biography of Charlie Watts, the Stones drummer, which contained this about his wife Shirley:-

Shirley became owner, breeder and an expert in husbandry of her beloved Halsdon Arabian horses, named for the stud farm where they resided. Under the stewardship of Shirley and her team they grew from a small number of riding horses to the ‘universally esteemed breeding powerhouse of over 250’, as the Tom Arabians website described it.
She never granted interviews as a rock wife, but Shirley spoke in huge detail to the site about her daily life in the stables of Halsdon. She said of her philosophy: ‘It is not rocket science, it is simply paying attention to the needs of each horse, both physiologically and psychologically. This understanding involves awareness, which can only be achieved through daily contact with the horses and intimate appreciation for the unique nature of each horse.’
She also discussed what she enjoyed most about her noble Arabians, and her answer was revealing about the peace that she and her husband had found far from the madding music industry. ‘Just being among them,’ she said. ‘I love to feel the heat of their bodies, to listen to the rhythmic cadence of their breathing, to relish in the quiet satisfaction of belonging.
‘Horses always give you the intention of what they feel towards you. I so enjoy this interaction, as each horse has its own unique personality and approach towards human interaction. To find that acceptance with horses is the most satisfying. They make us feel like we belong.
‘The Arabian horse has taught me so very much in life, humility most of all,’ she concluded. ‘One experiences the entire spectrum of emotions in a life with horses, from great joy and overwhelming exhilaration to deep sorrow and tragic loss. I feel more alive to have experienced life alongside the horse. There is so much pleasure to be had each day. It is the great circle of life. It is a bond unlike any other.’

Anyway, maybe I have waffled enough. 

[tariki]

Well, I've been getting back to John Caputo and his book "Hoping Against Hope". 

I've now reached the point where I have lost any understanding of what he is seeking to say. 

He has spoken of the mistake of thinking the "good" and the "true" are always up ahead, in some future time. "Temporal things are seen as a step on a ladder of ascent to eternity."

He speaks instead of the "rose" blooming among the "non-knowers" who look to the "now" - and such is enough. 

He speaks of exactly why "Yahweh" would not want us to be "as Gods" and become "immortal", and advocates the good to be realised in our mortality. Simply for its own sake. 

The promise of a reward for any good that we do he calls "a kind of blackmail that has kept a certain kind of religion in business for far too long." 

 

John Caputo:-

Is a painting nullified because it has a frame, or a playing field because it has foul lines? Such limits do not destroy these things; on the contrary, they make them possible.....

.........the focus of classical eschatology on life after death is replaced with a new focus on life before death.......The mistake is to think that time is wasted unless it is put into gainful service as a means to gain eternal rewards. It is an illusion to think that a thing has to last forever to be worthy of unconditional love, that it has to reward us with eternal life, otherwise we are wasting our time on it. That I consider the real laying waste to time.

Well, I am with him. I can understand this. But then he drifts into what Buddhists would see as "duality". He speaks of the unconditional actuality of love, of the moment, and he creates this question as being put to him:-

Maybe the unconditional is eternal. Why not?

John Caputo answers:-

The eternal is what cannot not be. But the condition of the unconditional is the risk that it just might not be, that it will not happen. The eternal is necessary; the unconditional is exposed to the “perhaps.” So not only may the unconditional not be eternal, it cannot be eternal. There cannot be a promise unless there is a threat. There cannot be a good unless it is menaced by evil. There cannot be a real journey unless we are good and lost.......it is precisely our mortality that makes our life unconditionally precious, the inhuman that makes us cling to life so tenaciously, like lovers in the night who know they must part in the morning.

I can't really understand this, the first part. Maybe I'm just dense. The whole quote seems a mixture of duality and non-duality, with no genuine resolution. The "Circle of the Way" of Dogen is broken open. A conclusion has been reached!

Well others, if they can be bothered with all this, may not agree. I just seek for clarity of mind. 

Getting back to the book, I am near the end. I wait to see if Mr Caputo addresses the issue of the vast majority of humankind, throughout the centuries, who have fallen well short of any "blooming of roses" in the moment, or who have in fact been born into a life of suffering which I have been fortunate enough not to know. 

Can we truly embrace our "mortality" amid such a degree of suffering? 

Edited July 31 by tariki

[PaulS]

14 hours ago, tariki said:

Can we truly embrace our "mortality" amid such a degree of suffering? 

My two bob's worth:

I kinda think the only thing we have is our mortality - so we can choose to either embrace it or ignore it - our choice.

Suffering/Joy - the universe is oblivious to whatever we define it. Existence just is.  Often it doesn't seem pleasant, sometimes it seems amazing. But usually, in less than 100 years of it, it is finished for us, and that's that. Sure, we can care about what comes after us, but only whilst we are conscious.

So whilst I don't know throughout the book what Mr Caputo is getting at, I wonder if he is taking a bit of an 'optimistic nihilism' approach - a nihilist in the sense that we all die and that's that, but optimistic in the sense that we can work towards having a good experience of our short existence? What defines 'good experience' is open to interpretation I would suggest.

[tariki]

On 8/1/2024 at 12:57 AM, PaulS said:

My two bob's worth:

I kinda think the only thing we have is our mortality - so we can choose to either embrace it or ignore it - our choice.

Suffering/Joy - the universe is oblivious to whatever we define it. Existence just is.  Often it doesn't seem pleasant, sometimes it seems amazing. But usually, in less than 100 years of it, it is finished for us, and that's that. Sure, we can care about what comes after us, but only whilst we are conscious.

So whilst I don't know throughout the book what Mr Caputo is getting at, I wonder if he is taking a bit of an 'optimistic nihilism' approach - a nihilist in the sense that we all die and that's that, but optimistic in the sense that we can work towards having a good experience of our short existence? What defines 'good experience' is open to interpretation I would suggest.

Thanks Paul, always happy for anyone to chip in and interrupt my own rambles. More often than not whatever is posted sets me off onto further rambling, so others can blame you....😀  

Existence certainly just "is" but what it "is" is the question. Myself, I tend to think that once we settle upon a final answer, reach a conclusion, then we are as good as dead. 

 "Our Mortality" can be such an answer, a conclusion, certainly today when such is the "spirit of the age", breathed in the air around us - with all its implications. "When you are dead you are dead" and all that's left is "tales told by idiots, signifying nothing." Making the most of nihilism. Sorry, saying this is by no means a " judgement" or an "accusation" against anyone,  just  the thoughts of my own mind. 

But to me "embracing our mortality" are only words, but the words are weighted with assumptions. The assumptions then create our very own axioms....

 

That girls are raped, that two boys knife a third,
   Were axioms to him, who'd never heard
Of any world where promises were kept,
Or one could weep because another wept.

(W H Auden)

 

.......or others.....but whatever our axioms are, we begin to solidify as "selves", set in our ways, our anticipations, and finally the world simply comes back to us as echoes. 

 

Conveying oneself toward all things to carry out practice-enlightenment is delusion. All things coming and carrying out practice-enlightenment through the self is realization. (Dogen)

 

How do we allow the world to come to us, without our imprint upon it? Is it possible?

 

Why is their Something rather than Nothing? What is our very own Cosmology......which introduces a passage from "Zen Cosmology" by Dan Berringer:-

 

Affirmation of God does not require projection of a macro-substance, an impregnable identity, a secure foundation, to which one must cling, and which constricts the freedom of the spirit. The Buddhist deconstruction of such a God could be a service to biblical faith, overcoming a God who is substance for a God who is Spirit, and who is thus more, not less real.

Our cosmology functions as the very foundation of our conduct. We think, speak, and act in the world in accordance with what our understanding of the world is. The more our view of reality diverges from the way reality actually is, the more unreliable our thoughts, words, and deeds in reality will be. One does not need to be a scientist to recognize we would do well to establish a more reliable cosmology – and sooner rather than later.

Later on, Berringer writes:-

......as Zen contends, knowledge (epistemology) and existence (ontology) are not two different things – our ‘cosmology’ is not simply how we see the universe it is how the universe is actualized. The significance of this point is succinctly illustrated in the following observation by Hee-Jin Kim concerning Dogen’s (hence Zen’s) view of the unity of knowledge and reality: "To Dogen, mind was at once knowledge and reality, at once the knowing subject and the known object, yet it transcended them both at the same time. In this nondual conception of mind, what one knew was what one was—and ontology, epistemology, and soteriology were inseparably united."

 

The point is, such is not fixed. It is always "Now" but Now is always on the move and can never be finally captured. At least, not by words. 

What is the difference between saying that "meaning" is inherent in Reality but such meaning is unique to each, ongoing, not fixed - and saying that there is no meaning except what each unique being chooses to believe and live? Is there any difference? I tend to think that there is, but my thoughts lack clarity on the issue. 

But I am a good little Buddhist, and seek the "heartwood of the Dharma":-

So this holy life.....does not have gain, honour, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit, or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood, and its end.

 

Anyway, having questioned the word "mortality" and its possible implications, I am not sneaking immortality in by the back door - in fact I'm not sneaking anything in. No conclusions. Which I can trace to the so called "Silence of the Buddha" on all metaphysical questions - any conclusion, belief, answer, is inimicable to the Holy Life , the road to the end of suffering.

There is a Biblical Proverb:- "Those who answer a thing before they hear it, it is a shame and a folly unto them"

What is it to truly "hear" a thing? Is there a "thing" to be heard once and for all and the job is done, and we wait for our eternal reward when we have said "Yes"? Or is what is to be heard constantly on the move, yet with a direction toward Buddha (as Dogen claimed). The Circle of the Way. 

Well, my rambling has taken up a half hour or so while I drink my coffee.