can we see, with our eyes closed?
 

When Beethoven was 44, he lost his hearing completely...

but he kept on composing...he heard with his eyes and his hands and his heart...

but his 9th symphony lives on...

when Helen Keller learned about water, she saw with her hands and her skin...

and when she wrote, she wrote it from the dark world that was probably brighter than most people could imagine...

When Harriet Tubman was injured while she was escaping, she became visually impaired and suffered seizures....

but when she helped her fellow slaves escaped, she saw with her hands and her feet and it showed them the road to freedom....

~~~~~~~~~~~~

to me, a good leader is one that will see with their ears, hear with their eyes, listen with their hearts, and walk through obstacles that are ahead, crawl when objects are high, leap when hurdles are placed infront of them and when things get dark, they are able to see the light...and not giving in to the dark world...

and really, for me, personally...talk as little as possible, cause usually, that's just air....

interesting Moi, I liked that, didn't someone once write "seeing with eyes closed is easy to do, misunderstanding is all you see"

Frank, I think it was John Lennon. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see."

- John Lennon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think I have been reading too much philosphy books lately...

Plato was Aristotle's teacher but they have opposite views:

Plato's view was: People are inherently good

Aristotle's view: while people could be taught to be good, they are generally more self-interested, hence his claim in The Politics that “man is by nature a political animal."

I just thought it was interesting...and it is an on going debate.

your avatar reminded me of a few things as I hide yak my own thread...

I love Notre Dame. It is my favorite uni. :)

When I was in Paris, I made it a point to go to the Notre Dame Cathedral

but it was the Panthéon that I really was looking forward to visiting.

Buried there (finally) was Voltaire, one of my favorite philosophers...

Why I love Voltaire:

TRIGGERING, DO NOT READ IF YOU UPSET EASILY

Jean Calas was a shopkeeper from Toulouse who lived his life of quiet anonymity with his wife and six children.

On March 16 1762, Jean Calas was tied between two iron rings and stretched until....(I'll let you look the rest up if you are interested...)

he did not die, then, they subjected him to "question extraordinaire"...

he did NOT die...

they then bound him to a scaffold, and...(too graphic)

he still did NOT die..

they finally took pity on him, and they helped him to his death...

Voltaire was a rich and powerful person at this time. He was in exile from France.

He became champion of the oppressed...

He did dangerous things for the people...he didn't have to do that....he was a rich and powerful man else where, he could've just retired and lived out the rest of his life in comfort, he didn't....

and it took him three years, but he cleared Calas name...(if anyone is interested, please look up Jean Calas)

When we learned about Jean Calas in my philosophy class in college...the whole class was appalled...and it made me wanted to go "see" Voltaire if I was ever to go to Paris...

and I did...

his body was buried else where and wasn't allowed back and was finally buried at the Panthéon...

I guess in a way, that was what I was thinking of today....

today, is one of those days that my brain is everywhere....

:grouphug:

No, no, no, it was Lennon who said, "Into every life a little milk must spill and it's best on top of oatmeal (not that nasty instant kind either)." duh.

hmmmmm...I had thought McCartney said that? Cause I believe that was followed by...

"Milk...on the run....Milk..on the run....while the oatmeal burned, on the stove it churned...and was mushed for everyone...."

(thanks for the smile :) )

I think that what you're asking, moi, is interesting. In many respects, you do not need your eyes or ears to see or hear. People with those things often don't really see or hear.

Have you heard about the condition known as synesthesia?
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/syne.html

It's pretty amazing and very intriguing.


Know that's not really what you're asking about but....


Explain clairvoyance. Explain ESP. Explain precognition. Sight is relative.

As for seeing or hearing internally, I think all of us can if we choose to look. Whether or not we take in what we see is a different story, but we can learn so much from true introspection.

Never took a philosophy course. Would love to have done that. Need to educate myself more along those lines. It's like looking at Zen and the sound of one hand clapping. Or breathing through your skin while doing yoga. The mind's an amazing place.

Good or political? Why taught? Can we not innately know that something is not good?

As someone who has clairvoyance and precognition, I always find it intriguing how the mind could possibly know? And why only at certain times and certain things? Why is it sometimes something profound yet at others something seemingly meaningless?

"I have heard of the rainbows, of the stars, of the play of light upon the waves. These I would like to see. But far more than sight, I wish for my ears to be opened. The voice of a friend, the happy noises of community, the imaginations of Mozart.... Life without these, is darker far than blindness."
Helen Keller:wink:

I asked my friends one time if they had to loose their sight or hearing which would they choose?

Most of them said they would rather loose their sight. I myself would rather loose my sight because I love the sounds of life...:hug::hug::hug:

LOL ole hooved beaky one...

I have heard of synesthesia in passing so had a basic idea but not indepth. Thank you for including the link. Very interesting. Will have to read up on it a bit more (*smacks head, dangit, more things to learn. LOL)

as to my original post, it was more philosophical than anything even though, on a minute scale, each can be proven independently (that is why I added the Beethoven, Helen Keller,and Harriet Tubman)

I guess what I was trying to convey is that I believe one is usually blinded by perceptions. And the perceptions are often perceived to be THE truth. And while it might be the truth, it is NOT the WHOLE truth...(when I say "one", I usually mean me. LOL)

I've always liked this story of the 6 blind men, each feeling a part of the elephant.

when asked to describe what an elephant is, one said an elephant is this long and soft tube (nose), the other one said no, an elephant is fan-like (the ear) and then the other one described that the elephant is like a tree trunk (legs), and so on and so forth,

each described a part of an elephant, and so, it is still an elephant, but it is NOT the whole elephant.

but does that mean that what we see means that it's an elephant?

If I was to put a soft flexible nose on a let's say...gazelle ;) ..put a couple of fans on it's ears, parade it around and say that it is an elephant to a crowd that has never seen an elephant.

So, the next time one of these people sees an actual elephant and are told that it is an elephant, that person (Juan, or one, or me) would probably NOT believe that is an elephant because he/she had seen "the" elephant (gazelle)

since zen is brought up, zen masters usually propose that consciousness beyond perception, thoughts and beliefs.

here is a good quote from Gary Zukav, the Dancing Wu Li Masters:

"'Reality' is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends upon what we think. What we think depends upon what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality."

Now, I really don't know the answers...when one reads philosophy, they walk away with more questions than answers and then one gets a huge headache cause each question leads to more questions and well...:thud:

however, the Zen masters have come up with something called "koans"

those are intractable, insoluble conundrums to which the student must find an answer, the answer, however, is NOT reached by any means of logic or thought. Usually, the answer is an experience.

This part of the philosophy kinda works for me. Because here is one of most basic philosophical questions.

Which came first, the egg or the chicken?

Does it matter? Life is a balance and a cycle. When one looks at a circle, how do one tell where it began or where it ended?

Plato and Aristotle both had their own views. But I think both were right to a certain extent...(I think Plato might've been a democrat and Aristotle, a republican. LOL ;) )

are we innately good?

If one was to refer to the bible, we were all born sinners.

If one were to ask the Taoist (Confucius branch of thinking), they claim that we are all born innocent. So, who knows. LOL

I have no clue on clairvoyance, ESP, nor precognition but I am open to anything...although ESP might be MSG, who knows. LOL

I am not very smart, I tend to ask more questions than I have answers...but that's how I learn...and sometimes, I ask questions that reflect how I feel...thus that was my post.

You've raised some very interesting philosophical questions and they are really worth delving into. It's always nice. :)

I will end this with one of my favorite Philosophers, St. Thomas Aquinas. Who, as a Catholic, was open to Aristotle's methods.

Thus it made him "see" beyond the Catholic teachings at the time (not flaming Catholics, just that period of time) by "listening" to Aristotle's method that one must recognize what is to be assumed and what is to be proven before thinking can get under way.

Knowledge builds on itself, and some disciplines nearer the top of the edifice are dependent on the truths below; they get going with assumptions grounded elsewhere.

However, he also offered this view: (in his Quinque Viae)

A stone moves, and this was caused by a stick which pushed it along, and this was caused by a hand, holding on to the stick, which moved it.

Nothing, is a cause of itself;rather, causes are causes of other things, their dinstinct effects. An infinite regression of casual sequences is not possible (this can actually be backed up by theory of relativity[somewhat])

and it comes down to that there must be a FIRST, to this, Aquinas calls "GOD" (a beginning)

now, I am not a religious person nor do I want to turn this into a religious thread. But it makes sense to me. I am open to it... :)

thanks for posting, I really enjoy learning...and I am sincere in saying this and that is...the more everyone posts, the more I learn...and I know that I am at fault a lot...but that's OK...that's how I learn. :)

I mean, who KNEW John Lennon said something about milk and oatmeal (and NOT the instant kind!!) And all this time, I had thought it was his sister, Shawn Linen. She might have said, when milk and oatmeal are burnt, the pot calls the kettle to whine...

well, can you tell me what the next lottery number is gonna be? LOLOL
just kidding.

you've asked a very good philosophical question, actually...and this is my take on it.

I think if the mind doesn't ask something meaningless and always ask the profound, we'd go crazy...yet, if we don't ask the profound and only ask for the meaningless, we turn into Homer Simpson...

I think it is a good balance that with what we are given, we are allowed to be stupid and have fun. Yet, we are also allowed to think deep and drive ourselves bananas...

:)