Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything.

Discuss the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes.

To post in this forum, you must buy and read the book. After buying the book, please upload a screenshot of your receipt or proof or purchase via OnlineBookClub. Once the moderators approve your purchase at OnlineBookClub, you will then also automatically be given access to post in this forum.
Forum rules
This forum is for discussing the book In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All. Anyone can view the forum and read the post, but only people who purchased the book can post in the forum.

If your purchase has not already been verified (i.e. if you don't already have access to post in this forum), then please upload a screenshot of your receipt or proof or purchase via OnlineBookClub. Once the moderators approve your purchase at OnlineBookClub, you will then also automatically be given access to post in this forum.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5901
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

This is a discussion forum topic for the Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


Noteworthy preface: In the below post, when I use the blunt phrase "overthinking", I am using it without any judgement, prescriptiveness, or negative connotation. In other words, I'm not saying 'overthinking' is a type of thinking that people "shouldn't" do (whatever that would mean), or that those who do it are "evil" or "immoral" for doing it (whatever that would mean). Rather, I am using the term 'overthinking' in a merely descriptive and totally non-judgemental sense, similar to explaining to a customer that they accidentally overpaid before giving the customer a refund for that overpayment. Another example would be this: while teaching my beloved son a sport, I lovingly mention to my son that he "overshot" the basket on that shot as a reference to the fact that the distance the ball went is higher and farther than the distance of the basket. In the context I am using it, in words like 'overthinking', 'overpaying', and 'overshooting', the prefix 'over' is simply an objective non-judgemental amoral distance-like measurement that simply means the measured distance or quantity is 'more than' some other relative measurable distance or quantity (e.g. the listed or market price of the item being bought, the actual distance of the basket, etc.). Thus, 'overthinking' simply means 'more thinking than' some other amount of thinking such as the amount of thinking that would most efficiently get a particular job done that one wants to do (i.e. the minimum cost in thinking to get the intended job done). Thinking is the price you pay to get certain things and achieve certain goals, and overthinking is simply paying more than the necessary cost to get the thing or achieve the goal. Overthinking is thus simply a particular type of (a.k.a. subset of) overpaying. When in doubt, I suggest you simply replace the word 'overthinking' with the more general word 'overpaying', keeping in mind that you can pay for and buy things not just with your limited money but also with your limited time and limited mental energy. That is an important note of clarification, because otherwise (i.e. if I was saying or believing that people "shouldn't" overthink, or are "immoral" or "evil" or "resentment-worthy" for doing it), then I'd be thereby doing the very overthinking of which I am speaking. It would be inherently hypocritical and paradoxical and self-contradiction. It would be like saying, "You shouldn't say should," or saying, "try to not try". To negatively judge or resent or hate or moralizingly condemn overthinking is to overthink.

With that clarification in my mind, let's proceed...

In an earlier topic, I pointed out that concepts of preference only make sense when it comes to your choices (i.e. what's in your control).

The other side of that is this: concepts of truth (and falsehood) and agreement (and disagreement) only make sense in regard to objective propositions (i.e. meaningful statements that have an objective truth value).

The human mind is prone to something often called "overthinking", which produces a lot of anxiety, superstitions, worry, and confusion.

Consider these absurd incoherent questions:

- "Do you agree with that hurricane that happened yesterday? I know you agree that it happened, but do you agree with its happening?"

- "When a same-sex couple has consenting sex in the privacy of their own house, do you agree with them doing that?"

- "Do you want to change the past? I know we both agree that changing the past is impossible, but don't you want to do what you cannot do?"

Those are just a tiny few examples of infinite, where the words and/or the human mind itself incoherently apply concepts that only work for a certain type of function to something else, such as applying truth concepts (true/false/agree/disagree) to non-propositions, or applying preference concepts to non-choices.

Inner peace is, in part, simply a state in which you've let go of all of those kind of incoherent questions, and by extension thus let go of all the incoherent judgementalism, needless worry, and anxious overthinking that that kind of exhausting nonsense and exhausting superstition entail.

Many people behave as if they have unlimited space in their brain to give away rent-free.

In contrast, one reason I am so wary of superstitious judgementalism is that, if I am going to give away rent-free space in my very small finite human brain by thinking about you (or something else), I'd at least tend to prefer to give it to coherent thoughts that actually make sense. Even if you ask me a question that makes sense and has an objective yes/no answer, I'm not obliged to spend valuable time and limited mental resources thinking about it and giving you an answer. But it's usually all I can do to hold in my laughter when the question is something as incoherent and thus unanswerable as, "Do you agree with homosexual sex?", "Do you agree with the hurricane that happened", "Do you want to change the past?", "Wouldn't you prefer if 2+2=5?", "Are rabid dogs resentment-worthy and hate-worthy? Don't they deserve to be hated and resented?", or any question with a word like "should", "ought", "immoral", "evil".

Especially for those who don't meditate and practice mindfulness and/or who aren't deeply in touch with what we could call their inner or spiritual spaciousness and the conscious silence between words, and especially for people's whose minds are crowded with loud rushed thoughts, the human mind is prone to asking questions that don't make sense and to giving incoherent answers to questions that don't make sense. Sometimes it's the asker of the incoherent question, sometimes it is the incoherent answerer of the incoherent question, and often times it's both at once: the incoherent self-asker and the incoherent answerer. That is often called "overthinking", or sometimes 'stewing' or 'ruing'.

In analogy, I am the type of human that if I ate every time I was hungry and didn't stop eating until I wasn't hungry anymore, I would die of morbid obesity within a year or two. 😅 For me, that would be overeating in that it related to eating in the way overthinking relates to thinking.

As this human we call Eckhart, my genetic code and bodily urges didn't evolve in an environment where that instinct to eat so much was so deadly, but rather the opposite. In a sense, this human body I have was designed for an environment where food was often scare and unreliable, and death would only come from not eating enough versus having too much. The caveman who stuffed himself until he felt sick and almost threw up was the one who survived when a few days later the food runs out and he doesn't get to eat for weeks. Not having an absurdly strong appetite was a recipe for death, and having some kind of urge to moderate the food was effectively pointless.

All humans experience a similar pattern when it comes to the brain's urge to think, judge, and explain. I don't know if curiosity killed the cat, but I know evolved instincts make a lot of modern humans miserable. It's like living in a world of USB-Cs when all you have there's old USB-B chargers. It's like living in a world of Androids and Android changers when all you have is an original iPhone and iPhone charger. It's like only having a ancient flip-phone in a near-future world where all charging cords and ports are gone and all phone charging is done wirelessly, similar to the move from cabled TV and cabled internet to wifi. Sometimes it can even feel like you weren't made for this world. It can feel like you were made for one that existed a long time ago.

The human doesn't tend to say, "I don't know", and then be quiet with a smile, even if that is the most accurate answer and most reasonable response. When asked what it thinks about something, it doesn't tend to say, "I don't think about that," and then be quiet with a smile, even if that would be the most honest, accurate, and reasonable response.

Rather than be quiet and peaceful, the brain tends to incessantly judge things by applying rating concepts that don't even make sense to things to which they obviously don't even apply (e.g. applying truth concepts such as true/false/agree/disagree to non-propositions, or applying preference concepts to non-choices).

All human minds do that to some extent, which is part of why all humans are on the addiction spectrum, but the path of inner peace my book teaches isn't primarily about reducing let alone eliminating the outdated urges, bodily feelings, and judgemental nonsense the brain tends to incessantly think, but simply realizing you don't need to believe it or be attached to it. If the mind lies or says some judgemental gibberish, which generally all humans do a lot, you can just notice it with a spiritual smile without agreeing with it and without believing it. In other words, that form of inner peace is just a matter of realizing you aren't the thinker of those judgemental or nonsensical thoughts, or any thoughts, but rather the listener.

There's a sort of beautiful strangeness to the fact that there even is a listener, i.e. that you, the real you, even exist. In philosophy, that's called the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

It's deeply connected to--and in a way the same things as--something that even 99% of PhD scientists just don't get or continually forget: That there is no universal now; that there is no objective now; that there is no universal or objective present; that simultaneity is relative; that events don't even have an objective order, meaning what comes first, second, or third between three events is like the difference between what is to left or the right; that time, at least as it's commonly understood, is a total and utter illusion; that without consciousness there is no present or presence at all of any kind. That's all mostly just different ways of describing the same one Hard Problem of Consciousness: The fact that the human you see in the mirror has this seemingly transcendental listener (you) that sees that particular one human at that particular one age (not even an hour older or an hour younger) as the center of the universe in 4D spacetime whose nose happens to always point forward, whose clock ticks at one second per second, and whose and age and position determines left vs right, past vs future, space vs time. It's the seeming paradox between the objective unreality of time, the relativity of simultaneity, and the undeniable of presence (i.e. consciousness). Roughly speaking, it's the problem people get at when they ask, "What makes the now now?" It wasn't as much an obvious mystery and seeming paradox in classical physics and Newton's physics, because Newton's physics (which turned out to be utterly wrong) had an objective now. There was a "the now". But when you accept and understand the fact that there is no "the now", in the same sense there is no "the left" or "the right", then you really start to understand what that question scratches at and why the Hard Problem is so Hard: "What makes the now now?"

Another way of saying the same question is this: Since Einstein proved there is no "the now", why do I (a conscious being) have this conscious experience of there being a now, as if a certain chunk or certain slice of the block universe was realer or more highlighted than any other. Another way I've heard people describe the Hard Problem is this: Why does it feel like something is happening? If all-aged versions of the human I see in the mirror live in the same unchanging timeless block universe as each other (and as all other humans ever from Jesus to Martians in Earth year 3,000), why does it seem like I am only this one specific-aged version of this specific human, and what is that--from here looking through this human's mind and eyes--I seem to know more than I know anything that something is happening?

But be careful not to overthink it.

Remember that just because a question can be asked, doesn't mean it can be answered or that even has an answer. Remember that even if a question has a non-verbal answer that doesn't a verbal one.

Not all sentences have truth values, and not all truths can be expressed in sentences or even with words at all

Indeed, when people ask me any question with sentences that use very equivocal words like 'free-will' or 'god', I often like to say is this: What I know more than I know anything is the futility of words and the reality of the indescribable.

When describing the indescribable, I suggest being flexible in the words you use; that is, if you use words at all and don't instead choose to enjoy the space between words, and the dimension of infinite depth to be found there, such as one finds in the conscious silence consciously experience in a conscious but silent and thoughtless meditating mind.

You can have invincible inner peace and be acceptingly and appreciatingly present (a.k.a. conscious), and be more present in your unique present, all without fully understanding what presence is.

It might seem unaswerable or to scratch at the indescribable to ask, "Considering there is no objective now, hat makes the now now?"

But if you ask it without words, and answer it without words, maybe it's easy. Maybe it's infinitely easy. Maybe it's harder to explain science itself than it is to explain consciousness. Maybe the easy answer was in there all along in each and every one of all those many different ancient spiritual books and texts by great empirical scholars and thinkers thousands of years ago, from all over the world, all saying the same thing in different words, despite living so far apart and having no contact. When so many people come independently to the same conclusion that says something. Sometimes we have to look past the differing words to see the shared meaning and the easy truth.

When someone asks you, "What do you think about X?", feel free to just say, "I don't." :)


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott




It's okay. It's just an artifact of memetic evolution. ;)
It's okay. It's just an artifact of memetic evolution. ;)





In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program, both for the free option and the paid option.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Surabhi Rani
Premium Member
Posts: 121
Joined: November 3rd, 2022, 3:21 am

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Surabhi Rani »

Good thoughts about the gossip of mind. 'The words are futile and the reality is indescribable' is a great expression. An experience of truth. Not all truths can be expressed in sentences or even with words at all. We can be more present in our unique present, all without fully understanding what presence is.
User avatar
Mounce574
Premium Member
Posts: 164
Joined: October 8th, 2021, 2:24 am
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Mounce574 »

I believe that who am I to judge. So many people spend time trying to fix the world instead of focusing on taking care of what is happening in their home. While I may disagree with another person's lifestyle choices, as long as they are not forcing their values on me, I have no reason to force mine upon them.
"Facts don't care about your feelings." Ben Shapiro
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." NF from Motto
Rahul Singh 29
Premium Member
Posts: 23
Joined: October 9th, 2023, 5:06 am

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Rahul Singh 29 »

You bring up an important point. In the science of thought and communication, not every statement contains the correct truth, nor does every sentence need to convey a meaningful message. It is completely normal to have no idea about everything because some topics may not be relevant to a person's knowledge or interests. Choosing to engage in a conversation and form a sense of what is important to you can lead to a more productive and meaningful conversation.
Sargam Talreja
Premium Member
Posts: 6
Joined: September 20th, 2023, 1:28 pm

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Sargam Talreja »

The idea emphasizes resisting the urge to constantly form opinions or pass judgements on every statement or subject. Every person is unique, with distinct experiences, beliefs, and values that influence their interpretation of information and the importance they attribute to it. I agree that it's entirely acceptable not to possess a comprehensive understanding because not everything neatly fits into the categories of true or false. Instead, we can maximize the use of our existing knowledge, enjoy the present moment, and simply exist in the here and now.
MehulPan
Posts: 10
Joined: November 13th, 2023, 7:10 pm

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by MehulPan »

That's so true. Like, somethings you say things for the hell of it. Not everything is for everyone to understand.
Abbra Marsh
Premium Member
Posts: 17
Joined: November 13th, 2023, 7:19 pm

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Abbra Marsh »

I've realized that my mind tends to overthink, creating unnecessary confusion and anxiety. Inner peace comes when I let go of incoherent questions and avoid unnecessary mental clutter. It's about embracing a mindset that appreciates clarity and avoids needless judgment.
Mara Valentina
Premium Member
Posts: 10
Joined: November 22nd, 2023, 7:00 am

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Mara Valentina »

I agree with this statement. Not everything has a truth value, and not every sentence has meaning. We do not need to have an opinion about everything. In fact, it is often better to reserve judgment and not have an opinion. I believe that it is important to be aware of the limitations of our own knowledge and understanding. We should not be afraid to admit that we do not know everything, and we should be open to learning new things.
Patel Khushi Manishbhai
Premium Member
Posts: 1
Joined: November 29th, 2023, 12:40 am

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Patel Khushi Manishbhai »

In psychology, these are what we call natural concepts, thoughts not following a precise dimension but rather loopholes of if, condition and if not. An example is that, most often we hate annoying character more that we hate those who have committed heinous crimes. This just shows how indifferent but also completely attached we can be to a thing.
User avatar
Bavithra Karthikeyan
Premium Member
Posts: 7
Joined: August 4th, 2023, 2:31 am

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Bavithra Karthikeyan »

I totally agree! Not all sentences have a meaning. Not everything is said in the sense of truth. Moreover, the sense of truth is surprisingly less available. Having an opinion about everything will never give us a calm mind. Sometimes letting go of certain things will make you more happier than giving an opinion.
Mindful Wordsmith
Premium Member
Posts: 14
Joined: November 3rd, 2022, 10:16 am

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Mindful Wordsmith »

I'm an occasional overthinker. But accepting that I don't know something, not having an opinion about the said matter and just smiling is a calming exercise I practice often. I highly recommend it to all fellow overthinkers.
Tom Blake
Premium Member
Posts: 21
Joined: November 25th, 2023, 7:12 pm

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Tom Blake »

Navigating the delicate balance between mental activity and inner peace, I've learned to recognize and ease the tendency to overthink. Embracing inner peace involves letting go of needless judgment and worry. In a world of incoherent questions, finding moments of mindful silence is a precious practice. The Hard Problem of Consciousness intrigues me, urging contemplation on the nature of existence. Flexibility with words and appreciation for the space within conscious silence align with my pursuit of inner peace. Not all questions need verbal answers, and responding with a simple "I don't" holds profound wisdom. Balancing mental activity with the pursuit of inner peace involves cherishing the richness found in the conscious silence within.
Nzube Chizoba Okeke
Premium Member
Posts: 10
Joined: December 13th, 2023, 5:48 pm

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Nzube Chizoba Okeke »

After reading the long explanation you gave about this topic, I have decided to take your advice. I don't have any opinion to share about this topic. Hold on a moment... isn't that an opinion in itself?
Conshelle Dwright Williams
Premium Member
Posts: 7
Joined: December 16th, 2023, 12:06 am

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Conshelle Dwright Williams »

Overthinking is when we dwell excessively on a problem, causing anxiety or confusion. While preferences guide choices, truth and agreement apply to objective facts. The human mind often overthinks, leading to stress. This isn't judgement, just observation.
Briton Opiyo
Premium Member
Posts: 14
Joined: December 19th, 2023, 7:25 pm

Re: Not everything has a truth value. Not every sentence has meaning. You don't have to have an opinion about everything

Post by Briton Opiyo »

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: October 13th, 2023, 1:20 pm This is a discussion forum topic for the Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


Noteworthy preface: In the below post, when I use the blunt phrase "overthinking", I am using it without any judgement, prescriptive, or negative connotation. In other words, I'm not saying it is a type of thinking that people "shouldn't" do (whatever that would be), or that they are "evil" or "immoral" for doing it (whatever that would mean). Rather, I am using the term in a merely descriptive non-judgemental sense, similar to explaining to a customer that they accidentally overpaid before giving them a refund for that overpayment, or if while teaching my sons a sport lovingly mention to my son that he "overshot" the the basket on that shot as a reference to a specific type of missing the basket. That is an important note of clarification, because otherwise (e.g. if I was saying or believing that people "shouldn't" overthink, or are "immoral" or "evil" or "resentment-worthy" for doing it), then I'd be thereby doing the very overthinking of which I am speaking. It would be inherently hypocritical and paradoxical and self-contradiction. It would be like saying, "You shouldn't say should," or saying, "try to not try". To negatively judge or resent or hate or moralizingly condemn overthinking is to overthink.

With that clarification in my mind, let's proceed...

In an earlier topic, I pointed out that concepts of preference only make sense when it comes to your choices (i.e. what's in your control).

The other side of that is this: concepts of truth (and falsehood) and agreement (and disagreement) only make sense in regard to objective propositions (i.e. meaningful statements that have an objective truth value).

The human mind is prone to something often called "overthinking", which produces a lot of anxiety, superstitions, worry, and confusion.

Consider these absurd incoherent questions:

- "Do you agree with that hurricane that happened yesterday? I know you agree that it happened, but do you agree with its happening?"

- "When a same-sex couple has consenting sex in the privacy of their own house, do you agree with them doing that?"

- "Do you want to change the past? I know we both agree that changing the past is impossible, but don't you want to do what you cannot do?"

Those are just a tiny few examples of infinite, where the words and/or the human mind itself incoherently apply concepts that only work for a certain type of function to something else, such as applying truth concepts (true/false/agree/disagree) to non-propositions, or applying preference concepts to non-choices.

Inner peace is, in part, simply a state in which you've let go of all of those kind of incoherent questions, and by extension thus let go of all the incoherent judgementalism, needless worry, and anxious overthinking that that kind of exhausting nonsense and exhausting superstition entail.

Many people behave as if they have unlimited space in their brain to give away rent-free.

In contrast, one reason I am so wary of superstitious judgementalism is that, if I am going to give away rent-free space in my very small finite human brain by thinking about you (or something else), I'd at least tend to prefer to give it to coherent thoughts that actually make sense. Even if you ask me a question that makes sense and has an objective yes/no answer, I'm not obliged to spend valuable time and limited mental resources thinking about it and giving you an answer. But it's usually all I can do to hold in my laughter when the question is something as incoherent and thus unanswerable as, "Do you agree with homosexual sex?", "Do you agree with the hurricane that happened", "Do you want to change the past?", "Wouldn't you prefer if 2+2=5?", "Are rabid dogs resentment-worthy and hate-worthy? Don't they deserve to be hated and resented?", or any question with a word like "should", "ought", "immoral", "evil".

Especially for those who don't meditate and practice mindfulness and/or who aren't deeply in touch with what we could call their inner or spiritual spaciousness and the conscious silence between words, and especially for people's whose minds are crowded with loud rushed thoughts, the human mind is prone to asking questions that don't make sense and to giving incoherent answers to questions that don't make sense. Sometimes it's the asker of the incoherent question, sometimes it is the incoherent answerer of the incoherent question, and often times it's both at once: the incoherent self-asker and the incoherent answerer. That is often called "overthinking", or sometimes 'stewing' or 'ruing'.

In analogy, I am the type of human that if I ate every time I was hungry and didn't stop eating until I wasn't hungry anymore, I would die of morbid obesity within a year or two. 😅 For me, that would be overeating in that it related to eating in the way overthinking relates to thinking.

As this human we call Eckhart, my genetic code and bodily urges didn't evolve in an environment where that instinct to eat so much was so deadly, but rather the opposite. In a sense, this human body I have was designed for an environment where food was often scare and unreliable, and death would only come from not eating enough versus having too much. The caveman who stuffed himself until he felt sick and almost threw up was the one who survived when a few days later the food runs out and he doesn't get to eat for weeks. Not having an absurdly strong appetite was a recipe for death, and having some kind of urge to moderate the food was effectively pointless.

All humans experience a similar pattern when it comes to the brain's urge to think, judge, and explain. I don't know if curiosity killed the cat, but I know evolved instincts make a lot of modern humans miserable. It's like living in a world of USB-Cs when all you have there's old USB-B chargers. It's like living in a world of Androids and Android changers when all you have is an original iPhone and iPhone charger. It's like only having a ancient flip-phone in a near-future world where all charging cords and ports are gone and all phone charging is done wirelessly, similar to the move from cabled TV and cabled internet to wifi. Sometimes it can even feel like you weren't made for this world. It can feel like you were made for one that existed a long time ago.

The human doesn't tend to say, "I don't know", and then be quiet with a smile, even if that is the most accurate answer and most reasonable response. When asked what it thinks about something, it doesn't tend to say, "I don't think about that," and then be quiet with a smile, even if that would be the most honest, accurate, and reasonable response.

Rather than be quiet and peaceful, the brain tends to incessantly judge things by applying rating concepts that don't even make sense to things to which they obviously don't even apply (e.g. applying truth concepts such as true/false/agree/disagree to non-propositions, or applying preference concepts to non-choices).

All human minds do that to some extent, which is part of why all humans are on the addiction spectrum, but the path of inner peace my book teaches isn't primarily about reducing let alone eliminating the outdated urges, bodily feelings, and judgemental nonsense the brain tends to incessantly think, but simply realizing you don't need to believe it or be attached to it. If the mind lies or says some judgemental gibberish, which generally all humans do a lot, you can just notice it with a spiritual smile without agreeing with it and without believing it. In other words, that form of inner peace is just a matter of realizing you aren't the thinker of those judgemental or nonsensical thoughts, or any thoughts, but rather the listener.

There's a sort of beautiful strangeness to the fact that there even is a listener, i.e. that you, the real you, even exist. In philosophy, that's called the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

It's deeply connected to--and in a way the same things as--something that even 99% of PhD scientists just don't get or continually forget: That there is no universal now; that there is no objective now; that there is no universal or objective present; that simultaneity is relative; that events don't even have an objective order, meaning what comes first, second, or third between three events is like the difference between what is to left or the right; that time, at least as it's commonly understood, is a total and utter illusion; that without consciousness there is no present or presence at all of any kind. That's all mostly just different ways of describing the same one Hard Problem of Consciousness: The fact that the human you see in the mirror has this seemingly transcendental listener (you) that sees that particular one human at that particular one age (not even an hour older or an hour younger) as the center of the universe in 4D spacetime whose nose happens to always point forward, whose clock ticks at one second per second, and whose and age and position determines left vs right, past vs future, space vs time. It's the seeming paradox between the objective unreality of time, the relativity of simultaneity, and the undeniable of presence (i.e. consciousness). Roughly speaking, it's the problem people get at when they ask, "What makes the now now?" It wasn't as much an obvious mystery and seeming paradox in classical physics and Newton's physics, because Newton's physics (which turned out to be utterly wrong) had an objective now. There was a "the now". But when you accept and understand the fact that there is no "the now", in the same sense there is no "the left" or "the right", then you really start to understand what that question scratches at and why the Hard Problem is so Hard: "What makes the now now?"

Another way of saying the same question is this: Since Einstein proved there is no "the now", why do I (a conscious being) have this conscious experience of there being a now, as if a certain chunk or certain slice of the block universe was realer or more highlighted than any other. Another way I've heard people describe the Hard Problem is this: Why does it feel like something is happening? If all-aged versions of the human I see in the mirror live in the same unchanging timeless block universe as each other (and as all other humans ever from Jesus to Martians in Earth year 3,000), why does it seem like I am only this one specific-aged version of this specific human, and what is that--from here looking through this human's mind and eyes--I seem to know more than I know anything that something is happening?

But be careful not to overthink it.

Remember that just because a question can be asked, doesn't mean it can be answered or that even has an answer. Remember that even if a question has a non-verbal answer that doesn't a verbal one.

Not all sentences have truth values, and not all truths can be expressed in sentences or even with words at all

Indeed, when people ask me any question with sentences that use very equivocal words like 'free-will' or 'god', I often like to say is this: What I know more than I know anything is the futility of words and the reality of the indescribable.

When describing the indescribable, I suggest being flexible in the words you use; that is, if you use words at all and don't instead choose to enjoy the space between words, and the dimension of infinite depth to be found there, such as one finds in the conscious silence consciously experience in a conscious but silent and thoughtless meditating mind.

You can have invincible inner peace and be acceptingly and appreciatingly present (a.k.a. conscious), and be more present in your unique present, all without fully understanding what presence is.

It might seem unaswerable or to scratch at the indescribable to ask, "Considering there is no objective now, hat makes the now now?"

But if you ask it without words, and answer it without words, maybe it's easy. Maybe it's infinitely easy. Maybe it's harder to explain science itself than it is to explain consciousness. Maybe the easy answer was in there all along in each and every one of all those many different ancient spiritual books and texts by great empirical scholars and thinkers thousands of years ago, from all over the world, all saying the same thing in different words, despite living so far apart and having no contact. When so many people come independently to the same conclusion that says something. Sometimes we have to look past the differing words to see the shared meaning and the easy truth.

When someone asks you, "What do you think about X?", feel free to just say, "I don't." :)


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott





overthinking.jpg






In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program, both for the free option and the paid option.

That's a perspective rooted in philosophy and linguistics. Some statements may lack clear truth values or meaningful content, leading to discussions about linguistic meaning and philosophical concepts like truth.
Post Reply

Return to “Discuss "In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All" by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes”

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021