Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Maileyrom]

Hi Scott,

This is my first question:Page 131: "To suggest to you to behave in a free-spirited way is the same as to suggest to you to behave as yourself, your true self." My question is how do I know if I am behaving as myself or if I am lying to myself not behaving as myself?

Any thoughts on this?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi Scott,

This is my first question:Page 131: "To suggest to you to behave in a free-spirited way is the same as to suggest to you to behave as yourself, your true self." My question is how do I know if I am behaving as myself or if I am lying to myself not behaving as myself?

Hi,

I have just now posted my answer to this question in the following topic:

Q&A: How do I know if I am being honest with myself and being self-disciplined (a.k.a. free-spirited) versus lying to myself or being a slave to bodily feelings?


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[Maileyrom]

Thanks Scott. That was helpful. Certainly I use some must and should and I use excuses when I want to eat those extra chocolates. I will observe myself carefully and I will improve those actions and attitude that won't help me or the ones around me.

[mrlefty0706]

I am n the process of reading Scott's book for a third time and each time I have learned more from his book that was written by a genius.

[Rashad Deniro Price]

Yes, I understood everything in the book. You wrote in an engaging manner and often explain your points in different ways, making it easy for me to grasp the message in each given topic. Thank you so much for making your book so accessible.

[Wamboi Susan]

"There is an inherent arbitrariness and fundamental unreality to the concepts involved in saying that the air you are about to breathe in now is not part of your body (and not part of you), but then as you breathe it in, it becomes part of your body (and part of you), and then when you breathe it back out, it is not part of your body (and not part of you)."
I am understanding and enjoying the book so far , I am contemplating on the sentence above, this part of (not part of you) i need to understand

[Gabriela Contreras Gonzalez]

Hi! I am struggling to understand what you meant by "self-discipline and spiritual freedom are synonymous terms; they mean the exact same thing" and "You cannot eliminate desire by fulfilling desire. Fulfillment causes desire and goals to be replaced, not eliminated."

While I think I get the idea behind the second one, that we are never going to leave desire behind, we are always going to desire something, the first sentence was probably the one I've struggled the most to understand.

[Ivon Ikunza]

Yes indeed. The book was very enjoyable to read and I made sure I looked for the meanings of all sentences in it. I took my time reading, quite some days, and this had a positive impact, as I was bale to think about each phrase in it. Thank you Scott.

[Amy Jackson]

Yes, I understood everything in the book. You made it as simple as possible and used relatable examples to illustrate your points. Furthermore, your mentoring posts go over some of the points, usually making things clearer. Thank you.

[Amy Jackson]

Yes, I understood it everything in the book. Thank you for making it so simple to understand, yet so profound and impactful.

[Amy Jackson]

Yes, I understood everything. Thank you for making it simple, yet so profound and impactful.

[Betsy House Mills]

I had a problem with this: Page 38 - Rather, the truths in this book are agreeable to metaphysical dualists and monists alike. One could even argue that the differences between most forms of dualism and monism are merely semantics.
I know the definition of dualists and monists, but I'm not sure how the differences between most forms of dualism and monism are merely semantics.
Yes, I am over halfway through the book, but your email today said to go back to the first sentence you didn't understand, so this is where I had marked.

[Tanya Schmidtchen]

Hi, Tanya Schmidtchen,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and deep inquiry. A question like this is every author's dream because for you to even be able to ask me about this kind of thing means you've carefully read and understood my words and ideas with a level of attention, care, understanding, and respect that few can and even fewer will.

I suspect the main source of the confusion here is indicated by your use of the words "worry" and "injustice". I'm not sure what you mean exactly by either of those words. If you can define each of those two words for me in detail, I think I will be able to understand and answer your question much more directly and clearly.

Nonetheless, in the meantime, I have created a similar question without those two words, and posted it along with my answer. Here is the link to view that Q&A:

Q&A: "Where is the line between (1) letting go of all judgementalism versus (2) allowing for sadness at harm done to others?


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius
[/quote]

Thank you for the response! I think what I was meaning by "injustice" was, for example, a child being kidnapped and abused. While I can understand the death of a dear friend being how it was supposed to be and her part being played as it should have been, I can still selfishly wish it wasn't over nearly so soon. I cannot, however, see how these more extreme cases of violence and carelessness with our collective selves are meant to be. By "worry" I suppose I meant spending mental energy on.
I appreciated your link to your similar post by the way. It definitely made it more clear, but I'm still uncertain.

[Ruka N]

"That seeming division within yourself as a human being is drawn upon the conceptual line between the Two Yous: the real you versus the false self, your consciousnesses versus your bodily avatar, your true self versus your ego, your so-called higher self versus your so-called lower self, your spirit versus your flesh, your soul versus your inner demons, your wise heavenly lovin..." if you look at this paragraph at first the meaning seems clear, but after thinking about it, I began to wonder how does "...the real you versus the false self, your consciousnesses versus your bodily avatar, your true self versus your ego..." tie to each other. is the real you the same as your consciousness or is it more close to the bodily avatar. And also which neis the false self then. I understand the ego can be classified as the false self but what else?

[Kaidynn frazier]

Hi Scott.
First off , I would like to say that I absolutely enjoyed reading your book. I had a lot of lessons to pick from the book.
However, I’m quite confused on the topic of who the real you is.
This was explained in the 5th chapter Page 38.
You made a statement and I quote
“ When we speak about 'you', there are actually at least two different yous about whom we speak.
That is not a reference to some kind of philosophical metaphysical dualism. Rather, the truths in this book are agreeable to metaphysical dualists and monists alike.
One could even argue that the differences between most forms of dualism and monism are merely semantics.”

Can you please explain better on this.

Also you mentioned that even happy marriages end in divorce or death. In essence nothing lasts forever.
Do you then mean that we shouldn’t hope on the illusion of forever?
And if I’m to go by your statement, given that nothing lasts forever and even happy marriages can end, do you think it's healthier to view relationships as temporary experiences that we should appreciate in the moment, rather than expecting them to last forever?