Author Topic: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?  (Read 614 times)

Xepera maSet

Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« on: January 17, 2018, 05:19:52 pm »
I've attached the "map" below. If my intent is not clear from looking at the attachment let me know, because that is part of what I am trying to do. I kind of want people to be able to figure out where they stand, and understand how these different paths and ideas relate to each other.

pi_rameses

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2018, 06:15:55 pm »
I've attached the "map" below. If my intent is not clear from looking at the attachment let me know, because that is part of what I am trying to do. I kind of want people to be able to figure out where they stand, and understand how these different paths and ideas relate to each other.

I see a pattern but perhaps a legend for the map? What do the different shapes and colors mean? And solid and dashed lines?
Pro omnis dominos viae sinistra, sic itur ad astra

Xepera maSet

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2018, 06:23:24 pm »
Colors are meaningless, a method of distinction. Same with shapes but I think I can use them better, like triangles for conclusions, circle for philosophical methods, etc. The dashed lines I don't think work as is, they're an attempt to show, for example, that we can be sure of self existence leading into philosophy, but dashed leading from there to objective universe since it's an uncertain leap. That's why empiricism is dashed both ways, it inherently requires acceptance of the material world against solipsism. I want to try and illustrate that type of thing, but am not sure how.

crossfire

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2018, 07:00:37 pm »
I don't subscribe to any form of substance theory, so I'm not sure where I would be on the chart.
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."
~Carl Jung

Xepera maSet

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2018, 07:37:41 pm »
I fail to see how it's possible to not have a world view. One not on here sure, let me know where it would fit! But in general? I think we can withhold from preaching or pushing our view, but I think everyone has one, and monism/pluralism are pretty much the only two options at most basic.



Kapalika

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2018, 09:49:51 pm »
I've attached the "map" below. If my intent is not clear from looking at the attachment let me know, because that is part of what I am trying to do. I kind of want people to be able to figure out where they stand, and understand how these different paths and ideas relate to each other.

General;

I think the problem with charts that try to figure this out (trust me I've tried) is that they are not always mutually exclusive ideas. Similar to how you said that @Crossfire should "fit" somewhere she probably can't, just as I can't as is.

Also just generally, I've tried to make charts like this in the past. They almost always become exponentially complicated though because what conclusions people can draw depends not just on the elements they take but their subjective understanding. Even with a perfect understanding and flawless logic their cultural background will dictate different nuances in the rules of logic within their belief system. It gets hairy really fast and there will have to be some compromises or else the chart has lines linking nearly everything.

That said, some specifics;

1.

As an example of exceptions (and why other categories would be better), you could easily have materialism lead to disillusion for Buddhists or idealism lead to "heaven" for dualistic Viashnavas. Likewise pansychism as I understand it differs from Idealism in that it holds a certain concreteness to the physical world that idealism usually doesn't.

Then I think those "ands" need to be "ors". Pluralism is usually in conflict with dualism so I think both of those categories can't be used as the two "main choices". If it said "dualism OR pluralism" and "idealism OR Pansychism" instead of "and" that would fix a lot of issues though but not all of them.

2.

For me to fit you'd need to create broader sets. Otherwise the closest you'd have to draw a line from subjective universe to disillusion with the "Or" language. With that in place I could move from Philosophy, to pluralism or even side step it straight to subjective universe then go to disillusion. Then you'd need another line from disillusion to apotheosis. I'd also almost go through pansychism but it's not totally accurate hence why I'd jump straight to disillusion.

But that set up seems a little strange because I think you meant for to start at the top and go down.

3.

This might be a little more nitpicky but the practice should go before the afterlife. since they are not the ultimate conclusion but the means to it. Another problem is that beliefs don't necessarily lead to one type of practice. This is reflected well on the far left side, but they are married to beliefs in the other parts. I understand that this marrying tends to be true of those who identify as WLHP due to it sharing philosophical roots with Christianity where that's a feature (the first Christians were Greek so this isn't surprising) but both of those should be, ideally, represented as possible combinations as opposed to strict categories.

I can accept that there is an argument to be made that since marrying practice and belief is the "norm" it should be the primary representation here, but I think then that really depends on what you are trying to actually communicate in this map. It would make sense in some contexts but not in others.

Conclusion?:

So all the stuff I said while I think should be accounted for, should also be streamlined in some way. Perhaps this is the streamline we are seeing now but if that's the case I think it needs to bet set up differently. Philosophy is kinda weird where it is, since it should be at the top and then basic axioms below it then everything else leading from that. This whole map seems to be what philosophies lead to what kind of belief systems and then their view of the afterlife essentially. The whole map is of philosophical ideas so it seems weird for it to contain itself.

Misc;

I fail to see how it's possible to not have a world view.

Someone can be agnostic.

One not on here sure, let me know where it would fit! But in general? I think we can withhold from preaching or pushing our view, but I think everyone has one, and monism/pluralism are pretty much the only two options at most basic.

I can see from some Buddhist perspectives why they wouldn't subscribe to any particular idea or theory like idealism or dualism ect. Buddhism is primarily about how you live, not what you believe. Actually in my experience it's easier to define what Buddhists don't believe rather than what they do believe. This was true from Vajrayana monks to a guy who practices Middle Way to random people posting online.

So I believe her. For someone to have a belief on the topic they would need a degree of subjective certainty. Not everyone has that on every topic and Buddhism generally discourages those kinds of beliefs. It's why the Buddha said he didn't know or care whether or not god existed.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 09:57:51 pm by Kapalika »
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

Kapalika

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2018, 10:36:45 pm »
Just a partial example of what I mean by categories, I made my own real quick so you know like what I meant by better ones:

https://i.imgur.com/PdiP8Dt.png

I think it's kind of hard to streamline this down if you bring in dualism and nondualism ect because as you see it very quickly gets complicated because it depends on what you are talking about and what those things are believed to be made of.

Also notice on how the left most category, it starts to get hairy already. It would probably be like this for the other 2 categories, but since I know the most about that one it will be the most detailed.

You can probably guess that it will only get more complex until it becomes a massive web. We can already see where I had issues linking things across categorizes.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 10:38:49 pm by Kapalika »
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

Kapalika

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2018, 11:08:48 pm »
Well holy crap, dualistic monism is a term too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism


I'm not surprised of the concept (I'm very familiar with it) I just hadn't ever heard of either terms dualistic monism or dialectical monism before.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 11:11:24 pm by Kapalika »
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

Xepera maSet

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2018, 06:24:24 am »
Just trying for philosophies here.

crossfire

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2018, 03:43:25 pm »
I fail to see how it's possible to not have a world view. One not on here sure, let me know where it would fit! But in general? I think we can withhold from preaching or pushing our view, but I think everyone has one, and monism/pluralism are pretty much the only two options at most basic.
Here is the closest Western philosophical school to my view that I have found:  it is not substance based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."
~Carl Jung

Kapalika

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2018, 07:15:19 pm »
I fail to see how it's possible to not have a world view. One not on here sure, let me know where it would fit! But in general? I think we can withhold from preaching or pushing our view, but I think everyone has one, and monism/pluralism are pretty much the only two options at most basic.
Here is the closest Western philosophical school to my view that I have found:  it is not substance based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy


Note to self to interrogate you later to pick your brain... I'm not too versed in this perspective but I can see similarities in my own understanding.


Also would you say this it is line of thinking is the justification of the Anatta? That the stream of consciousness can't be identified by Atman because of this constant change?
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

Kapalika

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2018, 07:48:12 pm »
Just trying for philosophies here.

I'm not versed in all the possible positions but this is pretty good. I'm not able to really see anything incorrect with it. Of course one could always add more but for most uses this is going to cover the major things. At most maybe I could say that pluralism could connect to more (it technically could include all of these views), but the truth is pluralism probably connotates much better there as to most people it is similar to dualism but with them being different "worlds" as opposed to opposites in the same world.

I'm not familiar with platoism in general but I know there are all kinds of variations. I personally would label it as something more generic but the intention of the concept is there so it's probably fine. I think most people will get what is meant there.

I wouldn't really fit on here as a single category, but since it's currently a map of western philosophical thought I wouldn't expect to. I could see a lot of eastern systems that could be accounted on here but then I can also think of ones that won't fit easily (looking at you, Samkhya). Idealism is more rare in the west but you see this in shades and sometimes outright with things like the gnostics and Christian Science.

What is it you plan to do with this chart/map once it's done? I don't know if telling us would help feedback but so far it looks good.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2018, 07:55:29 pm by Kapalika »
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

crossfire

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2018, 09:52:46 pm »
I fail to see how it's possible to not have a world view. One not on here sure, let me know where it would fit! But in general? I think we can withhold from preaching or pushing our view, but I think everyone has one, and monism/pluralism are pretty much the only two options at most basic.
Here is the closest Western philosophical school to my view that I have found:  it is not substance based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy


Note to self to interrogate you later to pick your brain... I'm not too versed in this perspective but I can see similarities in my own understanding.


Also would you say this it is line of thinking is the justification of the Anatta? That the stream of consciousness can't be identified by Atman because of this constant change?
Yep.  It's like the Uncertainty Principle.  You need mass to measure momentum, (or something like that,) so every time you try to take a measurement, it changes.  Likewise, if you use Self to observe Self, it also changes.  What you are left with is nebulous, difficult to fathom, and even more difficult to describe.  Buddha referred to this as "Tathagatha--the one thus gone.
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."
~Carl Jung

Xepera maSet

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2018, 02:02:26 pm »
Can't figure out the lines.




Xepera maSet

Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2018, 03:32:28 am »
Hmmmm....