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

[Seetha E]

I have read the book once and I feel this is one of those books that needs to be put into practice.
The book surely makes me rethink and change a few of my approaches.
I will return with queries as I begin the second reading of the book soon.

Thanks, Scott for the book and also for making this platform available.
I don't usually open up.

[Bron Bakers]

I loved reading the book from beginning to end. I had nothing to dislike nor did I have anything to disagree with about the book.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Nzube Chizoba Okeke,

Thank you for quoting the first sentence with which you did not completely agree.

I don't know how someone is expected to feel blessed when they have the discomfort and misfortune you listed before that sentence.

First, let me say, I absolutely do not "expect" anyone to feel blessed about anything ever. I don't expect. Period. For more on that, I suggest reading the following topic of mine:

Letting go of expectation | How clinging to the superstitions of expectation and blame disrupts your inner peace

If you interpreted any sentence in my book as me saying that I expect something of you or anyone, then that is a misunderstanding. However, if that is the case, please do let me know, so I can update the sentence(s) that you interpreted that way so that it it can be more clear.

the first place I stopped to think really hard whether or not I agree completely is on Page 53: " Consider you haven't yet been blessed with such discomfort and misfortune."

There is a difference between being blessed versus feeling blessed.

One way to summarize or describe my book is that it discusses addiction to comfort (i.e. "the common struggle uniting us all") or by extension the way in which most humans are like a slave to their feelings/urges such as hunger, fear, pain, and discomfort, which I and the book call spiritual slavery, in which one's true self (a.k.a. spirit) is like a prisoner in their own.

Consider the things listed: wealth, fame, physical health, good looks, lots of sex, etc. as being like alcohol to an alcoholic.

The alcoholic may feel blessed when they get more alcohol and are high on alcohol. And the alcoholic may feel the opposite of blessed when they hit rock bottom, get a hangover, and/or get so poor from alcoholism that they cannot afford alcohol anymore.

As the sufi proverb that came slightly before that sentence hints at, it's extremely common that what feels like a blessing to an addict or otherwise spiritually unfree person who is still miserably attached to their ego and fleeting materiel possessions is actually conducive to prolonging or worsening their addiction, false ego-identification, and/or spiritual slavery and preventing or delaying their liberation. In contrast, hitting rock bottom can create enough discomfort to break one's comfort addiction, which is a very liberating thing.

It is a great blessing to be liberated from addiction to or false idolization of money, comfort, material possessions, sex, or anything external as opposed to true inner peace.

The blessing is the liberation to which the discomfort is conducive, namely in that it frees one from the spiritual slavery and misery of choosing comfort over true happiness (a.k.a. inner peace).

to see the beautiful naked true spirit underneath. To be blessed by discomfort and seeming misfortune is, in a way, to be blessed by figurative forced nudity. What a blessing it would be to stare into the mirror and see nothing but your beautiful soul, your true self and nothing more, staring back at you.

The fancier and more numerous the clothes, the harder it can be to see the beautiful naked true spirit underneath. To be blessed by discomfort and seeming misfortune is, in a way, to be blessed by figurative forced nudity. What a blessing it would be to stare into the mirror and see nothing but your beautiful soul, your true self and nothing more, staring back at you.


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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Evil persists in the world even when you believe that you are a better person or that the world is a better place. I'm fascinated by everything else in the book.

If you don't agree with everything in the book, then please quote verbatim the very first sentence with which you didn't agree.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

First, I enjoyed your book and agreed with much of what you had to say. Furthermore, I am not a philosopher, so this is not my regular genre of reading (outside of the Bible). But I would have to say, that I first had a problem in the chapter titled "You, the real you, are consciousness itself: Pure beautiful spirit" [page 89] where you write, "In a very real sense, you are love itself." [page 93]

Hi, Angie Fernandez,

Thank you for your reply.

The quote you picked out above as the very first sentence with which you disagreed is on page 89, which is long after the section about the Two Yous. So I am happy to learn that you agreed with everything in the sections about the Two Yous, including this sentence from page 32:

"In any case, with absolute agreeable certainty, we can say that you, the real you, are not human; you are the undeniable consciousness..."

Perhaps, in the sentence you quoted from page 93, you misunderstood which of the Two Yous was the one to which I was referring.

Thus, in the next edition, I will rephrase that sentence to the following:

"In a very real and literal sense, in terms of the real you, you are love itself."

Would that be more agreeable to you?

I am a teacher, and when looking at infants and toddlers it doesn't take long to see [humans'] base nature at work. [Humans] are born selfish and must be taught to share our toys, look to the needs of others, and apply the "Golden Rule".

I agree.

I don't see where man embodies "love itself",

Ah, I see. We aren't disagreeing. I think you have simply misunderstood me. I definitely did not say nor mean that humans are love itself or that humans embody love itself, at least not any more than a couch or a hurricane or pile of dog poo does. (One could make the argument that everything including hurricanes and dog poop all embodies love or god or such, and I would likely find that persuasive.)

only when he submits to God who is love for "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." (Jeremiah 17:9)

I think we agree here even though our metaphorical mythology and semantics might be different. Where you phrase it as "submission", I phrase it as transcending temptation to achieve spiritual freedom. But the irony is that what you call submission is closely related to if not identical with what I am calling freedom, and in that way it's related to what the book loosely references to sometimes as the war between flesh and spirit. I think you are looking at what I call the freedom/liberation of the spirit (i.e. the real you) as a submission of the flesh. Indeed, one of the two yous can be described as submitting, but that is not the one of the two that I call the real you.

Again when you look at the headlines every day, you see the depravity of man.

Depending on what you mean exactly by "depravity", I believe I agree. For more on that, I invite you to read my answer to the question about humans behaving in inhuman ways. Here's an excerpt:

Most humans are very dishonest and selfish. Most humans are also addicts who do not have exceptional self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom), and they are basically cowards who are spiritual slaves to things like fear, hunger, and addictive urges such as the urge of an alcoholic drink or gambling addict to gamble. So being honest is inhuman and being dishonest is human-like. Being brave is inhuman and being a spiritual slave to fear (a.k.a. a coward to some degree or another) is human-like. Having exceptional self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom) is inhuman (and by defintion exceptional) and behaving like an addict is human-like and ordinary.

[...]

I do my best to be as inhuman as humanly possible, but even that is a very small amount of inhumanity.


Read Full Post

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

in-it-together-page-32.png (76.21 KiB) Viewed 23755 times

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.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

There is a lot you covered on this book, that I am still trying to wrap my head around it all. I am not a qualified philosopher, so I have to make sure before I disagree, I have my facts and thoughts straight. But what you talked about, especially evil and the negative thoughts, I think those should be challenged just a little bit.

Well, the logic in the book is presented in order so that later chapters build logically on previous ones. If you read a later chapter (e.g. the one about "evil" not existing) without reading and agreeing with earlier chapters, then it is only reasonable to not agree with the later chapters. So that's why it is very important you let me know what what the very first sentence is with which you don't agree. So I encourage to-read the book, starting from the beginning, go slowly, and stop as soon as you find a single sentence with which you disagree. Then come here and let me know what sentence that is.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

There is definitely one thing that I don't agree with and that's on page 139, "You need not believe in a god to do your best to see the world from a god's eye, a god eye's view."
As a Christian, the above statement left me puzzled. I do believe there is an all-loving God whose love and wisdom cannot be understood by us, human beings. God and his Word is what sustains me day by day. So I actually feel the above statement is inaccurate.

Moises

Hi, Moisés Alcántara Ayre,

Are you sure that's the very first sentence in the book with which you don't agree?

If not, what is the very first sentence with which you disagree?

Later chapters/sentences build on earlier ones, and the one you quoted is very near the end.


Thank you,
Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

For me my first point is on page 12 "This is not a political book."

Philosophy is inherently political. We all have inbuilt political biases that influence our principles. If we genuinely want to reach across political divides to unite behind a common aim we cannot ignore the natural biases that sit beneath our thoughts. If we ignore them and simply try to focus on higher principles we will unintentionally reflect our personal biases in the principles we espouse. This makes it harder to achieve unanimity.

I stand by my claim that my book "In It Together" is not political. I'd quicker say that it's not philosophical than that it's not political. While you may be creating a false dichotomy if you make me choose between those two (i.e. say a book cannot be both philosophical and non-political), if I had to choose only between the two options in the false dichotomy (political or non-philosophical), I'd choose non-philosophical over political as the category for my book. It's more not political than it is philosophical. Nonetheless, your claim that "philosophy is inherently political" is extreemely interesting, and I'd love to hear more about your perspectivate on that and other people's. So I have created a whole dedicated topic just for that claim:

Is philosophy inherently political?

Everyone regardless of political views can agree as an outcome that children should not die of starvation.

I don't agree with that claim. And I'm someone. So not everyone agrees with that claim.

However, if you believe that anything that happened (e.g. a child dying from starving) "should not" have happened, meaning you therefore believe should-not-have-ness exists, I invite you to reply in the following to answer all six of the questions:

Six Questions for People Who Believe Should-Not-Have-Ness Exists (i.e. for people who believe in 'shoulds' and 'oughts')

people's political principles will taint their perspectives on the policy mechanisms to achieve this. The most effective single policy measure to eliminate poverty has been shown to be to directly give people on low incomes money on a regular basis and let them determine how to spend it (there are also a number of supplementary policies needed such as addiction support to achieve complete elimination). However, those on the right with a strong perspective on personal responsibility would rarely accept this as a policy. This is not because they want people to starve but because they have a belief that without needing to work in order to live people will not try and overall production would fall causing greater levels of starvation. It is only by recognising the different principles that will apply to different people that people can be brought to a common approach to achieve a common outcome not by trying to find a common principle underlying all of them.

My book's not about any of that. The book isn't at all about "the policy mechanisms to achieve" ending child starvation. Indeed, that would be political.


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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I believe I have replied to everyone who posted a sentence with which they did not agree. If I missed anyone, or any of you still cannot confidently say you agree with every single sentence in the book, then please do post a reply (or re-post it) so I can address it.

[Jenna Padayachee]

Hi, Mr Hughes

This is my second read of your book
I am not sure if I first understand the intention of the opening question (Pg9.) to agree/ disagree:

Opening Question
If you went to sleep in your body in your bed with your memories and awoke in my body in my bed with my memories instead of yours, would you notice a difference? Would there even be a difference to notice?

The following is what comes to my mind:

Without memories, I would not have my sense of worldly identity…but will this not heighten my soul's conscious level?
Perhaps I would know more than ever that it was me in a different covering.
As much we are one with the divine consciousness, we are also separate expressions, of this oneness which is a divinely perfect contradiction allowing the play of existence.
I base this on my observations of meditation; the concept of letting go of our delusional ideas and or our memories which tend to be the root course of suffering and if we dwell on them, we create hell on earth. Meditation is partly when we connect with consciousness, an action selected from our space of individuality, our own choice or willingness, others cannot do it for us. However, this particular choice( which appears as individuality) connects us and this connection unites us ( through the concious pool) because of our common aspects. This tuned-in awareness enhances our view of life and existence holistically ( some belief systems refer it to as the opening of the third eye chakra).

Kind regards

Jenna

[Jevonte Malik]

There are quite a few things I disagree with in the book, however, the one with which I disagree most is that one part on page 128: "There is no problem with evil because there is no evil." I totally disagree with this assertion. First of all, it is now common knowledge that evil exists in almost of part of human endeavors. Second of all, I believe if there were as much good as evil in the world, we'd be living in a better place.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Mr Hughes

This is my second read of your book
I am not sure if I first understand the intention of the opening question (Pg9.) to agree/ disagree:

Opening Question
If you went to sleep in your body in your bed with your memories and awoke in my body in my bed with my memories instead of yours, would you notice a difference? Would there even be a difference to notice?

The following is what comes to my mind:

Without memories, I would not have my sense of worldly identity…but will this not heighten my soul's conscious level?
Perhaps I would know more than ever that it was me in a different covering.
As much we are one with the divine consciousness, we are also separate expressions, of this oneness which is a divinely perfect contradiction allowing the play of existence.
I base this on my observations of meditation; the concept of letting go of our delusional ideas and or our memories which tend to be the root course of suffering and if we dwell on them, we create hell on earth. Meditation is partly when we connect with consciousness, an action selected from our space of individuality, our own choice or willingness, others cannot do it for us. However, this particular choice( which appears as individuality) connects us and this connection unites us ( through the concious pool) because of our common aspects. This tuned-in awareness enhances our view of life and existence holistically ( some belief systems refer it to as the opening of the third eye chakra).

Kind regards

Jenna

Hi, Jenna Padayachee,

Since it appears you are not disagreeing with my but just answering the opening question, I suggest you instead post your interesting comments above in the topic about the opening question:

What is your answer to the updated Opening Question? ("If you went to sleep in your body in your bed with your...")


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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

There are quite a few things I disagree with in the book, however, the one with which I disagree most [...]

Hi, Jevonte Malik,

Thank you for your reply, but the question is not which sentence you disagree with most.

The question is which is the very first sentence with which you disagree (i.e. the sentence closest to the beginning of the book).

That's because the way the logic in the book works, if you disagree or misunderstand one sentence, then it becomes like a train that went off the tracks and of course you will disagree with later sentences.

If people would agree with the last five chapters without reading the first five chapters first, then the book wouldn't even include the first five.

So I ask you: What is the very first sentence in the book with which you disagree?


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

[Sushan]

There were certain areas that did not align with my personal beliefs or with what I already know or have heard. However, I am re-reading the book to ascertain whether the issue lies in my understanding or if I genuinely disagree with the content. I will inform you once I have completed the re-reading.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

There were certain areas that did not align with my personal beliefs or with what I already know or have heard. However, I am re-reading the book to ascertain whether the issue lies in my understanding or if I genuinely disagree with the content. I will inform you once I have completed the re-reading.

Hi, Sushan,

Please don't wait until after you have completed re-reading the whole book. Instead, while you are carefully and slowly re-reading, as soon as you come across a single sentence with which you don't agree, please pause your reading and come directly to this forum topic and post a verbatim quote of that sentence here.


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