Philosophy Discussion Forums

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑January 19th, 2023, 3:04 pm
Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).

Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.

Christell Lindeque wrote: ↑June 20th, 2024, 7:29 am The following is my first quote "If you feel a battle between your so-called higher self and so-called lower self, I ask you to stop fighting the so-called lower self and embrace the so-called lower self, but more than that to realize that even to call something the 'higher' or 'lower' self is to draw a battle line and start a fight, to needlessly attack your own shadow and bitterly chase your own tail."

Hi, Christell Lindeque,

Thank you for your questions.

I am a bit confused because the sentence you quoted as the very first that you don't understand is from page 99 in the book, which would mean you are saying you did understand every single sentence from the first 98 pages of the book.

Is that correct?

If so, then I am still very confused, namely because the phrase "high self" appears three times before that earlier in the book, and likewise the phrase "lower self" appears three times before page 99.

So if you didn't understand what those phrases meant on page 99, how did you understand what they meant the other three times they were used earlier?





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

Moisés Alcántara Ayre wrote: ↑June 20th, 2024, 7:57 am Thanks, Scott.
 
To my not understanding a sentence in your book, You replied the following:
 

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) wrote: you don't need to believe in god.

I really don't understand # 1. As a Christian, believing in God is what has changed my whole life for the better, and without Him, everything was not life at its fullest. Having being created in the likeness of God motivates me every day: His Word in the Bible lights all darkness.

I hope you can help clarify,

Moises

Hi, Moisés Alcántara Ayre,

Thank you for your reply.

Technically, I believe the above sentence and point cannot possibly be the first one that you don't understand and/or disagree with. That's because there are other earlier sentences in the book in which I state my firm belief and teaching that "there is nothing you must do". Here are some examples:


"There is nothing you need to do." (Page 84)

"The incessant anxious feeling like something needs to be done, something must be done, or something is lacking are all symptoms of discontent." (117)

"Nothing must be done that isn’t done." (Page 132)

"Must and choice are incompatible. Nothing must be done that isn’t done." (Page 135)


Nonetheless, I will soon answer your general question about this in a separate topic dedicated to this specific topic, meaning the topic of allegedly needing to believe in God in relation to my claim that there is nothing at all ever that you need to do.


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

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑January 19th, 2023, 3:04 pm Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.

Meena Jangid wrote: ↑June 21st, 2024, 8:25 am 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. In fact, some philosophers argue that all philosophy is just word games.

Hi, Meena Jangid,

To help you, I would need more info, per the instruction in the OP (Original Post).

Namely, did you look the words and terms up in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia? If so, what were the results?

And what is your best guess about what the sentence means?


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

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

Ruka N wrote: ↑June 20th, 2024, 6:23 pm Hello, Scott. Please could you elaborate on the paragraph
"Without the warmth of true consciousness, even apparent altruism would be nothing more than a cold superficial approximated falsehood unconsciously emerging from fundamental selfish cancer-like cyclical process and feedback loops, runaway aspects of natural selection, such as selfish genes causing the host to kill itself to perpetuate the genome"
Thank you!

Hi, Ruka N,

Thank you for your question!

Would it be more clear if I reworded that sentence into the following paragraph:
 
"Without the warmth of true consciousness, even apparent altruism would be nothing more than a cold superficial approximated falsehood unconsciously emerging from fundamentally selfish but unconscious processes. There would be no true self, meaning no consciousness, for the selfishness to be selfish in relation to. Rather, it would be mechanical unconscious selfishness, such as in the sense of talking about selfish genes causing the host to kill itself to perpetuate the genome. An unconscious, robotic, zombie mother may throw herself to death to save her baby, but that is not true conscious love. And the self that she throws to death is only a body without a spirit. It couldn’t be true conscious love if there was no consciousness, by definition. It would just be the false appearance of true love from fundamentally selfish and unloving processes of natural selection and evolution. They are cancer-like cyclical processes and feedback loops, runaway aspects of natural selection."
 
?



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



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.

I wondered what common struggle could unite all humans, especially since some people seem to have no struggles. However, after finishing the book, I gained a clearer understanding of the universal themes it addresses.

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑June 21st, 2024, 2:59 pm

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑January 19th, 2023, 3:04 pm
Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).

Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.

Christell Lindeque wrote: ↑June 20th, 2024, 7:29 am The following is my first quote "If you feel a battle between your so-called higher self and so-called lower self, I ask you to stop fighting the so-called lower self and embrace the so-called lower self, but more than that to realize that even to call something the 'higher' or 'lower' self is to draw a battle line and start a fight, to needlessly attack your own shadow and bitterly chase your own tail."

Hi, Christell Lindeque,

Thank you for your questions.

I am a bit confused because the sentence you quoted as the very first that you don't understand is from page 99 in the book, which would mean you are saying you did understand every single sentence from the first 98 pages of the book.

Is that correct?

If so, then I am still very confused, namely because the phrase "high self" appears three times before that earlier in the book, and likewise the phrase "lower self" appears three times before page 99.

So if you didn't understand what those phrases meant on page 99, how did you understand what they meant the other three times they were used earlier?





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

I apologize. I quoted a sentence relating to my biggest question in your book that I did not understand.

Do I understand correctly that your spiritual self is your higher self?

What exactly does lower self mean? You mention its the ego.

Can you explain them in simple terms what both means. I struggle to grasp it when it gets explained in such detail that I seem to lose concentration. I am someone who understands things when its straight to the point.

I believe your writing is very beautiful. Its just not straight to the point.

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑January 19th, 2023, 3:04 pm Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

Christell Lindeque wrote: ↑June 20th, 2024, 7:29 am The following is my first quote "If you feel a battle between your so-called higher self and so-called lower self, I ask you to stop fighting the so-called lower self and embrace the so-called lower self, but more than that to realize that even to call something the 'higher' or 'lower' self is to draw a battle line and start a fight, to needlessly attack your own shadow and bitterly chase your own tail."

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑June 21st, 2024, 2:59 pm I am a bit confused because the sentence you quoted as the very first that you don't understand is from page 99 in the book [...]

the phrase "higher self" appears three times before that earlier in the book, and likewise the phrase "lower self" appears three times before page 99.

Christell Lindeque wrote: ↑June 26th, 2024, 2:14 am I apologize. I quoted a sentence relating to my biggest question in your book that I did not understand.

Hi, Christell Lindeque,

Please don't quote a sentence that you don't understand.

Instead, please quote the very first sentence you don't understand, meaning the sentence closest to the beginning of the book.


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

Honestly, I understand everything, I was very engrossed in the quotes and new things I could learn. Thank you Scott

You have answered some of my concerns regarding your book, In It Together, thank you.
I have a question from page 74.
From line 17 to line 20, how do you jump to saying the humans on the other side of the planet are you, in terms of the real you, just as much as the human you see in the mirror. Won’t they be the real them in the future just like I will be the real me?

Yes. The language used here was very efficient and simple to understand. Even a person like me, who is not well versed in philosophy, I was able to read it and understand all the points you were making. Most books always utilises jargon, ending up intimidating the reader. I am happy that is not the case with this book.

I feel like I'm the one talked about. This particular line in the book is like: "The comfort zone is a sticky dark trap, a spiritual prison for those who aren't careful." You aren't carful in what manner. I just need some clarification here. (Page 54).

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑January 19th, 2023, 3:04 pm

Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand.

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means.

Mcbride6841 wrote: ↑June 28th, 2024, 7:26 pm You have answered some of my concerns regarding your book, In It Together, thank you.
I have a question from page 74.
From line 17 to line 20, how do you jump to saying the humans on the other side of the planet are you, in terms of the real you, just as much as the human you see in the mirror. Won’t they be the real them in the future just like I will be the real me?

Hi, Mcbride6841,

Thank you for your question.

Are you sure that is the very first sentence that you do not understand?

In other words, you are saying you did understand every single sentence on pages 1 - 73; correct?

If so, then please also answer the other questions in the OP (Original Post), such as telling what your best guess(es) of the meaning of the sentence is/are.




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

Abdm28 wrote: ↑June 29th, 2024, 10:42 am I feel like I'm the one talked about. This particular line in the book is like: "The comfort zone is a sticky dark trap, a spiritual prison for those who aren't careful." You aren't carful in what manner. I just need some clarification here. (Page 54).

Hi, Abdm28,

Thank you for your question.

If I re-word that section to the following, will this be more clear:

In It Together (3rd Edition, Draft) wrote: The job will one day end. The car will one day be sold for parts. The most attractive fashion model in the world will age, wrinkle, and scar. Even the happiest marriage in the world will end soon enough, by death or divorce.

It's those human beings with the prettiest faces and the most expensive cars, the most esteemed jobs, and the most glamorous wardrobes, who will tend to find the above words hardest to hear. The comfort zone is a sticky dark trap, a spiritual prison for those who aren't careful.

“Careful in what way?”, one might ask. The answer: Careful in the same way one could be careful with any addictive activity, behavior, or substance. Careful in the way one with a familial history of alcoholism might be careful with alcohol or bars. Careful in the way one with a history of gambling addiction might be careful at a casino. Careful in the way a human with a history of cowardice might be careful with fear and scary activities and the comfort of safety. All humans are on the addiction spectrum, some more than others. The specific props in each human’s struggle with addiction (a.k.a. spiritual slavery) vary, but perhaps the most fundamental addiction is comfort addiction, meaning the addiction to comfort. The coward (i.e. slave to fear) gets it from caving to fear and avoiding the discomfort of feeling fear. The alcoholic gets it from alcohol, the sex addict from sex, the overeating food addict from food, and the gambling addict from gambling.

The props in and superficial appearance of each person’s comfort zone vary, but, for all, it’s addictive, spiritually enslaving, and spiritually imprisoning.

Luckily, even if they choose not to heed the words above, those who have not been blessed by discomfort yet will be soon. Arguably, the best and only cure for addiction is to hit rock bottom, and, luckily, those who have not hit rock bottom will soon enough.

Life has a beautiful way of knocking over all pedestals in short time, but be it short or long, eventually, time destroys all clothes, both figurative and literal, and thus the beautiful nakedness beneath is always revealed.

Is that more clear?



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

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑July 1st, 2024, 2:44 pm

Abdm28 wrote: ↑June 29th, 2024, 10:42 am I feel like I'm the one talked about. This particular line in the book is like: "The comfort zone is a sticky dark trap, a spiritual prison for those who aren't careful." You aren't carful in what manner. I just need some clarification here. (Page 54).

Hi, Abdm28,

Thank you for your question.

If I re-word that section to the following, will this be more clear:

In It Together (3rd Edition, Draft) wrote: The job will one day end. The car will one day be sold for parts. The most attractive fashion model in the world will age, wrinkle, and scar. Even the happiest marriage in the world will end soon enough, by death or divorce.

It's those human beings with the prettiest faces and the most expensive cars, the most esteemed jobs, and the most glamorous wardrobes, who will tend to find the above words hardest to hear. The comfort zone is a sticky dark trap, a spiritual prison for those who aren't careful.

“Careful in what way?”, one might ask. The answer: Careful in the same way one could be careful with any addictive activity, behavior, or substance. Careful in the way one with a familial history of alcoholism might be careful with alcohol or bars. Careful in the way one with a history of gambling addiction might be careful at a casino. Careful in the way a human with a history of cowardice might be careful with fear and scary activities and the comfort of safety. All humans are on the addiction spectrum, some more than others. The specific props in each human’s struggle with addiction (a.k.a. spiritual slavery) vary, but perhaps the most fundamental addiction is comfort addiction, meaning the addiction to comfort. The coward (i.e. slave to fear) gets it from caving to fear and avoiding the discomfort of feeling fear. The alcoholic gets it from alcohol, the sex addict from sex, the overeating food addict from food, and the gambling addict from gambling.

The props in and superficial appearance of each person’s comfort zone vary, but, for all, it’s addictive, spiritually enslaving, and spiritually imprisoning.

Luckily, even if they choose not to heed the words above, those who have not been blessed by discomfort yet will be soon. Arguably, the best and only cure for addition is to hit rock bottom, and, luckily, those who have not hit rock bottom will soon enough.

Life has a beautiful way of knocking over all pedestals in short time, but be it short or long, eventually, time destroys all clothes, both figurative and literal, and thus the beautiful nakedness beneath is always revealed.

Is that more clear?



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

Thank you so much. That's clear enough.

Scott, hello!

The book houses invaluable transcendental knowledge; it can change our lives for the better. I would recommend the book to every human.

However, there are things that I have struggled to understand. For example, the view that we are "100% in control of our choices" would mean we have absolute free will. Do we have absolute free will? Additionally, the saying that "life is a blank canvas of infinite equally right possibilities..." is another "holy" mystery, given that the laws of the cosmos would constrain the rightness spectrum.