Philosophy Discussion Forums

Akinyi Jane wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2024, 7:10 am I found the book to be simple and direct. I understood 90 percent of it.

I'm glad you understood 90% of it. Nonetheless, that means there is 10% of it that you didn't understand. What is the very first sentence in the book that you do not understand?

Later chapters/sentences build on earlier ones, so it's important that you tell me the very first sentence in the book (i.e. the one closest to the beginning) that you don't understand.

I must confess, I didn't grasp all the message at once, when I read the book for the first time. However, overtime, I have read it just once more, and I must say that I got to understand a lot of things much better.

Jevonte Malik wrote: ↑January 10th, 2024, 8:32 am I must confess, I didn't grasp all the message at once, when I read the book for the first time. However, overtime, I have read it just once more, and I must say that I got to understand a lot of things much better.

That's great! May I ask, though, can you say that you understood what I meant by every single sentence in the book? If not, which is the very first sentence that you aren't sure you understand?


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

I truly believe that I grasped the essence of what you were trying to convey in your book on my first read. However, I am now reading it for the second time, delving deeper into the philosophical aspects. Should I discover any new interpretations or come across anything difficult to understand, I will certainly contact you.

Sushan wrote: ↑January 11th, 2024, 9:33 pm I truly believe that I grasped the essence of what you were trying to convey in your book on my first read. However, I am now reading it for the second time, delving deeper into the philosophical aspects. Should I discover any new interpretations or come across anything difficult to understand, I will certainly contact you.

Great! While re-reading it, please do pause your reading and contact me right away if you come across a single sentence that you don't understand.

I am working on the the third edition now, which will just include some minor wording adjustments and clarifications, so it's a bit time sensitive that I get alerted to any unclear sentences in the book so I can get those fixed asap before the third edition is sent to the printers.


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

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes wrote: ↑January 15th, 2024, 2:32 pm

Sushan wrote: ↑January 11th, 2024, 9:33 pm I truly believe that I grasped the essence of what you were trying to convey in your book on my first read. However, I am now reading it for the second time, delving deeper into the philosophical aspects. Should I discover any new interpretations or come across anything difficult to understand, I will certainly contact you.

Great! While re-reading it, please do pause your reading and contact me right away if you come across a single sentence that you don't understand.

I am working on the the third edition now, which will just include some minor wording adjustments and clarifications, so it's a bit time sensitive that I get alerted to any unclear sentences in the book so I can get those fixed asap before the third edition is sent to the printers.


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

Thanks a lot for all the support. I will definitely do so

Bertha Jackson wrote: ↑January 25th, 2023, 2:54 pm I am sure the first time I read this book, I may have misunderstood some of the sentences. However, now that I have read it four times, I am sure I understand everything in your book. My understandings are insufficient to make me an expert on the topics, but I am comfortable with how I understand everything you wrote in your book. I continue to use it as an inspiration.

4 times! Wow. I just finished it, but I have to process and try to implement something’s in the book before reading it again. That’s remarkable!

Hey Scott
I didn't quite understand the Opening quote by Ram Dass as a whole. "The problem about words is you may listen to them, and that would be a mistake". A mistake is something that correlates to an error, a misunderstanding, or a misconception. How come listening to words is a mistake?
Words are to be spoken or written in an order so that you can form a meaning out of it. I didn't quite understand how that could be a mistake. I think it depends on people's perceptions right?

Hi Scott
The opening question of the book "In It Together" confuses me. I didn't understand the query.
How would I notice a difference if I woke up with memories of yours? I would have forgotten mine (memories) right? Because two swords can't be in one sheath. Would there even be a difference to notice? What kind of differences you are trying to figure out?

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

Ram Dass wrote: The below is from the opening quote in In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


If I could sing or play an instrument for you, I would sing and play an instrument for you.

If I could dance for you, I would dance for you.

If I could paint for you, I would paint for you.

But my thing is words.

The problem about words is you may listen to them, and that would be a mistake. For all I am doing is painting with words, and the message that is being sent is non-verbal.

For, in fact, I am not going to say anything that you don’t know already.

The perplexing problem is, you don’t know you know.

Priyankan Nayak wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2024, 4:07 am Hey Scott
I didn't quite understand the Opening quote by Ram Dass as a whole. "The problem about words is you may listen to them, and that would be a mistake". A mistake is something that correlates to an error, a misunderstanding, or a misconception. How come listening to words is a mistake?

Hi, Priyankan Nayak,

Ram Dass is not saying that listening to words is a mistake.

Instead, he is saying that listening to his words that follow (and taking them at face value) would be a mistake.

In analogy, it's analogous to me saying, "drinking this cup of tea would be a mistake." You'd indeed have misunderstood if you then replied, "How come drinking tea is a mistake?" I didn't say drinking tea is a mistake; I said drinking this cup of tea would be a mistake."

He's essentially saying that he's about to talk about that which is indescribable, at least indescribable using literal face-value non-mythological terms that aren't fraught with arbitrary semantics that can lead to all sorts of pseudo-disagreements and seeming contradictions. That kind of communication is an art, and those arbitrary semantic decisions are your brush strokes. Art communicates what literal words cannot, and it is tricky to make art that is truly understood as intended.

Roughly speaking, he's also partly just advising you to use the Philosophical Principle of Charity and to pay deep close attention to what is meant by what is said rather than how it happens to be worded. Especially when it comes to talking about consciousness (a.k.a. spirituality), there's multiple different ways to phrase the same meaning and those different phrasing can at least seem to contradict. For example, some people use the word "self" to refer to what my book calls "the false self" or "the unreal you", and other people use the word "self" to refer to what my book calls "your true self" or "the real you". One person might say that they believe the self doesn't really exist, and that humans don't actually have a real self, and a second person might seem to disagree by saying the exact opposite in words: That the self does exist and that all humans have a self. If we make the mistake of going by their words, rather than focusing on the non-verbal meaning, then we would think they disagree. However, I don't make that mistake that Ram Dass warns us about, and so I would easily agree with both of them. It's a semantic choice of mythology or metaphor. I can say the same thing in meaning using very different words and mythology and mythological. I can say it in a way that would be more understandable to Christians, and then a way that would be more understandable to Buddhists, and then a way that would be more understandable to atheists, and then a way that would be more understandable to macho men, and then a way that would be very understandable to ultra-feminine women, and then a way would be more understandable to boomers, and then a way that would be more understandable to some ultra-tech-savvy teenager, and yet I would--if you usefully forget or disregard the words--really be saying the same thing just with different seemingly contradictory words.

That's an important preface especially when it comes to showing how different religions can say or teach the same thing using very different wordings and mythologies. If you focus too much on the finger that points, you lose sight of what it's pointing at. You can have 100 different religions or such all worshiping a specific finger, and hating and thinking they disagree with those who worship a different finger, when all 100 fingers are actually pointing at the same thing. Words are fingers. Very different words can point to the same thing, and no words are that thing, even though that thing may be the most important and valuable and meaningful thing in the whole universe.

In short, he's saying, listen to my meaning, not my words.





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.

The clarity of the book is evident in every aspect. While I initially had questions about certain concepts, the provided explanations and examples have elucidated every aspect for me. An example of my initial confusion was on page 34 where the notion of treating ourselves badly and unsympathetically was introduced. I pondered on the question of how one could mistreat oneself. However, through instances involving suicide, cigarette smoking, and alcoholism, I grasped the concept. Additionally, the revelation that overeating can also be a form of treating ourselves poorly was particularly intriguing to me.

I want to express my gratitude for the opportunity to be under your mentorship and for the thought-provoking book, "In It Together." I thoroughly engaged with each sentence and am pleased to share that I understood every topic covered in the book. Your clear and insightful writing style made it comprehensible, and I didn't encounter any points of confusion.

"Listen to my meaning, not my words." Thank you for this succinct explanation!

I wasn't really excited for reading the book but as I read the first page,I was just hooked to it. I'm currently reading it and have no issue so far.

I saw somewhere that Scott has written other books as well. Can someone please tell me the titles of those books?