An introduction to Individual Philosophy, by means of the spoken or written word, is an interpretation, a particular human being according to the particular experience of that being.

A speaker or writer makes a particular interpretation born of his subjective experience, translating that experience into words as best he can.
The listener or reader makes a personal interpretation of the original interpretation, according to his particular experience.

At the level of sensory perceived objects, those particular interpretations, for the purpose of communication in the *sensorily perceived world, apparently coincide.

Hence, when the word "apple" is used, two people speaking the same acquired language visualize a similar object. At this level with variable efficiency, the human being, conceiving "apple" as a sensorily perceived object, functions in relation to all other objects in the sensorily perceived reality. But, at a level other than that of the sensorily perceived world, there can be no certainty that interpretations do coincide.

For example, when the word "Consciousness" is used it is not possible for one person to convey to another exactly what he (inwardly) experiences as consciousness. Each must realize for himself what such a word means in his own experience. One can give another apples; one cannot give another consciousness.

One person cannot tell another what consciousness is because of the limitations of spoken and written word. The impossibility arises from the fact that, in order to describe an abstract experience, abstract words have to be used (abstract here meaning that which is other than sensorily perceived or described in terms of sensoriliy perceived world). And how could it be possible to define the abstract words needed in order to define the abstract?

*sensorily: That which is tangible by the individuals senses. Such as touch, smell, sight, etc.

Consciousness cannot be defined nor described because it does not have the properties and limitations of a sensorily perceived object. It is not possible to describe what consciousness is. All confusion in philosophy and religion is due one adopting the interpretation of another, forgetting the interpretation of another, forgetting that every experience of the indefinable and indescribable cannot be conveyed by the spoken and written word.

The fact that the forms of religion and philosophy are only interpretations tends to be forgotten; the maintenance, propagation and destruction of interpretations becomes an end itself.

The purpose of religion and philosophy is not to persuade or manipulate one to believe in anothers interpretation and assertion, but to guide each one to observe and interpret his own experience; to liberate him, in fact, from the interpretation of others. Their purpose is not to include belief but to liberate from false belief.

The failure of religion and philosophy is that they become a substitute, deflecting a man from his responsibility, responsibility here being the ability to respond, the ability to observe and answer to his own experience. For example, it is possible for a man to say: I believe in God. But only he can know what he means by the statement, He certainly cannot tell another what it means to him as an experience.

If someone asks: Do you believe in God? the appropriate answer must be: First you tell me what you mean by God'' And if one asks another to believe in his interpretation or assertion of the indescribable. For one cannot truthfully believe, and be free, in the interpretations or assertion of another, if he trusts that anothers interpretation or assertion as reliable evidence of the indefinable, he is deluded.

He must convince himself through his own experience.

For, at the level of APPLE, there are other people; at the level of consciousnesses, there are no other people. There are many apples and many people; but how many consciousness's are there?

At a level other than that of the sensorily perceived world one person cannot be said truthfully to comprehend the experience of another. Two person cannot be in the same place simultaneously. Particular speaks to particular. A part to a part; the individual, that which cannot be divided, cannot speak to another because He is One and Alone, All-One. Can one person do another's dying for him? It is not possible for me to convince you that you do not die; but it is possible that He does not die.


There are limitations in any philosophical interpretation. The interpreter is limited in that he must use words in an attempt to define and describe and the receiver then has to make an interpretation of that interpretation, attempting to understand what the originator means. There is therefore need for caution. The speaker or author and the listener or reader must be constantly mindful of his insuperable limitation. Each must exercise discipline, that of always being a disciple, one who needs to learn.

The speaker or written must use words with care, realizing that he cannot describe the Truth, only attempt to guide by demonstrating the un-true or false; and the listener or reader must neither accept nor reject any proposal until he has put it honestly to the test of his own experience, experience being that which reveals itself in any given moment. Arrogance is the epitome of ignorance, and therefore should be avoided; irony at its best.
---

For it is not until a man begins to observe his own experience, free from indiscriminately acquired assumptions, that he can realize what is undeniable. Words lead the mind into ignorance; they also have the power to demonstrate that ignorance. The mind led out of ignorance dis-covers Truth.

In beginning was the Word. The Truth is before the beginning that which speaks the word in the first place.

Ultimately, a person can only discover what is undeniable through observation of his own experience, each person's experience telling him precisely what he needs to know. And this is not possible whilst the mind is occupied with beliefs adopted, assumptions made and opinions formed indiscriminately which is to say, adopted, made and formed unquestioningly without the exercise of reason.

Philosophy might be described as the examination of belief, for what a man believes in his philosophy. Every man is a philosopher in that every sane (healthy) man decides to believe in something, and what a man believes is the truth for him. To believe in something is to have faith in it or to trust it as seeming constant or reliable.
A philosopher is essentially the beliefs under which a man conducts himself since his beliefs usually rule and regulate his actions. There are those who learn the interpretations of others, compare and contrast the interpretations of others and postulate their own interpretations without reference to their own experience. They thereby confine philosophy to a heretical study which has no practical significance.

And there are those who develop haphazard personal philosophies born of their varied experiences in the sensorily perceived world. These personal philosophies, crude and limited though they may be, serve the conduct of their day to day activities.
thread recreated from off-topic because it was closed for whatever reason, at least I know it wasn't against the rules.
P.S. I am attempting to share with the viewer what the individual philosophy stands for, and therefore discuss it.

Your thread was closed because it seems to imply that you're either intentionally trolling or unintentionally trolling. In our perceptions and experience, these sorts of threads have a tendency of remaining non-constructive. As a non-constructive thread, wherein semantic arguments about the nature of abstraction and of the nature of various specified abstractions will reign supreme and wherein the posited logics would seem to imply that correct answers cannot possibly exist between individuals but only within individuals, thus overpromoting individuality (destroying the possibility of consensus, and attempting to incite people to agree that only they, themselves, can hold an accurate view of the world, and thus simultaneously disagreeing about who represents "they, themselves", violating the agreement hypothesis stating that to any properly stated logical problem that all correct answers must be equivalent). While necessarily a discussion should not be about something that is trivially answered, it should also be about something that is answerable, at least in this setting. This discussion however provides a mixture of appropriate logic about the necessary nature of interpretation, but also makes various unsupportable ideological assumptions, such as solipsism and the possibility that humanity can acquire knowledge of a universal truth. Solipsism is non-constructive, and a universal truth is either uselessly general or so vastly and all-encompassingly specific so as to be unusable. Since the proof of either is relatively obvious under the nature of rational thought, a reasonably valid interpretation of information, and by analogy to the nature of rule based systems we come to the conclusion that you posted this thread with the intent of having people discuss with you specifically; possibly to make people agree with you for the emotional value of feeling intelligent, or possibly to make people disagree with you for the emotional value of being able to incite a reaction over the internet. Based on our previous experiences and how they have influenced our current expectations, either case makes for a low value thread, especially on a forum where most presented philosophical thought is under-developed and under-considered due to the nature of the demographics. As such, we closed the thread.

As such, we will close the thread again. Do not remake it.

If you wish to make a philosophical thread, please do so while paying more attention to the fact that most of our members do not use philosophy-related critical thinking skills on the forums more often than perhaps once a month, perhaps once a week, due to either having no experience in doing so or due to a lack of interest in doing so. As such, providing questions that have actual, useful answers would probably be more appreciated. Try to avoid religious undertones such as the existence of a god or a universal truth, as one is unprovable and the other is unusable. If you find yourself saying that something must necessarily exist, you are probably adding an axiom that shouldn't be there, and your logical system will break down because contradictory axioms allow false statements to be proven true and true statements to be proven false. For example, if we assume 1=0, 1+1=3, and 1+1=4, via expansion of 1+1=1+(1+0)=1+1+1=1+1+1+0=1+1+1+1. Alternatively, discuss these things in #toribash on IRC, for everyone's convenience.