dejavu wrote:(Suffering is)That which is ultimately undesirable among the conditions of consciousness.
This is a very vague definition, if it can be considered to be a definition at all.
Besides, this contradicts what you said earlier.
If an individual suffers, that suffering constitutes part of their individual existence.
Again, you're changing what you said earlier. Everything is part of an individual's existence, as everything causes that individual.
Birth and death are instrinsic to life.
Do you mean that they are part of life, or that they constitute part of life's existence....? ;-)
Anyways, life itself is not intrinsic to anything.
If you understood suffering, you would know it cannot be equated with ignorance.
It can be because I say so!!!!1!!1
How can what is unconscious suffer?
Because suffering occurs only when someone is not conscious of what is going on. The part of them which suffers is the part which is unconscious. And consciousness is not the same as intelligence, perception or emotions.
Suffering is not physical pain, depression, etc. It's essentially just a deluded perception of what is going on. The enlightened feel pain, but do not suffer.
Intelligent people always accept the facts of our condition as they see them, in order to change them if desired.
You said nothing about changing anything earlier.
Otto should not have killed himself, he wasn’t philosophical enough for it!
His suicide was a result of suffering, and it was a fault(as it was unconscious), as he himself admitted.
Pye wrote: "There is no end to these pathologies that were birthed in the beginning of human consciousness and have been nursed all the way to the 21st century in the flavor of some of our 'best' science and rationality. To this moment, suffering still strikes us as an error of understanding; a thing for which we should be ashamed; a thing for which we might boast, too. A thing that defines us negatively and defines us positively, but defines us none the less. All thought and action has been bent to the task of its address [...] I should say . . . cowardly. Every bit of it. And I should like to think that any real meaning to an ubermensch will be a conscious life form that stops trying to escape the truth, the rigors of its own existence."
But if this were true, you'd almost have to say that all efforts by man to alleviate conditions, better conditions, cure diseases, contrive all manner of insulating structure, etc., is all a result of 'cowardice'.
It seems to me that Pye is complaining but it is a sort of misplaced complaint: after all, what other choice is there? (Though she seesm most to take issue with deceiving metaphysics...)
The way I see it is that man becomes conscious of all the things that rub against him, irritate him, and he goes to work to discover a way out of that punishment/condition imposed by fate. I think this is the quintessence of the masculine spirit, something we all seem interested in. To accept things as they are, never to organize oneself to fight against, to set armies marching against the bitter conditions imposed by circumstances is to remain the victim. There are cultures that have a predominantly apathetic attitude.
Hate to keep beating on this horse, but we live in the ruins and ransacked hollows of a complete social, economic and spiritual system that 'perfectly' contained the human being. You were born, you lived, you received mystical sacraments and became part of an organic whole, a City of God. You performed your role within the structure and it all made sense. A ragged beggar in the Medieval Christian world had more organic unity with his context (life, fate) than any modern successful magnate or chieftan. You passed on of course, but you passed on with the inner knowledge that you were going toward greater union with God. The Hindu system is comparable for perceiving/establishing/inventing an organic whole, and Buddhism is a derivative of this. The ancient Chinese had a similar model, linking the individual with her or his ancestors, with the gods, and with society.
If our 'scientific model' is all we have or can have, it seems pretty obvious that we have almost completely no way to see our condition, to perceive it fully, to really internalize it, that will ever be satisfying to us. That model offers no meaning and is not part of a mystical relationship that, it seems certain, humans long for, seek after, and discover over and over again. There is I guess a 'naturalistic' way to perceive human existence within biological reality, but it leaves about 95% of what makes humans human, out. With a biological, naturalistic model, we will all be turned into biological machines, biological entities with huge computers in our heads that only need to have the right software installed. Which means, of course, to uninstall the outmoded software that drives us now. We need an uninstall tool.
I think one of the faults---if indeed this is a Buddhist philosophy that is the base here---is that this particular brand of it, the way that it is rehearsed, actually works to the advantage of the machine-processes that have taken hold of our lives. Like, if you wanted to retreat from 'Machine Consciousness' (a reality surrounding us) where would you go? What would you do? Robinson Crusoe on an island? A yogi in a cave? Building a rationalistic fort and defending it against all comers? Why is it that the path that is described here seems (feels) to have so much in common with further atomization of the individual, such that the individual agrees to split away from himself? He becomes 'angrily content' with his fate, the only fate he can conceive in the face of rather terrible conditions and consequences for the individual. It's only a forum but at least it is a willing of something.
But the 'suffering' of we moderns, this modern suffering which is so much more than a disease of the soul for which there is a cure, it is the corrosion of the soul itself, a process of splitting-off from unity, a coming undone---isn't this a very unique and rather horrible suffering? What relationship do any of us have, really, with the systems that subsume us, our town, city, state, nation, world? The answer is almost none. We have to romantically invent to come up with connections. Who can point to someone and say: He or she has a complete, organic, fulfilled relationship to culture or society, to the world, to life and to the kosmos? Maybe in some village somewhere...in some forgotten pocket outside of time...someone living, conceptually, in a virginal world, in a world they feel fundamentally related to.
Modern suffering is acute suffering and delirium is its symptom. 'You' (as individual) didn't invent it and aren't responsible for it. You are the victim of it. It has its way with you, you are offered up to it, like to Moloch. You squirm and use all the tools at your disposal to weasel out of the terrible fate imposed, but so often 'squirming' is just neuroticism, or sinking into quicksand, or an exploding Roman candle that leaves a burnt-out shell. Either we try to recover the old, expired, dissolved organic system through employing simulacra (hanging charms over doors, etc.) or we take up residence in some incomplete mental fantasy that seems so utterly insubstantial as to be, even to our own selves, ridiculously contrived. But, at least it keeps the soul from the agonizing death that is intensely bitter and painful.
Alex wrote:Hate to keep beating on this horse, but we live in the ruin and ransacked hollows of a complete social, economic and spiritual system that 'perfectly' contained the human being
Such statements reveal some variations on a 19th century reactionary mindset, a pining for how things were, as well as describing near mystical qualities to it: some complete system that 'perfectly' contained some "human being" - as if this being was ever complete and finished in anyway. Didn't we always had fractures trying to organize, suffering in that trying?
True, the social, the whole cohesion of cohabiting strategies is changing. Instead of islands of intense dependencies, we can see global networks of loser ties replacing it. It seems you're making too big of a deal about what's essentially just another change, just another climate to the primate.
Atomatization of the individual, increase of schizo fall-out: are they so much more catastrophic than the past mechanics of faith, tradition, social expectation and overall straight jacketing? Does this criticism of modernity have any substance, apart from a resistance to what has to move? Perhaps moving with it would be more advisable, like the Zen dude crossing the stream.
Diebert wrote: "Atomatization of the individual, increase of schizo fall-out: are they so much more catastrophic than the past mechanics of faith, tradition, social expectation and overall straight jacketing? Does this criticism of modernity have any substance, apart from a resistance to what has to move? Perhaps moving with it would be more advisable, like the Zen dude crossing the stream."
I am focussing on what we have fallen away from because it seems to shed light on a desperation of modern persons to find something that will complete them. I don't think any of this can be looked at in black and white terms though. It is sometimes useful to put things in high relief so to examine them. It seems to me that 'many people' do not really understand the rather long process by which an old world has come undone. Seeing it, describing it, does not mean to advocate to recreate it (the world fallen away).
And it is not necessarily that I am 'criticising' modernity as it seems all that has happened was inevitable, and there is certainly no turning back. All that happened, we did to ourselves (our leading men), and there is no alternative but to go to the very ends.
I do certainly feel that increased atomazation and literal disolution of the individual is a very real thing. I note a high preponderance of such persons who, like moths, are drawn to this forum. I find it very odd that they appear, make themselves known, and also reveal a great deal of pain. Sometimes it seems there is not enough of a center though to really constellate that pain, so it is almost a parody of pain and angst.
David: Yep, totally agree. But you must admit, they are henids which are expressed most passionately.
lol Intelligent people always accept the facts of our condition as they see them, in order to change them if desired. Having a superior grasp of language (is this the most modest way of saying something that is altogether obvious?) leaves one in a very powerful position with respect to expressing, not to mention ‘arguing’ the truth of anything at all one could come up with.
Basil often goes well in Italian dishes and cars usually run better when well-maintained.
dejavu wrote:
Yes, I grant you that some forms of suffering can't be helped, such as physical accidents. But the kind of suffering that can be addressed and eliminated through philosophical wisdom is the emotional and psychological kind, which is not only very common in the world, but the kind of suffering which cuts deepest. Far deeper than physical pain.
lol Oh! Philosophical wisdom! Now I see!
Philosophy does mean "love of wisdom" ......
If you admit chance, accident, the random and incalculable in nature, (and you here seem to) I would have thought you’d then realize that to find suffering to be, at bottom, ‘an error in understanding’ would itself, of necessity, be an error in understanding.
If we were to include raw physical pain in the category of "suffering", then you would have a point. But as I have already mentioned, the kind of suffering I am talking about is the emotional and psychological kind. Real suffering, in other words.
Physical pain is not really a form of suffering, although it can, and often is, experienced as such. It can just as easily be experienced as a form of pleasure, such as when an athlete constantly pushes himself through the pain barrier in order to develop his athletic skills.
As you said yourself, suffering is essentially the experience of what is undesirable. It is characterized by the desire to escape what is happening in the present moment. If a person is so wise, so fully immersed in his infinite nature, that he no longer had any attachment or preference for a particular set of circumstances, then the very basis of suffering no longer exists inside him.
It's a case of emptying yourself of utterly everything, so much so that nothing can ever be taken away from you. Becoming so empty that you can never experience lack.
dejavu wrote:
David: [If only he had taken the time beforehand to eliminate his delusions, break free of his mirage-self and become conscious of his true nature. Then none of the emotional torture would have happened, and perhaps not even the accident itself.
Does the same then apply to the dead and dying Haitians as to this unfortunate shark-attack victim?
More or less, if applied intelligently. Obviously, philosophic wisdom can't prevent earthquakes from happening, or other such cataclysmic events. And if there were any wise people in Haiti, they would have had just as much chance as anyone else of being crushed or losing their legs. Emotionally, however, they wouldn't have suffered, due to their sheer lack of attachment to their form, or to particular sets of circumstances.
dejavu wrote:
Jupiviv: Woman is sentimental, and knows emotion but not mental excitement. - Otto Weininger.
Otto should not have killed himself, he wasn’t philosophical enough for it!
I can't disagree with that. Although brilliant, he wasn't very mature in a philosophic sense.
Still, he achieved far more in his short life than most people do in their excessively long lives.
David Quinn wrote:I can't disagree with that. Although brilliant, he wasn't very mature in a philosophic sense.
Why? His thought was mostly very clear, even more than Nietzsche or Kierkegaard. He probably never acted against his ideals, and in his last days he came very close to enlightenment.
David Quinn wrote:I can't disagree with that. Although brilliant, he wasn't very mature in a philosophic sense.
Why? His thought was mostly very clear, even more than Nietzsche or Kierkegaard. He probably never acted against his ideals, and in his last days he came very close to enlightenment.
That he came close to enlightenment, without actually breaking into it, is evidence enough of his philosophic immaturity.
I agree that his thinking in general was very clear, but it was still clouded by the romanticism of youth, particularly when it came to the very deepest realm of understanding the nature of reality itself. For example, he was still under the spell of mysticism (a form of romanticism), which undermined the clear logic that he normally brought to bear in other areas. And indeed, it was that romanticism which helped trigger his desire to kill himself, even to the point of shooting himself in Beethoven's old room.
So he was brilliant, daring, a great man in many ways, but unfortunately he ended his life before he could mature into a genuinely enlightened thinker.
dejavu wrote:(Suffering is)That which is ultimately undesirable among the conditions of consciousness.
How does it contradict what I said earlier?
Earlier you said that it was part of individuality, and now you're saying that it is one of the conditions of individuality.
Also, the conditions for something are not inherently desirable nor undesirable. They are just conditions.
If an individual suffers, that suffering constitutes part of their individual existence.
Again, how?
Part of an individual, and part of an individual's existence, mean different things. "An apple" means the apple itself, and "an apple's existence" means something more than itself - the things that are related to it, it's qualities, etc. Of course, if that is what you meant before, then I withdraw what I said. But if that's what you meant, you couldn't also have said the other things that you said about suffering.
Life is intrinsic to the living.
Sorry, I'm not going to play semantics.
jupiviv wrote:Because suffering occurs only when someone is not conscious of what is going on.
No.
As you provide no reason for saying no, I win the argument! YAAAAY!!!
Consciousness of pain, however enlightened, qualifies as suffering.
One suffers from pain. Pain itself is not suffering. It is suffering only when defined as such.
Suffering itself is the feeling that one is being destroyed in some way. The enlightened being does not suffer from pain(destruction) of any kind, as he knows that he is eternal(and why).
Nor did I say anything earlier about accepting the facts of our condition.
You said that we should "accept" suffering, and not try to get rid of it.
Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm assuming here that your and Pye's views are the same. On second thought, don't correct me, because that may lead to your forum romance breaking up! :-)
David:
dejavu: lol Oh! Philosophical wisdom! Now I see!
David: Philosophy does mean "love of wisdom" ......
Is there wisdom that is not philosophical David?
"Worldly wisdom" would be one such example.
dejavu wrote:
Physical pain is not really a form of suffering, although it can, and often is, experienced as such.
lol For something to qualify as physical ‘pain’ means we have become conscious of it.
There is no consciousness without the physicality that bears it.
I don't see the relevance of this response.
dejavu wrote:
It can just as easily be experienced as a form of pleasure, such as when an athlete constantly pushes himself through the pain barrier in order to develop his athletic skills.
So? In speaking of the relativity of pain you still have not divorced suffering from the physical.
Again, I don't see the relevance.
dejavu wrote: The only basis for suffering is consciousness. Not an error or lack thereof. You and jupiviv will have to feel just a little more anguish as I publically drive this into your skulls.
If consciousness was truly the only basis for suffering, then we would experience suffering during every moment of consciousness.
dejavu wrote:
David: It's a case of emptying yourself of utterly everything, so much so that nothing can ever be taken away from you. Becoming so empty that you can never experience lack.
Weininger achieved this with a gun.
If it is your aim to be as glib and thoughtless as possible in your responses, you are doing a good job.
dejavu wrote:
dejavu:
David: If only he had taken the time beforehand to eliminate his delusions, break free of his mirage-self and become conscious of his true nature. Then none of the emotional torture would have happened, and perhaps not even the accident itself.
dejavu: Does the same then apply to the dead and dying Haitians as to this unfortunate shark-attack victim?
David: More or less, if applied intelligently. Obviously, philosophic wisdom can't prevent earthquakes from happening, or other such cataclysmic events. And if there were any wise people in Haiti, they would have had just as much chance as anyone else else of being crushed or losing their legs. Emotionally, however, they wouldn't have suffered, due to their sheer lack of attachment to their form, or to particular sets of circumstances.
Why do these wise people of yours exist at all if they’re not attached to their form? You will answer that it is precisely because of this non-attachment to their form that they do not rid themselves of it.
David Quinn wrote:That he(Weininger) came close to enlightenment, without actually breaking into it, is evidence enough of his philosophic immaturity.
If you consider breaking into enlightenment to be the highest degree of philosophic maturity, then Weininger was not immature by any means(although not completely mature either.) His commitment to his ideals itself was a kind of enlightenment. Compare this to Nietzsche, who chose to boast about his ideals(thus abandoning them) and tried to appear worldly. If you place Hakuin and Buddha at one end of the maturity-immaturity scale, and academic philosophers on the other, then Weininger would be placed at about 80% of the way towards the mature end.
Overall, Weininger was more or less on par with Kierkegaard in his philosophical maturity. Both of them circled the truth, but couldn't go further.
Alex T. Jacob wrote:I note a high preponderance of such persons who, like moths, are drawn to this forum. I find it very odd that they appear, make themselves known, and also reveal a great deal of pain. Sometimes it seems there is not enough of a center though to really constellate that pain, so it is almost a parody of pain and angst.
Hmm, yeah, no disagreement here. Though I did always include you with them. One way to handle pain and the confusion that is suffering, is to build structures out of the intellectual, the 'accomplished' and the 'educated'. Sometimes you see people here spouting their private cosmologies, ideas where a lot of thought appears to have gone in. But like with paranoid schizophrenia, or at least the collection of behaviors associated with that term, the sky-high structures are erected as crutch, to prevent a complete collapse: or the fear for such collapse. A fear which can even become reality, but only when that reality is build upon this speculative fear. There are similarities with modernity and its architecture but it appears to go back many ages. Only the current scale of things warps the perspective a bit.
The rocky foundations drilled into on this forum can hardly be mistaken with ivory towers and its many hiding places. Where can one hide for the questions of ones existence, after all? In life but not near death. It's about the ever grounding universality and simplicity of logic and reason, universal to existence as experienced through our common awareness. There's no question of "beyond" applicable here, it's as final as death - hence its attraction to the moths of life.
dejavu wrote:Individuality? You mean consciousness. If you’re going to say I said something, best quote it, yes?
How is consciousness different from individuality?
lol Pye and I have different views.
Well then I stand bowed and chastened. No discussion is possible now, as I was basing my arguments on the assumption that you two agree with each other, at least on this issue.
But it certainly doesn't seem like you have different views, judging by what little I've seen of your posts. But then, you never *said* you have the same views, so I'm probably wrong. :-)
Ahhh...David.....I wish you would turn your mind to greater things...as opposed to putting shit on women........
You are an intelligent guy..why waste your time on producing your own angst against women? We have no hope of being enlightened, according to you, so why convey your displeasure about a done deal?
I said once I envy your thinking capabilities..............I have my own..and I pity some of your thinking...............
dejavu wrote:An individuals individuality comprises the whole person ie. it includes their physicality.
An individual's individuality comprises of whatever is defined to be their individuality. It may be a rock, a tree, a concept, or a brain. However, individuality cannot be two things at the same time.
David wrote: "I agree that his thinking in general was very clear, but it was still clouded by the romanticism of youth, particularly when it came to the very deepest realm of understanding the nature of reality itself. For example, he was still under the spell of mysticism (a form of romanticism), which undermined the clear logic that he normally brought to bear in other areas. And indeed, it was that romanticism which helped trigger his desire to kill himself, even to the point of shooting himself in Beethoven's old room."
Though he may have been under the spell of a romantic mysticism (never have read him myself so I couldn't say), you seem to imply that all mysticism is 'romantic' and I am not sure this is the case. A few definitions:
Mysticism
---A religion based on mystical communion with an ultimate reality
---Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion ) is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight.
---The beliefs, ideas, or thoughts of mystics; A doctrine of direct communication or spiritual intuition of divine truth; A transcendental union of soul or mind with the divine reality or divinity.
---Mystic: mysterious: having an import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence; beyond ordinary understanding
---Mystic: someone who believes in the existence of realities beyond human comprehension.
---Obscure or irrational thought; obscure thoughts and speculations.
I would definitely describe you David as a 'mystic', but you have a strict and somewhat different set of definitions that define your mysticism.
I suggest that mysticism is a necessary part of being and is related to all higher intelligence, philosophy.
Jeannie wrote:Ahhh...David.....I wish you would turn your mind to greater things...as opposed to putting shit on women........
You are an intelligent guy..why waste your time on producing your own angst against women? We have no hope of being enlightened, according to you, so why convey your displeasure about a done deal?
If you look a little deeper, you'll see that I'm actually putting shit on men. My interest in this matter doesn't really have much to do with women.
I said once I envy your thinking capabilities..............I have my own..and I pity some of your thinking...............
I understand.
If you are non-emotional about your mum, why do you still take care of her?
Well, she's been dead awhile, but it was for various reasons. One of them was to honour a debt to my mother's artistic sensibilities and her atheism which helped open my mind as a child.
The Fourth Genius wrote: "Hmm, yeah, no disagreement here. Though I did always include you with them. One way to handle pain and the confusion that is suffering, is to build structures out of the intellectual, the 'accomplished' and the 'educated'. Sometimes you see people here spouting their private cosmologies, ideas where a lot of thought appears to have gone in. But like with paranoid schizophrenia, or at least the collection of behaviors associated with that term, the sky-high structures are erected as crutch, to prevent a complete collapse: or the fear for such collapse. A fear which can even become reality, but only when that reality is build upon this speculative fear. There are similarities with modernity and its architecture but it appears to go back many ages. Only the current scale of things warps the perspective a bit."
Wow. You really know how to hurt a fella. Ouch.
That is a convoluted paragraph you wrote, Master, but I think I understand.
When I spoke of fragmented people I was more referring to some of the obviously mentally ill who occasionally appear on the list. The ones who have real problems: drug addiction, mental convolution, and yet who are very attracted to the label or the possibility of 'genius'. The ones who might not recover, the ones who may disintegrate completely. I think it is a worthwhile suggestion to pay some attention to this phenomenon, and also to see how it is expressed and reflected in the kinds of solutions that are recommended here, presented as they are as absolute solutions, and radical absolutes. Right there, with 'absolute', the abyss opens up before us. And when I mentioned 'moths' I am referring to the kind of mind that is attracted to such absolutes, or absolutes that are expressed in certain rigid ways. But even more, I am referring to unconscious elements operating under the mental veneer, which often appears so contrived and even fragile. I really don't think this is such a radical idea, but I can see how it is threatening to those who are mechanically forced to defend an ideology...
Is there a cosmology that is not private? What would be the 'public cosmology'?
"The rocky foundations drilled into on this forum can hardly be mistaken with ivory towers and its many hiding places. Where can one hide for the questions of ones existence, after all? In life but not near death. It's about the ever grounding universality and simplicity of logic and reason, universal to existence as experienced through our common awareness. There's no question of "beyond" applicable here, it's as final as death - hence its attraction to the moths of life."
I don't know if I would suggest that these 'rocky foundations' are analogous to the game of constructing marvellous intellectual constructs in 'ivory towers', a sort of willful, romantic imagination. But I would certainly suggest that there are always 'places to hide' and many places where one might take wrong turns and end up in the desert or in some other inhospitable territory, far from 'living water'.
I suggest that you have internalized what begins to look like a romantic attachment to these notions of 'ever grounding universality and simplicity of logic and reason, universal to existence as experienced through our common awareness'. (Humorously, you could be described as John to their Mathew, Mark and Luke!) I suppose this is how you view yourself vis-à-vis the G-3 and their project, a project you identify with and support. That is fine, of course, but as you know that I find here some very different undercurrents, and I try to talk about them. Just talk about them. (But notice the shrill levels of opposition and the anger that often rises up.) It should also be clear to you that I am (now) attempting to see and describe the G-3 (Three Geniuses) as resulting from a breakdown in internal unity, and as a rather brutal and impetuous attempt to ruthlessly establish some sense of order (yet almost patholgically unstable) in an increasingly hostile modernity. 'Rocky foundations' makes it appear absolutely substantial and somehow 'correct', 'unquestionable'. I think these terms express the manner that you buy-in Diebert.
Deja vu wrote: "Alex? You're religious aren't you?"
In the sense that I am not an atheist, that I belive there is a greater intelligence and awareness that we associate with as we come into consciousness.
'Religion' is the complexity (or simplicity) of a man's relationship to the mysterious fact of existence, the way man marvels at the fact of his existence. It is also a group of ideas and practices that he applies to himself in order to live his life in concert with his awareness (that which he awakens to, or that awakens in him. that sprouts like a seed). The religions (like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, idolatrous worship of Macaws, etc.) can all be examined, and understood/appreciated, as attempts to define a Totality and construct a total way to live within it---an inevitable enterprise of human existence. If they cannot apply to 'our modernity' they can be examined for metaphorical content.
Alex T. Jacob wrote:And when I mentioned 'moths' I am referring to the kind of mind that is attracted to such absolutes, or absolutes that are expressed in certain rigid ways. But even more, I am referring to unconscious elements operating under the mental veneer, which often appears so contrived and even fragile.
Yes, but why do you think your interest in this forum would be any different? Just as inspiration source for your short story? Just to offer differing views? Such stages have long since past, if they ever were a factor.
One should always consider the element of projection at work. In your case it seems immensely ironic. But, I too might be projecting, often giving people the benefit of the doubt for instance. I might be projecting my own brilliance unto Quinn or Nick. At least it's not like the negative slur you're dragging around here. Don't you notice, how heavy, full of belittling, ridiculing arguments near every post from you is? Laced with some faint praise of course.
But I would certainly suggest that there are always 'places to hide' and many places where one might take wrong turns and end up in the desert or in some other inhospitable territory, far from 'living water'.
Agreed.
I suggest that you have internalized what begins to look like a romantic attachment to these notions of 'ever grounding universality and simplicity of logic and reason, universal to existence as experienced through our common awareness'. (Humorously, you could be described as John to their Mathew, Mark and Luke!) I suppose this is how you view yourself vis-à-vis the G-3 and their project, a project you identify with and support.
It's weird, I never look at this forum as a project of one, two of five people. When becoming immersed in wisdom from all ages and all places, this here can only be a fraction of my interest and participation. I do recognize a direction which is repeated by all wise men and living words.
I find here some very different undercurrents, and I try to talk about them. Just talk about them. (But notice the shrill levels of opposition and the anger that often rises up.)
The dismissal or instant rebuke could be caused by the depth of stupidity you try to sell as insight on occasion. Pharisee!
Rocky foundations' makes it appear absolutely substantial and somehow 'correct', 'unquestionable'. I think these terms express the manner that you buy-in Diebert.
No, it's meant quite literally: the rock bottom that one cannot penetrate with questions because questions are born out of the same rock. It's a astoundingly simple logical truth that one is welcome to overthrow, trying really really hard. It's work one has to do before this particular realization might happen.
Alex T. Jacob wrote:David wrote: "I agree that his thinking in general was very clear, but it was still clouded by the romanticism of youth, particularly when it came to the very deepest realm of understanding the nature of reality itself. For example, he was still under the spell of mysticism (a form of romanticism), which undermined the clear logic that he normally brought to bear in other areas. And indeed, it was that romanticism which helped trigger his desire to kill himself, even to the point of shooting himself in Beethoven's old room."
Though he may have been under the spell of a romantic mysticism (never have read him myself so I couldn't say), you seem to imply that all mysticism is 'romantic' and I am not sure this is the case. A few definitions:
Mysticism
---A religion based on mystical communion with an ultimate reality
---Mysticism (from the Greek µ?st????, mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion ) is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight.
---The beliefs, ideas, or thoughts of mystics; A doctrine of direct communication or spiritual intuition of divine truth; A transcendental union of soul or mind with the divine reality or divinity.
---Mystic: mysterious: having an import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence; beyond ordinary understanding
---Mystic: someone who believes in the existence of realities beyond human comprehension.
---Obscure or irrational thought; obscure thoughts and speculations.
I would definitely describe you David as a 'mystic', but you have a strict and somewhat different set of definitions that define your mysticism.
I suggest that mysticism is a necessary part of being and is related to all higher intelligence, philosophy.
It's a necessary stepping stone to enlightenment and the highest philosophy, but one that needs to be outgrown. I look upon my mystical phase as I do, say, my artistic phase or my scientific phase. They were all critical phases at various stages of my development, but passing phases nonetheless. To become stuck in the mystical phase is essentially no different to being stuck in art or science. It's a form of stagnation.
The second definition of mysticism on your list comes closest to what I am about, but it is still couched in immature terms nonetheless. There is no mention, for example, of using the insights and experiences of mystical union to inform one's reasoning powers in a drive to reach supreme clarity and understanding. Dictionaries cannot help but reflect the biases and limitations of the average person. They aren't written by enlightened sages, but by ordinary people whose outlook is restricted by common consent.
In short, mysticism is an immature phase (hence romantic) in which Ultimate Reality is grasped at in a blind, ad-hoc fashion by emotional people who don't really know what they are doing.
I thought I already explained all this. I will do it again so that you can have some pithy material to use against me, or just some unwanted details that you can yourself pithily dismiss.
I came to this forum originally on the tail-end of a pretty disasterous 'love-affair'. It was a pretty major event, though utterly minor as far as the expansion of the universe goes. I came across some reference to Weininger, somewhere, followed a link or two, and wound up on GF.
Would you like some information about the many strange psychological currents that were operating in me at that time? There were many...
What attracted me, of course, was the apparent seriousness of the forum's focus, the no-image policy, and strict focus on the written word. In many ways, this focus corresponds with numerous areas of long-standing intererst for me. Here is an important part: (if your question was genuine, which of course it wasn't, but...more caritas in the Greek sense). Years before I began an investigation into belief-systems. The question, broad of course, was Why do we believe the things we believe? I had a freind who got involved in Carlos Castaneda's 'cult' in LA, a woman I had lived (platonically) with in Mexico years before. This cult went through an almost unbelievable implosion, and what was left were the burnt out hulks of a (false) belief-system, with absolutist tendencies, that offered a whole range of things to believe and to live, yet many of which, in the end (the bitter end) proved false.
I came to realize that 'our modernity', especially in the post-war era, because of certain rudderlessness, a kind of desperation, as well as lack of proper information and education necessary for the individual (resulting from teevee culture, all sorts of popular, expressionistic, impulsive tendencies on the rise in 'unprepared youth' incapable of really analysing things through) to make correct, solid and (yes) sane choices for the living of life, I came to realize that whole generations were getting sucked into vain and 'false' belief systems expressed as strange spiritualities, new conglomerations of belief-systems, or just abandonment to the sad apathy of the day's 'temporal modalities', and that sort of thing.
I spent a good deal of time on forums similar to this one in seriousness, with some pretty well-prepared and often quite brilliant people, looking into these issues, analysing them. The background was cult-like belief-systems and how they function in 'our modernity'.
You still with me here, Diebert? Cult-like belief-systems and the way they get hold of people at a fundamental level. In fact, subconscious. As a substitute for life lived. Not of course that living life is ever just a romp in the grass, or that one should ever accept any general recommendation. But still, our own intellectual traditions, over the course of 3 thousand-odd years, certainly have something to say about all that.
There is of course tons to be said about 'all that'. But suffice to say that I was still interested in absolute systems of thinking because (duh!) the same tendency that operates out there in culture, or in there in psychology, of course operates in me. As it does in all of us. We have fallen away or been yanked away from a major development in world-consciousness: the Medieval Roman construct, perfected in Germany, Britain and France (to speak generally). One can examine causation and see people spun off into particulates. Individual, unconnected 'wills' spinning into all sorts of crazy stuff---or 'freedom' if that is your perception, and it sometimes is mine. One speaks of very large 'themes' but there are of course all sorts of mini-themes within them. It is hard to speak of such grand things and not engage in reductions.
There is a great deal of relevant if not vital information in all this for 'those who have ears to hear'. Because it has to do with the reasons why we end up making certain choices. Why we sacrifice our vital lives...to empy shells. The image, one used by Ginsberg and still a good one, is the Moloch who asks for far too much. Just stupidity on my part, Diebert? A 'projection' of my own content? Could be. But of course that is why the conversation is extremely relevant. And to have the conversation requires at least some preparation. When you don't have prepared individuals capable of what we call 'free thought' you inevitably find wolves in sheep's clothing who, because of a certain focus of will or because they are adept at handling psychology, string people along. For this reason it is always a good idea to induce people to do their own thinking.
Oh but I forgot, excuse me monsieur. That is what you do! How foolish of me to assume...
The other part...since you asked you sweet little Devil you..has to do with literature and writing. I really like the written word and am at least reasonably proficient at discursive expression. I want to proceed into fiction, which is really a whole other realm. Still, I deliberately came back after 5 months or so away to present a group of ideas that have relevance to me. I have no idea what will come of it. What I have expressed in this thread, mostly.
Here is a most juicy tid-bit. As to what you call 'belittling': It is one of the things I realized straight away here. When the adolescent, uneducated snots get on their high horses and pretend that they understand stuff they have no inkling about, and when they operate in packs, with pacts, smashing genuine examination of questions that are immensely important and relevant, at that point, dear Diebert, the gloves come off. You may think of it as sadism, and perhaps it is, but to hold some little wimp by the scruff of his scrawny neck, and pummel him in the face, breaking teeth, causing blood and snot to congeal and pool on the sidewalk, THAT gives me satisfaction! Is that being 'smug'? If it is, it is delightful. (But not too Christian, I'll admit).
"No, it's meant quite literally: the rock bottom that one cannot penetrate with questions because questions are born out of the same rock. It's a astoundingly simple logical truth that one is welcome to overthrow, trying really really hard. It's work one has to do before this particular realization might happen."
Sounds like a conundrum to me. I know that is how you see this 'rock'. I also assume that some 'rock' is there. Because my presuppositions about such a 'rock' are different, is it surprising that we can't ever seem quite to agree?
PS: Still, despite what you think, my interest is in helping the project here.
·Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion ) is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight.
____________________________________________________________
David wrote: "The second definition of mysticism on your list comes closest to what I am about, but it is still couched in immature terms nonetheless. There is no mention, for example, of using the insights and experiences of mystical union to inform one's reasoning powers in a drive to reach supreme clarity and understanding. Dictionaries cannot help but reflect the biases and limitations of the average person. They aren't written by enlightened sages, but by ordinary people whose outlook is restricted by common consent."
Well, I guess that is not surprising since there have only been according to you maybe 5 Enlightened Ones in all history. We could never expect the Enlightened to write all the dictionaries, all the books, and organize everything on top of that. They'd be so busy they'd never have time for Nirvana.
Jokes aside, what first comes to mind for me is (again) the machine-like manner you have contrived for yourself to respond to all questions and problems. True, you express a certain 'logic' or perhaps consistancy is the word. You have a neat trick where you can always stay on top. This 'system' you have come up with begins to look more and more like a simple mechanism with about 3 moving parts. The same mechanism is found, at the core, in all the Geniuses.
What can one do, what can one say? To take a position in contra is, 'logically', to take an impossible position against logic, against the Absolute, against Truth, against Honesty. You are going to have either True Believers or their opposite. No in-between.
I suggest this is where 'cult-thinking' originates. I think this style of thinking may be increasingly common, and it will function in many areas, not just in spiritual philosophy. It seems to be the result of certain internal impulses (or perhaps needs) that coincide with a limited mental field, limited preparation. I am still of the opinion that it is a strategy of the 'ego' (in the psychological sense only) so as not to come undone, not to dissolve. I don't think it can really be called 'enlightenment' and cannot, for a group of reasons, be privelaged as valuable realization. I cannot help but see and describe it as 'mechanical'.
