We are not always thinking

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert writes: Your ideas about a "Greek" model of rational man is flawed.

I'm thinking that the model itself is flawed.

In general I limit myself to pre-Socratic philosophy when it comes to the Greek. And for me such "model" is linked to similar rational traditions arising around the Levant, Persia and India.

Animals generally do not obstruct their own reason since it would get them killed.

and many a man has used that self-same un-obstructed reason to build the towers and citadels of thought that can get himself, and a whole lot of others killed with him.

This is a tough one. What was first: the wolf or the three little piggies? The dialectic of violence... but still, picking up a weapon generally increases the chances to be killed by it. Which is why picking up a weapon is often a sign of reason being obstructed. But limiting it to bare hands will not paint a different picture. It has nothing to do with citadels of thought. It has to do with insane depths of ignorance, possible linked to the consciousness of the social being which always demands sacrifice to keep the phantasm intact. And I'm not even judging.

[Dennis Mahar]

D writes:
And I'm not even judging.

the bouqet to self move.

cutie.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

the bouqet to self move.

Dennis, I wish it were roses but it's mostly thorns all the way down. Do I need to explain it for dim-bliss? Since I was using several words which could be interpreted in a moral sense, like violence, insane, sacrifice and phantasm, it seemed like a good idea to add a remark that I do not put any moral value on these things. My values might dictate rationality and reject irrationality but that doesn't mean violence, human sacrifice or the fantastic are any more wrong or right than flowers, baby smiles or tyger tygers. The amorality of it! Cause and effect! Already 4000 posts same old story and I still need to elaborate.

[Pye]

Diebert writes: But Pye, men desire so many things, low and high, earthy and heavenly.

This would be true of most all humans, yes?

Women are not what men desire . . .

Are you meaning to distinguish this italicized desire as a non-earthly i.e. 'spiritual' thing for men, hence, unfulfillable by embodiment of any kind? Some blind dualism lurking there, if so.

Let's go ahead with this high-minded notion of men's italicized desire then. Will your sentence work for you as well with the sexes reversed?

Diebert: although in cases women are still trying to embody themselves as one particular exclusive object of desire.

This would not be the case for men as well? goodheavens, a whole social order to rationalize and reward women/men for just this singular thing. (And I mean this not as carte blanche defense for either; nor do I mean it as complete dismissal of embodiment.)

Diebert: All the other problems with women have to do with their general lack of vision and in fact a web of control she has been weaving herself into.

Oh Diebert, Diebert . . . . if only you could see this as the blurred vision of men and the self-accusation that it is.

Diebert: Luckily men have showed them the way by education and invention so that they can free themselves of their particular preoccupation.

Do you seriously believe that men are responsible for women wanting and being-able to think and do? These and many other presumptions from rational man are why it is simply impossible to carry on a sane conversation regarding men and women here.

Here, we have an entire house philosophy that in seeking to dismantle the idealization of Woman (which, by the way, I have supported as a worthy pursuit) has simply replaced it with another (negative) idealization of her, just slipping one noose for another, same fixation.** And here, we have the recommendation to transcend dualistic thinking, again, by being embedded right smack in it. And here, we still have Diebert faithfully carrying the Standard!

Diebert: But who is going the free up the men?

It's what, Diebert. What is going to get through to them . . . .


**edit: replacing an ideal with a cartoon.

[Pye]

By the bye, I also like the PreSocratics. It's interesting to note that theirs was something of a poetic holism - a rather aesthetic approach to the experience and workings of universe/existence.

[Dennis Mahar]

Yes, Diebert you're a martyr for something or other.
there's no possibility of bliss in that of course because bliss is against the rules governing martyrdom.

[Dennis Mahar]

Anyway Pye,
The story is:

Women are the perps
men are the victims
Diebert to the rescue.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert writes: But Pye, men desire so many things, low and high, earthy and heavenly.

This would be true of most all humans, yes?

It's just the culture-historical reality of men being driven more, focus more and being "raptured" more by their visions. That's for me the justification to use a gender word here.

Women are not what men desire . . .

Are you meaning to distinguish this italicized desire as a non-earthly i.e. 'spiritual' thing for men, hence, unfulfillable by embodiment of any kind? Some blind dualism lurking there, if so.

Women make quite often the mistake that it's something inherently about them what is being desired (or in the same way how they think they're desiring men). Or at least the idea arises that it's something about sensuality. But generally it's just something in the overall dynamic like a supply or resource of power, admiration, status, duty, novelty, etc. Naturally men make the same mistake and might think it's the woman they want to be with. That would only work when they'd become woman themselves and the man is no more. Now both will become unhappy under the belief in happy but hopefully life itself distracts from that. It's the mistake of person-hood and embodiment of person-hood.

Let's go ahead with this high-minded notion of men's italicized desire then. Will your sentence work for you as well with the sexes reversed?

If you reverse the sexes here then nothing would be changed. Actually this reversal is happening all the time but changes nothing about the ruling psychological dynamics.

Diebert: All the other problems with women have to do with their general lack of vision and in fact a web of control she has been weaving herself into.

Oh Diebert, Diebert . . . . if only you could see this as the blurred vision of men and the self-accusation that it is.

It sounds like you're invoking a plea? Liberation is an active struggle. Even liberation from a role, a position of victim hood or a biological disadvantage in some context. Why is that an accusation? Women just developed historically not in the active sense for possibly good reasons. This is what I mean with "weaving herself into". It's not some individual accusation but a cultural criticism, limited to certain ages for sure but still too much of a dominant disposition to justify limiting generalizations.

Do you seriously believe that men are responsible for women wanting and being-able to think and do? These and many other presumptions from rational man are why it is simply impossible to carry on a sane conversation regarding men and women here.

Since the dynamic of culturally imposed gender created a self-spun web, naturally it needed male responsibility to set her free. Not because she didn't want that freedom but because she didn't have the means, stuck in patterns beyond her created by ages of specific behavioral patterns. But real and just equality means also destruction of 'womanhood' and 'femininity' altogether. You know very well it were not just men opposing this development, on the contrary! It were those very ideals which fuel all forms of inequality. Oh, the tragedy of so many feminists who didn't know! And that's a good description of "Woman": he who doesn't know. She only... thought...that...

Here, we have an entire house philosophy that in seeking to dismantle the idealization of Woman (which, by the way, I have supported as a worthy pursuit) has simply replaced it with another (negative) idealization of her, just slipping one noose for another, same fixation.

Clearly you haven't gone that far with dismantling: the sheepish "theeeeem" sounding in the word "house philosophy" is one telltale sign. And if you want to dismantle, it helps to have "negative idealizations" but they need to be dosed carefully!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The story is: Women are the perps. men are the victims. Diebert to the rescue.

Your winning formula! Why don't you try some other lingo or are you too old to learn new tricks?

[Pye]

ok well let's maybe not derail this thread overmuch with this tired old mas/fem thing. I've got a question for anyone. Being as we are the authors and employers of these slippery word-things, I wonder if there is a difference to be seen between logic and reasoning.

In my own authorship, I see it this way, logic being a tool of reason, but reason being far more light-footed, less cumbersome, and possessed of greater reach. Reason, in my estimation, is the process that can speak farther than logic qua logic can; reason can confront those portions of logic that get themselves too tightly wound; can break through those airless spaces. Reason would be that which is able to remind us of something like this: the clarity of [human] existence is borne in on us not just through thinking, but feeling as well.

The Greek model of the rational man (much clung-to here) has executed a long divorce of thinking from feeling - a dissolution carried forth to this day on this site (and everywhere it makes its appearance). Feeling - thought so dangerous, derailing, and the province of mental chaos (i.e. "women") (my reasoning tells me) is not separable from thinking; creates a false duality; and ignores its role in the entire process of making sense. What is sense-making but the bright settling of a thought into a satisfying and settled feeling most pleasing to the human being . . . .

(cannot be anymore thorough than this at present. gotta go shovel snow - wheeee! I think it's a good idea to do it right now for all sorts of reasons; it feels right :) )

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I wonder if there is a difference to be seen between logic and reasoning.

Not for me unless logic would be seen as a [particular or not] art of reasoning. The term highlights the issue of consistency. But as logic relates to "logos", reason relates to ratio, which has a lot to do with all relating itself, with the proportional, the "not-out-of-wack". Critics of reason and logic often do not allow these deeper meanings simply because it would automatically transcend any imagined dichotomy between reason and feeling. You are right about calling it a false duality although I do wonder which is more dangerous to some, a chaotic, derailing feeling or a simple, penetrating thought. In my view gravity leads to the former (already the case) and painstaking effort including some alienation leads to the latter.

Good luck with the snow. Busy with some window here in terms of wind & water management.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis, I wish it were roses but it's mostly thorns all the way down. Do I need to explain it for dim-bliss? Since I was using several words which could be interpreted in a moral sense, like violence, insane, sacrifice and phantasm, it seemed like a good idea to add a remark that I do not put any moral value on these things. My values might dictate rationality and reject irrationality but that doesn't mean violence, human sacrifice or the fantastic are any more wrong or right than flowers, baby smiles or tyger tygers. The amorality of it! Cause and effect! Already 4000 posts same old story and I still need to elaborate.

It is also my understanding that the forms of God or Spirit or Causality are amoral and that one comes to this conclusion by way of the amoral nature of logic (because God is everything, God cannot stand in judgement of its things). Is it your understanding that the logic of God's amorality includes the feeling realm?

Before submitting this I read your response to Pye, which is interesting in that you address the subject of feeling:

You are right about calling it a false duality although I do wonder which is more dangerous to some, a chaotic, derailing feeling or a simple, penetrating thought. In my view gravity leads to the former (already the case) and painstaking effort including some alienation leads to the latter.

In light of the above, I reword my question: can you foresee a scenario wherein feeling is not chaotic and derailing?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In light of the above, I reword my question: can you foresee a scenario wherein feeling is not chaotic and derailing?

Of course. But that way it's part of a larger reasoning or mind, like bricks of the building I mentioned before. Cornerstones for wisdom and a capstone as consciousness.

[Dennis Mahar]

Diebert,
It's a fact based on what you say.
strike out all the puffery of grandiose wordsmithing.
strip it to the bone and what it discloses is this:

Women are perps
men are victims
Diebert to the rescue

Why human being is organised to 'vision' out of that mode is unknown but where there's a human gushing there's a perp, vic, rescuer standing out clearly in it.

Foolish pride takes a big hit from penetrating wisdom.
face up to it.

[Pam Seeback]

Pye: The Greek model of the rational man (much clung-to here) has executed a long divorce of thinking from feeling - a dissolution carried forth to this day on this site (and everywhere it makes its appearance). Feeling - thought so dangerous, derailing, and the province of mental chaos (i.e. "women") (my reasoning tells me) is not separable from thinking; creates a false duality; and ignores its role in the entire process of making sense. What is sense-making but the bright settling of a thought into a satisfying and settled feeling most pleasing to the human being . . . .

I am one who feels deeply and has struggled for a long time to understand depth of feeling in relation to logic. What I have come to understand is that to feel deeply is not the same thing as to be a slave to one's feelings. What are logicians after all but logic-lovers? I see now that one can feel their existence deeply without losing the ability to also reason their existence. That although reasoning and feeling are not mutually exclusive activities of consciousness, one activity does dominate according to the "call" of the moment.

[Dennis Mahar]

Nietzsche covers the ground of it in "vengeful fables".
Eternal recurrence.

[Pye]

(Diebert, I have heard-tell of ["Xaver," is it?] the wind/storms whipping northern europe at present. Good luck with this, too. A friend of mine remarked that the U.S is now 'exporting' its violent weather into the jet stream that presently pummels you. It's storm-central here in the states . . .)

I lift this remark from movingalways in reply to ardy from another thread to proceed with another illustration:

. . . . what came to my mind after reading your statement about the cosmos and you being fundamentally the same is that the cosmos and you are both the same and not-the-same.

This here is what the existential view calls "ambiguity" and it is a pitch-perfect expression of human reality i.e. truth.

Logic cannot handle this, being as its works upon pure equivalencies: A=A. A thing cannot both be something and not-be something at one and the same time, by these self-same linguistic dictates. Aristotle has the impressive success of Pythagorean mathematics breathing down his neck. It now becomes necessary to turn language into math in order to ground its linguistic conclusions as soundly as mathematics is assumed to do, and in so doing, cannot grasp stunningly truthful nuance like this.

movingalways writes: What I have come to understand is that to feel deeply is not the same thing as to be a slave to one's feelings . . . . I see now that one can feel their existence deeply without losing the ability to also reason their existence.

Mine is a similar understanding, Pam. I've used linguistics to explain this here in my past contributions. There is a qualitative difference between feeling emotion and being emotional, just as there is a palpable gap between the rational and rationalization.

[Pam Seeback]

In light of the above, I reword my question: can you foresee a scenario wherein feeling is not chaotic and derailing?

Of course. But that way it's part of a larger reasoning or mind, like bricks of the building I mentioned before. Cornerstones for wisdom and a capstone as consciousness.

This may be so, but it is not possible to be the capstone of the larger, reasoning mind. Or do you believe that such an attainment is possible?

[Pam Seeback]

In light of the above, I reword my question: can you foresee a scenario wherein feeling is not chaotic and derailing?

Of course. But that way it's part of a larger reasoning or mind, like bricks of the building I mentioned before. Cornerstones for wisdom and a capstone as consciousness.

This may be so, but it is not possible to be the capstone of the larger, reasoning mind. Or do you believe that such an attainment is possible?

Felt this question needed some further reflection:

As I understand the larger mind it causes everything of which we become aware as well as well as everything of which we do not become aware. I can see why you might call this larger mind a reasoning mind but given its actions are without pause (it doesn't have to think about "heart beating" or "ocean waving", for example) is it reasonable to compare it with the reasoning human mind that although supported by the non-pausing "larger" mind is itself incapable of thinking in such a way, that is, without pausing/reflecting upon?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

but it is not possible to be the capstone of the larger, reasoning mind. Or do you believe that such an attainment is possible?

No need to "be" anything. It's just that I'd call the capstone "consciousness" so in some ways the end result of a huge body of reasoning and feeling with murky boundaries. Perhaps we don't even need a capstone to be placed. Actually, I always wondered why the Great Pyramid didn't have one. Perhaps it's there and not there, like the world we weave.

As I understand the larger mind it causes everything of which we become aware as well as well as everything of which we do not become aware. I can see why you might call this larger mind a reasoning mind but given its actions are without pause (it doesn't have to think about "heart beating" or "ocean waving", for example) is it reasonable to compare it with the reasoning human mind that although supported by the non-pausing "larger" mind is itself incapable of thinking in such a way, that is, without pausing/reflecting upon?

It's interesting to me why you'd define thinking as something that is pausing. Only the verbal mind, the inner 'voice' and it various notebooks would functions a bit like that. The rest of thought I never perceived as having gaps or breaks. It's hard to think about thinking and it's possible people have different notions of that self-reflection. It's like discussing waves and oceans. To me the reasoning mind has also its currents, sea monsters, eddies and bioluminescence. Not just the repetitive waves: that's shallow consciousness to me. And yes, I do realize I'm extending "reason" to what many do not consider reasoning. But I think they should try and understand there's intelligence there ready to roll if the coast is clear.

[ardy]

Really, Ardy, logic a "lovely thing"? It's the only thing standing between being some complete and dangerous idiot, less than animal, and a human being. In that sense it has everything to do with enlightenment because the only way to block out enlightenment is to become that complete and dangerous idiot, lost at sea, drifting in ignorant bliss, wrecking the truth and the earth. There's indeed a moment logic as tool becomes superfluous simply because we have become logical beings with intuitions for truth: wisdom has taken hold as our true nature.

Diebert - I disagree with you. There is nothing standing between any of us and enlightenment. If you are referring to the 'Lord of the Flies' scenario, where there is no logic, yes everything can break down [which stupid westerners seem in total denial of]. Yet if you read anything by North American Indians, about a time prior to white men, they walked in a state that has always reminded me of enlightenment. Black Elk Speaks is possibly one of the best examples of this condition particularly when he talks of his childhood.

There is also the quote "Lets find a couple of holy fools and fill the well with snow".

[Dennis Mahar]

Diebert,
moral, amoral, thorns all the way down is not what Fred was getting at.
His thing was we are literary philosophers.
Meaning makers.

Your meaning:
Women are perps
men are victims

you provide the meaning
That is the ethic.

your meaning is a vengeful, punishing fable.
a religion of men.

[Kunga]

men

men with PMS

[Dennis Mahar]

Simply a play of mind imputing inherent existence.
dualistic thinking as Pye groks

[Kunga]

Yeah...their spiritual thong is deep in the crack of time