Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.
Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the
guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of
understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the
guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude!
Have courage to use your own understanding!
All knowledge can and should be doubted and it can never stop like the Great Worm @ itself! Whatever might be seen as infinite and eternal, is still taken on faith. Or it's perhaps more like a surrender: that what remains when all knowing and believing subsides. But show me who can exist without belief, some knowing, some fundamental sun where his life, thought and feeling gravitates around like a dispersed cloud of planetesimals.movingalways wrote:The only thing that grinds to a halt after doubting is done is doubt.
What is it to be doubt free? It is to know that awareness is without beginning and ending, that awareness is infinite and eternal.
Why do you still doubt your eternal and infinite nature? Is awareness not without beginning or ending?Diebert van Rhijn wrote:All knowledge can and should be doubted and it can never stop like the Great Worm @ itself! Whatever might be seen as infinite and eternal, is still taken on faith. Or it's perhaps more like a surrender: that what remains when all knowing and believing subsides. But show me who can exist without belief, some knowing, some fundamental sun where his life, thought and feeling gravitates around like a dispersed cloud of planetesimals.movingalways wrote:The only thing that grinds to a halt after doubting is done is doubt.
What is it to be doubt free? It is to know that awareness is without beginning and ending, that awareness is infinite and eternal.
Where doubting knowledge stops, the cleansing ceases, cobwebs appear and old ghosts will take possession.movingalways wrote:Why do you still doubt your eternal and infinite nature?
Nothing is - like you are not - or any faith or state of awareness you might imagine to be the case.Is awareness not without beginning or ending?
Even your very own statement?Diebert van Rhijn wrote:All knowledge can and should be doubted and it can never stop like the Great Worm @ itself!
Do you not think causation is infinite?Whatever might be seen as infinite and eternal, is still taken on faith.
I think most people live this way. I think people believe they have a fundamental center, but it's more like a fuzzy vagueness which is driven and manipulated by whatever emotions they are feeling at the moment.But show me who can exist without belief, some knowing, some fundamental sun where his life, thought and feeling gravitates around like a dispersed cloud of planetesimals.
So much is explained in your answer above regarding the love of (attachment to) reasoning on Genius. One cannot imagine awareness because awareness is the house of imagination. Holding the imagination captive to emptiness/spirit/pure awareness (wakefulness) is the cleansing fire beyond the cleansing fire of reasoning. You are right to mention faith, for while doubt is present, great faith in reasoning the truth of one's nature is required. Fear of cobwebs and ghosts is a great motivator to continue reasoning the irrationality of their appearance.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Where doubt stops, the cleansing ceases, cobwebs appear and old ghosts will take possession.movingalways wrote:Why do you still doubt your eternal and infinite nature?
Nothing is - like you are not - or any faith or state of awareness you might imagine to be the case.Is awareness not without beginning or ending?
It's not a matter of fear but of observation: all your words and my words, my actions, my beliefs are too cobwebs and ghosts. The mind, so powerful, so miraculous is as well a treacherous thief. The path to Enlightenment unfolds through the mind but, by its very nature, it will derive, distract, distort and tempt the whole thing to be something else than it actually is. It's what it does.movingalways wrote: You are right to mention faith, for while doubt is present, great faith in reasoning the truth of one's nature is required. Fear of cobwebs and ghosts is a great motivator to continue reasoning the irrationality of their appearance.
But what you'll ultimately find is nothing. More nothing than you can allow yourself to imagine or experience. So one keeps finding things, truths, depths, states and eternities.Is it not unreasonable, even hellish to be eternally in doubt? What is the point of seeking (doubting) truth if once truth is found, doubting continues?
Sure, I do hope so! Even if my statement was the most Profound Philosophical Truth Ever Said, chances are it becomes something entirely else through the various translations, interpretations and contextual differences. And before I wrote it, I threw up many challenges to it as the mind comes up with too much, most of the time. Does it even need to be written? Is my mind slipping into comfortable repeats or sophistry here? Doubting something does not mean rejecting or devaluing -- it just means fighting with it. If you don't then you might miss out on something good or mindlessly absorb something that isn't. Neutral reading doesn't really exist, not in philosophy any way, where at the deeper levels the challenge will always be there to answer.Russell wrote:Even your very own statement?Diebert van Rhijn wrote:All knowledge can and should be doubted and it can never stop like the Great Worm @ itself!
Yes, I believe causation can be called infinite. This is caused by what I take "infinite" and "causation" to mean. But surely I cannot claim to see the infinite as a whole, eternal entity. My view is limited by definition!Do you not think causation is infinite?Whatever might be seen as infinite and eternal, is still taken on faith.
I see. For a minute I thought you were saying there's nothing but doubt, no certainty at all, a la run of the mill post-modernism/agnosticism.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Sure, I do hope so! Even if my statement was the most Profound Philosophical Truth Ever Said, chances are it becomes something entirely else through the various translations, interpretations and contextual differences. And before I wrote it, I threw up many challenges to it as the mind comes up with too much, most of the time. Does it even need to be written? Is my mind slipping into comfortable repeats or sophistry here? Doubting something does not mean rejecting or devaluing -- it just means fighting with it. If you don't then you might miss out on something good or mindlessly absorb something that isn't. Neutral reading doesn't really exist, not in philosophy any way, where at the deeper levels the challenge will always be there to answer.
Hmm, I don't think it's a matter of belief. I think we can logically conclude that causation is necessarily infinite. Beliefs are for empirical matters, in which, as you say, there must always be doubt. Absolute logical truths are the only realm of certainty to be had for a sentient being.Yes, I believe causation can be called infinite. This is caused by what I take "infinite" and "causation" to mean. But surely I cannot claim to see the infinite as a whole, eternal entity. My view is limited by definition!Do you not think causation is infinite?Whatever might be seen as infinite and eternal, is still taken on faith.
Which is why your treacherous thief of a mind said:Diebert: It's not a matter of fear but of observation: all your words and my words, my actions, my beliefs are too cobwebs and ghosts. The mind, so powerful, so miraculous is as well a treacherous thief. The path to Enlightenment unfolds through the mind but, by its very nature, it will derive, distract, distort and tempt the whole thing to be something else than it actually is. It's what it does.
Who is this “one” that is dealing with the mind? Is it not mind? What you are putting forth is mind battling mind, the perfect storm of dualism. No wonder you believe in doubt, how else can the mind reconcile the folly of believing itself divided in two?Diebert: The goal is not to fight the mind or abandon it. Therefore one has to deal with it. And the way to deal with the mind truthfully is called doubt. That is to actively undo and unwind whatever is being thought to be done and is being wound. While it might take conviction and certainty to develop this, it doesn't even need faith to operate.
Diebert: But what you'll ultimately find is nothing.
There cannot be more of nothing. Nothing is nothing. This is precisely why when one comes to their nothingness and they are truthful to this discovery, they do the courageous, truthful thing which is to stand on nothing so nothing can be revealed.Diebert: More nothing than you can allow yourself to imagine or experience.
Mind battling mind keeps on finding things it calls truths, depths, states and eternities, Mind (spirit) waits until the thing is revealed.Diebert: So one keeps finding things, truths, depths, states and eternities.
Your attachment to the old saw of women vs. men is preventing you from seeing that you and I are talking about the same thing, becoming nothing. Or should I say, being the nothing we already are. Becoming enlightened is simply to clear or cleanse away all attachments to human relativism mistaken for absolute truths, such as “this is why philosophy is for men.”Diebert: You might not like the following but I did notice that this point is usually hard for women to even approach. Their own psychological void has them geared towards clinging to a rock, a truth, a man, the material or a faith of the same substance. While for those stupid, clunky, insensitive men, embracing emptiness would in the end be like diving into a woman. He can sail the seven seas without fear. He can cross because he's something coming to terms with becoming nothing at all. This is why philosophy is for men.
Mind is nothing else than "itself divided in two" or mind dealing with itself. Take that away and there's no mind to speak of. And nothing to speak of either.movingalways wrote:Who is this “one” that is dealing with the mind? Is it not mind? What you are putting forth is mind battling mind, the perfect storm of dualism. No wonder you believe in doubt, how else can the mind reconcile the folly of believing itself divided in two?
Because that has been shown to be the nature of mind, to my mind.Diebert: But what you'll ultimately find is nothing.
So why is your mind busy dealing with itself?
Touché.There cannot be more of nothing. Nothing is nothing. This is precisely why when one comes to their nothingness and they are truthful to this discovery, they do the courageous, truthful thing which is to stand on nothing so nothing can be revealed.Diebert: More nothing than you can allow yourself to imagine or experience.
It might be surprising how that is actually the same mind and the same battle even when there would be different tactics. Every war is full of brief and longer pauses. It's like people living in peace time forgetting about the centuries of war before and after. And how they live so passively now on a brief and dangerous balance of destruction, while regrouping, recuperation and shifting alliances continue under the surface of things.Mind battling mind keeps on finding things it calls truths, depths, states and eternities, Mind (spirit) waits until the thing is revealed.Diebert: So one keeps finding things, truths, depths, states and eternities.
Doubt is being introduced where doubt is required. And I certainly wouldn't dare, like Kierkegaard, to know or own anything. There's no need or use here for any of your ghostly "spirits"!Look carefully at your response to Russell above. It is soaked through and through with the doubt born of dualism/relativism..."I hope", "I believe", "I take", "but surely". Why, when spirit is everything (the light of things waiting to shine out of the darkness of things) would it need to hope in or for its things or believe in its things or take its things? Of what use does the spirit of everything have for the shadow covering of "but?"
It might be just the language."But" is the imaginary gap you have wedged between yourself.
Hate to interrupt, but a man sailing the seven seas is probably around a billion times closer to realizing spirit than a woman bearing a child. Emotionalism might be the biggest enemy to philosophical enlightenment, and it doesn't get much more emotionally overwhelming than child bearing.movingalways wrote:In the spirit of bringing the mind's ignorant attachment to qualitfying gender to an end I speak from genderless spirit when I say what biological men and women of their spirit do in the name of procreation of thought, be it to have a child or to sail the seven seas is the same vis a vis the mind's attachment to making something out of nothing or flesh out of spirit. For a spirit dressed in a biologically male body to say that sailing the seven seas brings him closer to realizing his nothingness than a spirit dressed in a biologically female body bearing a child is a blatant example of mistaking the absolute truth of spirit for relativism of flesh. The same truth applies to the biologically female spirit that ignorantly mistakes her relativism of child bearing to be an absolute truth of the nothingness of spirit.
Doubt is fundamental but even the average nihilist doesn't take it really that far. The certainties of ones own mind should not be discarded but instead fully understood: to arrive beyond certainties and doubts. But it's unlikely anyone could come that far without tremendous trust in the abilities of the mind, the power of logic and the application of absolute truth in the most simple, natural way. But this is like all wisdom, it appears only in contrast with ignorance like certainty works in contrast with doubt. The absolute cannot be successfully doubted simply because it's not knowledge to own or capture. For that reason doubt should be encouraged, because as long it's still possible to raise any, the subject is not absolute yet.Russell wrote:For a minute I thought you were saying there's nothing but doubt, no certainty at all, a la run of the mill post-modernism/agnosticism.
The context was initially Pam's phrase: "it is to know that awareness is without beginning and ending, that awareness is infinite and eternal". So it was more about assigning the quality "infinite" to anything but the infinite. It's this split where knowledge is assumed, like some universe, consciousness, pi, spirit -- anything at all. Causality is a special case here, perhaps it's better to just call it a description of the metaphysical infinite or an explanation of it? Like totality.Hmm, I don't think it's a matter of belief. I think we can logically conclude that causation is necessarily infinite. Beliefs are for empirical matters, in which, as you say, there must always be doubt. Absolute logical truths are the only realm of certainty to be had for a sentient being.
Very close, but I can't completely agree. Man's immaturity is not self-incurred, but caused by preceding factors. Although there have been individual exceptions, mankind has not ever been a mature species.Kant wrote:Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.
Again, close, but not wholly accurate. A small part of immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without theKant wrote:Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another.
I reiterate, a lack of a proper grasp of Reality is also part of immaturity.Kant wrote:This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another.
This is not all-inclusive, and likely dangerous in the minds of those who falsely believe that they are mature or enlightened.Kant wrote:The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude!
Have courage to use your own understanding!
The ear that hears the Word of spirit sees nothing, certainly not ghosts.Diebert:There's no need or use here for any of your ghostly "spirits"!
Sailing the sevens seas or bearing a child are futile attempts to find truth in temporal things which makes both equal in the sense that both quests must be given up if one is to find the truth of temporal things. The irony here is that before one can give up the futile search they must first experience the suffering of its futility.Russell wrote:Hate to interrupt, but a man sailing the seven seas is probably around a billion times closer to realizing spirit than a woman bearing a child. Emotionalism might be the biggest enemy to philosophical enlightenment, and it doesn't get much more emotionally overwhelming than child bearing.movingalways wrote:In the spirit of bringing the mind's ignorant attachment to qualitfying gender to an end I speak from genderless spirit when I say what biological men and women of their spirit do in the name of procreation of thought, be it to have a child or to sail the seven seas is the same vis a vis the mind's attachment to making something out of nothing or flesh out of spirit. For a spirit dressed in a biologically male body to say that sailing the seven seas brings him closer to realizing his nothingness than a spirit dressed in a biologically female body bearing a child is a blatant example of mistaking the absolute truth of spirit for relativism of flesh. The same truth applies to the biologically female spirit that ignorantly mistakes her relativism of child bearing to be an absolute truth of the nothingness of spirit.
Knowledge of awareness is not the illogical, self-righteous claim of objective knowledge, it is to be given the wisdom that because awareness cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or touched, awareness is not finite or of time. Keeping in mind of course, that words given without image that suggest a quality of the Unseen God are for the sake of the mind that requires words, i.e., "awareness" or "nothing" or "spirit."Diebert: The context was initially Pam's phrase: "it is to know that awareness is without beginning and ending, that awareness is infinite and eternal". So it was more about assigning the quality "infinite" to anything but the infinite. It's this split where knowledge is assumed, like some universe, consciousness, pi, spirit -- anything at all.
All the problems of knowledge still prevail. All you do here is raising a special kind, a logical, subjective or non-verbal kind. But what you might be missing here is your own first step: dividing all knowing in two kinds! But there's really only one kind, any other kind is simply not knowing.movingalways wrote:Knowledge of awareness is not the illogical, self-righteous claim of objective knowledge, it is to be given the wisdom that because awareness cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or touched, awareness is not finite or of time. Keeping in mind of course, that words given without image that suggest a quality of the Unseen God are for the sake of the mind that requires words, i.e., "awareness" or "nothing" or "spirit."
Still this imaginary distinction between acknowledging and knowing while quoting a text in which and through which God died.The Word of God is not knowledge of the Unseen God, the Word of God acknowledges the Unseen God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Being purified of one's language of attachment makes one ripe for more purification. :-)
That's exactly what I think you were doing. You were saying that only the infinite has the property of being infinite. Something P that has the property P and nothing else. That is the same as solipsism where only awareness has awareness. You were saying that awareness isn't infinite, but it has the same property as the infinite as an unique property.Diebert wrote: All the problems of knowledge still prevail. All you do here is raising a special kind, a logical, subjective or non-verbal kind.