Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
at the same time this sickening question mark, this suicidal, vengeful, jealous shame filled backlash which appears to challenge its own existence, desiring its own death.
Not really sure where this is coming from or what you mean here.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Perhaps philosophy doesn't belong to any realm of purpose at all. It's essentially alway plain effect of something else, mostly bloody and painful things which themselves might have purpose in terms of power or survival. Or not. Of course all ideas have consequences but how often are they intended or predictable?
Philosophy belongs to you. Yet it is rarely spoken of in that way, but rather philosophers attempt to speak of it from some objective viewpoint, as some non-personal thing. That attitude is essentially what I'm criticizing, that extremely prevalent tendency to attempt to be impersonal, as I mentioned before, a sort of exaggerated self-denial. Yet truthfully there's nothing impersonal in reality for you.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
If someone looks for purpose, he should look for ideology, medication, mind training or just relax and live the purposes given through each and every context. It's just a matter of stopping resisting those and all is set. Aha! But now we have resistance showing up. Where does this resistance comes from, this rebellion against god, against the past and all given purposes?
In the conventional sense, we have to choose our own purpose. Perhaps the resistance is not inevitable, but only due to a failure to live rightly, perhaps due to unfulfilled potential and thus dissatisfaction. A dissatisfaction caused by a lack of realized potential for freedom, as almost everyone either creates or accepts one cage or another, this resistance is to be expected.
movingalways wrote:Since the presence of action, purpose and ambition causes the arousal of stress, no.
I disagree with that as a blanket statement, perhaps you only say so because it is a true relation most of the time? You seem to be idealistically (yet unrealistically) implying that there could be a cessation of action, purpose, and ambition on some absolute level? Which would require you to be a master over reality.
As I see it, when there is no alignment with, or acceptance of, a decided purpose, action, or ambition, then restlessness, dissatisfaction, or resistance are inevitable. Which is an opposite view to your seemingly literal interpretation of a cessation of desire as an end to suffering. At best there is only ever a temporary pause to desire or ambition, is that not true in your experience? Or do you just believe you haven't reached that "heaven to come" of cessation yet?
Russell wrote:with knowledge of meaninglessness and purposelessness
Meaninglessness essentially refers to the impermanence of meaning, not the denial of it. Meaning is still very real and existing, whether it is fleeting or not, as you said, it's that lack of 'remembrance' or ignorance of impermanence which allows the thriving of egoistic clinging.
This is how I see the various points made, and a concluding balance between them:
Purpose, action, ambition(or desire) continues to arise with consciousness. I would say this is the very nature of endless becoming. (I see the interpretation that one should strive for the end of desire as a misapprehension, instead the meaning of the teaching of the cessation of desire is or should be regarding only clinging, which is suffering caused by futile opposition against transience. Not desire itself as being inseparable from suffering.)
All is fleeting, and one should live in 'remembrance' of impermanence, so as to not cause all that resistance, clinging, stress.
To me restlessness, or dissatisfaction, are also forms of suffering (which will still remain even if one were to go through radical abandonment in the attempt to be rid of desire) and are inevitable when one denies or does not act in accordance with the personal nature of the becoming of purpose/desire. Which I think is best focused on the pursuit of a fully realized potential for freedom.
As I see it, in the conventional sense, each person is like a god(or a being having great potential) who has created his own bondage and is restless, depressed, or stressed, and is desiring freedom from a cage built of his own fear, envy, anger, distrust, loneliness, resentment, doubt, ignorance and prejudices.
"The door is open." And that door, to me, is to act in accordance with one's conventional nature (and what else sums up a being's nature but his desires?) while keeping in recognition of conventional wisdoms and the the fundamental impermanence of everything, that recognition which is essentially the freedom of non-attachment to the world and worldliness. Thus one can enjoy and become with nothing to lose.
Now to get to the personal part, for any philosophy is incomplete without it:
I always think now, when posting, what's in it for me? I may as well delete my post as I have others. I don't gain anything from this as it is.