cousinbasil wrote: The claim about disciples he left is preposterous as you would have no way way of knowing it even if it were in fact the case. Secondly, you are now calling his methods "tricks and gimmicks" while just a few posts ago you said: "Seems no one here is sensitive enough or awake enough to realize that everywhere men are machines, and are consequently as good as dead. I suggest studying some of Gurdjieff's works."
Feuerbach wrote:But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, the appearance to the essence... illusion only is sacred, truth profane. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.
the Gulf War: it occurred for most everyone in an imagined space, a participatory space, while the 'truth' of it, the actual fact of it, what it intended and what it did, was likely radically different. It was unreal for those who watched the Spectacle but as real as real can be for those who experienced it raining down on them.
Wouldn't 'value' be the general quality that encapsulates the important thing here? So, I am fond of saying 'the you and the me' which is similar to Buber's I and Thou but possibly closer to a strict Marxian definition (though isn't Judaism arch-Marxism on some level?).
the real stuff of ourselves, in bodies, in time, here. The focus of 'spirituality' and religion and productive activity can only be here. Where 'else' is there?
And as you know I define 'nihilism' as incapacity to connect with Life and what is Living.
Bob Michael wrote:Clearly Gurdjieff was a deeply insightful man who could assist others along the path. But he couldn't lead others all the way. Hence his failure in spite of his considerably, but not perfectly, awakened or enlightened state of being.
"The whole foundation of man's essence has become the psychic properties of cunning, envy, hypocrisy, contempt, slyness, ambition, double-facedness." (Gurdjieff - 'The Unknowable Gurdjieff' - Anderson)
Here Gurdjieff's observation of the human condition is dead-on. The vast majority of the human species is innately, insanely, and irreparably self-centered and self-absorbed to the max, and in such a manner that they're not at all aware of the fact.
Gurdjieff's last recorded words, spoken with difficulty to Jeanne de Salzmann - whom he appointed to a leadership role in carrying on his Work were: "The essential thing, the first thing, is to prepare a nucleus of people capable of responding to the demand which will arise.....So long as there is no responsible nucleus, the action of ideas will not go beyond a certain threshold. That will take time.....a lot of time even." ('Gurdjieff' - Shirley)
But Gurdjieff left no "responsible nucleus" (Ark) behind him...
Blair wrote:Ooh man,don't like saying this..
bob if you aren't the solution then you're part of the problem.
cousinbasil wrote:If he (Gurdjieff) like "everyone" else who has set upon the path of uplifting others has failed, I am not clear on whom it is you compare him with.
cousinbasil wrote:How do you justify the standards with which you make an assessment like that?
cousinbasil wrote:This implies that you are concluding and I don't want to be like the vast majority. Specifically how do you intend to ensure that you do not end up like the vast majority?
cousinbasil wrote:Specifically how do you intend to ensure that you do not end up like the vast majority?
cousinbasil wrote:Just so. Neither will you (leave an Ark behind), I daresay.
cousinbasil wrote:But you seem not to notice that you constantly lament the failure of your so-called enlightened humans to leave an Ark or a legacy for future generations, when you are a future generation to them and you ceaselessly quote them.
cousinbasil wrote:What is it that you expect to happen, Bob? Why don't you stop bellyaching about how miserable the state of humanity is and start to be part of the answer, if there even is one in your bleak vision?
Bob Michael wrote:My days have not yet come to an end and I continue to learn from the mistakes, shortcomings, and failures of others who have gone before me.
cousinbasil wrote:You seem like a person who will complain how the world ignores his needs and wishes, when all you really have to do is learn how to say please and thank you. And sound like you mean it.
But there haven't been any effective players in the "solution," according to you.I'm not complaining, cb, nor am I at all ungrateful, just clearly and fearlessly observing and pointing out the terrible dilemma the human evolutionary process has fallen into. Which is absolutely necessary if one is to become an effective player in its solution.
If they were new and unique, they would be of little value, much like a maladaptive genetic mutation.And my views are neither new or unique. Though they may contain more depth of insight into the exact nature of problem than anyone else has ever had.
It is likely true that strict practitioners of Marxism would likely seek to 'abolish' many decadent things, perhaps in some sort of Soviet state things like that happened. And also in states that seem to have gotten fed up with the trickery of religious cults, like France, where the state intervenes in many different ways to control religious expression and expansion. But when you say that you don't 'gain anything' by 'abolishing the unreal pie in the sky' (though 'abolish' is rather a strong word) I think you may be wrong. The theology of Rudolf Bultmann seeks to do something quite like that: demystify the Gospel stories, bound to a mythologizing context:Diebert wrote:One doesn't regain anything by abolishing the supposed "unreal" pie in the sky. Actually one would destroy the very thing that has been able to lift humanity out of the sludge, or to define human vs the slug.
In some sense, sure. But qualitatively I think there is indeed something different when a real time war is depicted in the manner of a media Spectacle. Douglas Kellner seems to continue a 'Debordian' analysis and criticism.But all wars have been like that...
While it is true that anything can become an 'horizon' (a real horizon or a false horizon to place it dualistically), in actual fact there can really be no horizon except the horizons of actual earth-space. I think one is intuitively and practically bound to establish this horizon axiomatically. I don't even think it is too hard to make a list or a chart of what must be considered 'really real' (and valuable) and what should be thought of as secondary and tertiary. Doing so is a good exercize. If one floats up into all sorts of wordy metaphysics, well, that right there might be evidence of the process of Seduction by Spectacle.Diebert wrote:It's just the horizon du jour.
No, it goes far beyond that. It is essentially the whole Earth-Sphere in which we are existing. It is true that I am also thinking about humans and their connections, but I think the only real and sane relationship to Life is one that defines Life (earth-sphere, dirt, trees, ocean, clouds, water) as being the most basic and hence 'most real' things. It is a question of defining a platform.And you're thinking mainly about connections between human beings here, I'm sure. It's not difficult to see how the modern sense of life increasingly is being defined as that what happens between humans, the human relating. In quality relations, so hard to find, where in each others presence naturally some degree of sanity can be restored, some ease of mind can be nurtured and meaning can be generated. Is this what you are suggesting? But the other side of the coin is the dragging down and destruction people can engage in; "l'enfer c'est les autres", as Sartre remarked.
All this seems to be true, but occasionally I wonder if perhaps, at least in so many ways, we are living in one of the best periods for human beings ever. So, we turn into terrible complainers and wind up deeply insatisfied and deeply critical when, in fact, things have gotten tremendously better. Then, I come back down from that trip and feel all that weiight of terrible disatisfaction. Finally, I am willing to concede---with certain qualifications---that we seem to have NO IDEA what a road forward is...And as such all the senses are slowly breaking down too, demanding over-stimulation to be able to still feel alive. It's the same with any demand for the social: it just demonstrates its illness but does not constitute any road forward.
Talking Ass wrote: Finally, I am willing to concede---with certain qualifications---that we seem to have NO IDEA what a road forward is...
Talking Ass wrote:...occasionally I wonder if perhaps, at least in so many ways, we are living in one of the best periods for human beings ever.
Talking Ass wrote: So, we turn into terrible complainers and wind up deeply insatisfied and deeply critical when, in fact, things have gotten tremendously better. Then, I come back down from that trip and feel all that weiight of terrible disatisfaction.
So you're surprised when the sun comes up, Deebs?Diebert, once again reading God's mind, wrote:Ain't that the truth? Even the highest god of gods not knowing, the whole of heavens and earth just not knowing what will be next. Wonderful.
"If we affirm one moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event---and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed." (The Will to Power)
___________________________________________________"For the new year ... Today everybody permits himself the expression of his wish and his dearest thought; hence I, too, shall say what it is that I wish from myself today, and what was the first thought to run across my heart this year---what thought shall be for me the reason, warranty, and sweetness of my life henceforth. I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer." (The Gay Science)
"In every word he contradicts, this most Yes-saying of all spirits; in him all opposites are blended into a new unity..."
Talking Ass wrote:And so finally (this just came to me) I feel Bob that instead of couching all that venom in imagining a terrible fate for those wretched, vile masses, you may do better to YOURSELF desire their utter destruction! Own it! Become the herald of it! That hellfire, nuclear incineration, unspeakable wounding, charred death, vaporization of beloved children, complete, irreparable destruction come upon them FOR NO GOOD REASON except that they are malformed, incapable of higher emotion, dull, die-cut, vulgar and ugly. Make this your 'yes-declaration'!
Talking Ass wrote:On Pinker :The decline in violence holds for violence in the family, in neighborhoods, between tribes and between states. People living now are less likely to meet a violent death, or to suffer from violence or cruelty at the hands of others, than people living in any previous century.
Diebert wrote:Pinker also cannot explain properly why violence actually rose between 60's and 90's in the last century while many aspects of civilization would actually have increased by his standards.
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 6 guests