Why enlightenment?

[Imadrongo]

Why spend your whole life trying to reach enlightenment and "emptiness"?

We realize that we do not ultimately exist. We are here, however, and have decisions to make. Why not try to do our best to shape the future rather than to do nothing and detach completely? Achieving enlightenment or "emptiness" is denying life rather than embracing it. Did we evolve all this way to turn into creatures who deny all emotion and respond to their opportunity part in life through non-action?

As is confirmed in the letters between David and Kevin, detaching from "woman" is one of the hardest things to do on the road to "enlightenment." Every time a good looking woman is around you must contort your mind and try not to fall for her! My question is -- what is the point? Our bodies have evolved to this stage where we are attracted to members of the opposite sex. It is natural. It is required for the survival of our race. It seems to me that the only delusion here is in trying to deny this, which is our human condition and our life.

[keenobserver]

I suppose a few odd nuts, if part of a forced experiment in which their entire lives were lived in some sort of inferior virtual reality, might be inclined to hold tight to that dreadful dreamworld even while the hope of Reality presents itself, but not this pistachio.

[Jehu]

Why spend your whole life trying to reach enlightenment and "emptiness"?

We realize that we do not ultimately exist. We are here, however, and have decisions to make. Why not try to do our best to shape the future rather than to do nothing and detach completely? Achieving enlightenment or "emptiness" is denying life rather than embracing it. Did we evolve all this way to turn into creatures who deny all emotion and respond to their opportunity part in life through non-action?

As is confirmed in the letters between David and Kevin, detaching from "woman" is one of the hardest things to do on the road to "enlightenment." Every time a good looking woman is around you must contort your mind and try not to fall for her! My question is -- what is the point? Our bodies have evolved to this stage where we are attracted to members of the opposite sex. It is natural. It is required for the survival of our race. It seems to me that the only delusion here is in trying to deny this, which is our human condition and our life.

None of what you have described here sounds anything like enlightenment to me, it sounds more like some sort of religious nonsense.

Imagine that you were having a dream, and in this dream there was a terrible animal that was frightening everyone, and everyone was running about trying to protect themselves, and suffering terribly from fear. Now, imagine that you were to suddenly realize that it was all just a dream, and that whatever appeared to be happening, was only an illusion. What would your dream entity do then? Would you run around like the others cowering in fear, or would you face the animal, knowing that whatever happened to you there, you would simply awaken somewhere else? This is what enlightenment is like; is this not preferable to suffering?

[Imadrongo]

Jehu,

None of what you have described here sounds anything like enlightenment to me, it sounds more like some sort of religious nonsense.

This is my impression of it from what this site preaches, namely complete emotional detachment from life/appearances which is deemed "delusional".

Imagine that you were having a dream, and in this dream there was a terrible animal that was frightening everyone, and everyone was running about trying to protect themselves, and suffering terribly from fear. Now, imagine that you were to suddenly realize that it was all just a dream, and that whatever appeared to be happening, was only an illusion. What would your dream entity do then? Would you run around like the others cowering in fear, or would you face the animal, knowing that whatever happened to you there, you would simply awaken somewhere else? This is what enlightenment is like; is this not preferable to suffering?

The problem with this picture is that, at least according to QRS, there is no higher reality that you will "awaken" into regardless of the outcome of this one. Do you disagree?

[Faust]

Our bodies have evolved to this stage where we are attracted to members of the opposite sex. It is natural. It is required for the survival of our race.

unfortunately procreation and subsequently marriage end up giving you unnecessary and mind-clenching suffering. No philosopher or Man of Creative Projects could withstand marriage for too long, especially one woman. Women have much more to gain by marriage than men, that's why they're more keen about it. Also, I wouldn't want to bring a child into this wretched existence. They would grow up to realize that they would have to repeat it all over again: grow up, get a job, fight other males for a better job, get a wife, children, etc etc... All male endeavours boil down to this cycle of toil.

[Imadrongo]

unfortunately procreation and subsequently marriage end up giving you unnecessary and mind-clenching suffering. No philosopher or Man of Creative Projects could withstand marriage for too long, especially one woman. Women have much more to gain by marriage than men, that's why they're more keen about it. Also, I wouldn't want to bring a child into this wretched existence. They would grow up to realize that they would have to repeat it all over again: grow up, get a job, fight other males for a better job, get a wife, children, etc etc... All male endeavours boil down to this cycle of toil.

With great suffering should come great happiness. We set goals, suffer towards them, and when we achieve them we are happy. I agree that the average male's toil seems petty and misguided to me. Perhaps they don't really have goals and thus accomplishing what the rest of society does doesn't give them much happiness.

However I think the goal to completely cut off from the world we are living in and the human condition as QRS does is like an incomplete form of suicide.

[zarathustra]

Enlightenment is a magician's trick: it cannot be known apart from the one who assumes to be 'enlightened.' There is no objective test, no proof required. So what's the criteria? There is none...It all boils down to belief, of which Nietzsche said 'prove nothing.....'
z

[Trevor Salyzyn]

If you value truth, then you will progressively become more enlightened until you understand enlightenment. If you value non-real things, then you will fall into samsara.

[Jehu]

Jehu,

None of what you have described here sounds anything like enlightenment to me, it sounds more like some sort of religious nonsense.

This is my impression of it from what this site preaches, namely complete emotional detachment from life/appearances which is deemed "delusional".

Imagine that you were having a dream, and in this dream there was a terrible animal that was frightening everyone, and everyone was running about trying to protect themselves, and suffering terribly from fear. Now, imagine that you were to suddenly realize that it was all just a dream, and that whatever appeared to be happening, was only an illusion. What would your dream entity do then? Would you run around like the others cowering in fear, or would you face the animal, knowing that whatever happened to you there, you would simply awaken somewhere else? This is what enlightenment is like; is this not preferable to suffering?

The problem with this picture is that, at least according to QRS, there is no higher reality that you will "awaken" into regardless of the outcome of this one. Do you disagree?

That would depend upon what you mean by the term ‘reality’, for that which most people believe to be real (thingness) has only a relative (contingent) existence, and that which most people believe to be not real (nothingness) has an absolute (necessary) existence. So you see, to be enlighten simply means to awaken to the true nature of reality, and in doing so, to put an end to all suffering.

[zarathustra]

Please go to 'How to PROVE GOD EXISTS' forum and see Zarathustra's argument for 'existence' and 'consciousness' then, RECONSIDER 'enlightenment'...

[David Quinn]

WhorlyWhelk,

Why spend your whole life trying to reach enlightenment and "emptiness"?

We realize that we do not ultimately exist. We are here, however, and have decisions to make. Why not try to do our best to shape the future rather than to do nothing and detach completely? Achieving enlightenment or "emptiness" is denying life rather than embracing it. Did we evolve all this way to turn into creatures who deny all emotion and respond to their opportunity part in life through non-action?

Becoming enlightened isn't about denying life, but about eliminating all of one's illusions about life. The enlightened person opens himself out and embraces the reality of life, a reality which infuses all things.

And since the enlightened person values wisdom and seeks to promote wisdom in the world, he consciously shapes the future in everything that he does.

As is confirmed in the letters between David and Kevin, detaching from "woman" is one of the hardest things to do on the road to "enlightenment." Every time a good looking woman is around you must contort your mind and try not to fall for her! My question is -- what is the point? Our bodies have evolved to this stage where we are attracted to members of the opposite sex. It is natural. It is required for the survival of our race. It seems to me that the only delusion here is in trying to deny this, which is our human condition and our life.

It all depends on whether you want to free yourself from all illusions. Woman is a major illusion, one that runs deep in our psyches and underpins many other illusions.

-

[David Quinn]

Jehu wrote:

J: Imagine that you were having a dream, and in this dream there was a terrible animal that was frightening everyone, and everyone was running about trying to protect themselves, and suffering terribly from fear. Now, imagine that you were to suddenly realize that it was all just a dream, and that whatever appeared to be happening, was only an illusion. What would your dream entity do then? Would you run around like the others cowering in fear, or would you face the animal, knowing that whatever happened to you there, you would simply awaken somewhere else? This is what enlightenment is like; is this not preferable to suffering?

This is very far removed from enlightenment. All you're doing here is using a kind of mental trick to try and comfort your own ego and minimize suffering. It is essentially no different to the way Christians try to trick themselves into believing in heaven as a way of coping with the impermanence of life.

While it is true that the world is fundamentally like a dream and all things are illusory, it is impossible for us to wake up from this dream and leave it altogether. For whatever realm we care to wake up to will still be part of the dream. We will still be stuck in the realm of appearances. In essence, nothing will have changed.

In reality, enlightenment means seeing through the dream and no longer being taken by it. The enlightened person still participates in the dream - for how could he not? - but never, not even for a moment, does he fall into the delusion that the dream is real. The dream has completely lost its spell on him.

As Ramakrishna once said, "If you can detect and find out the universal illusion or maya, it will fly away from you, just as a thief runs away when found out."

-

[Imadrongo]

David Quinn,

Woman is a major illusion, one that runs deep in our psyches and underpins many other illusions.

Could you explain to me how "woman" is more of an illusion than, say, food or water? Our bodies have evolved naturally to require food and water for survival. Is it delusional to eat food and drink water? It seems equally as delusional as having sex with a woman, something that is the next closest need to men from food and water.

Or do you just condemn the search of pleasure from a woman which leads to samsara? Would you also say it is delusional to eat food that tastes especially good to you; food that gives you pleasure?

Or is it just emotion that is ultimately bad? Perhaps woman is evil because we naturally fall in love with her? Is love delusional, love of illusions? "I love going for walks in what appears to me as the park...."

Is it delusional to say to yourself:
"Okay -- I want to have a woman so I can have children and teach them to be wise and to continue to promote wisdom after I have died. I fully understand that no human, including myself, is an absolute entity, and I fully understand that she is simply an appearance."

Forgive my question, I am just failing to see your justification here and would like to get a better understanding.

[zarathustra]

The above = shallow, scatty metaphysical mind muck. Before enlightenment one needs god. No god, no enlightenment, no nothin'.....Metaphysicians, can argue forever about samsara, karma, bla, bla, bla....but it means NOTHING unless they BELIEVE, which proves nothing. Many so called enlightened individuals in history were anti 'intelectuals'...they were in fact peasants, madmen and criminals...does god exist?...here's proof:

Reaching back even further....

The first argument shows why the claim "God exists" implicitly affirms the primacy of existence principle:

Premise 1: The action of asserting that something exists in reality, assumes the primacy of existence principle.
Why? Because when one asserts that something exists, he assumes that it exists independent of his consciousness. If he expects others to accept what he claims as a truth corresponding to reality, then he assumes that it exists independent of their consciousness as well. The primacy of existence principle is the recognition that existence exists independent of consciousness, and it is necessarily implied when one asserts anything said to be true of reality.

Premise 2: The claim that god exists asserts that something exists in reality apart from one's consciousness.
Theists who claim that God exists do so with the assumption that God exists independent of their own consciousness, and of the consciousness of other men. The frequently heard "God exists whether anyone likes it or not" conveniently shows us that the primacy of existence principle is more than implicit in the theist's claim that God exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, the action of asserting that god exists assumes the primacy of existence principle.

Thus we should recognize that, the assumption that the primacy of existence principle is valid is implicit in any claim that something exists, even in the case of the theist's claim that God exists.

Now we come to the content of the claim that God exists, and here we will see that this claim necessarily affirms the primacy of consciousness view of reality:

Premise 1: Any notion which directly asserts, or entails the assumption that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness or that existence is in some way dependent on a form of consciousness, necessarily commits itself to the primacy of consciousness view of reality. Why? Because the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness, or is in any way dependent on a form of consciousness for its existence or identity, necessarily assumes that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence, that existence is dependent on consciousness.

Premise 2: The notion of a god asserts that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness, or that existence depends on consciousness for its identity. Why? In the book of Genesis, we find the religious doctrine of creation. This doctrine holds that god commanded - i.e., desired or wished - the world into existence. "God spoke, and the universe came into being," claim theists. The ultimate source is thought to be conscious in nature, namely the omnipotent will of a supernatural universe-creating, reality-ruling conscious being. The universe, that is, the sum total of existence, is thus thought to be a product of a form of consciousness.

Similarly, the religious doctrine of miracles holds that consciousness has the power to alter or revise the identity of that which exists, specifically to turn A into non-A, or to have A act as non-A. In Exodus 3:1-3 we find the miracle of a bush which is burning, but which is "not consumed" (i.e., not destroyed) by the fire which burns it, and it speaks also; in John chap. 2 we find the miracle of Jesus transforming water into wine by an act of will (i.e., by form of consciousness); and Matthew 14:22-33 (and parallels) we find the miracle of a man walking on water. In each of these instances, and in many, many more instances of miracles in the Bible and other "holy" books, the objects in question become something they are not, or behave contrary to their natural identities, and these contradictions are made possible by the overwhelming influence of the ruling consciousness' will.

Conclusion: Therefore, the notion of a god necessarily commits itself to the primacy of consciousness view of reality.
The primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness are contradictory to one another. In other words, they cannot both be true. And here we see precisely how the claim "God exists" is an attempt to integrate both contradictories into a whole.

Thus, while the action of claiming that god exists assumes that the primacy of existence is true (since the believer is not claiming that god is simply a figment of his own imagination - he is saying that god exists as something independent of his mind, "God exists whether I like it or not"), the content of the claim that god exists necessarily expresses the primacy of consciousness view (since god is said to be a conscious being which creates existence and alters the identity of objects by an act of will, i.e., by a form of consciousness).

Thus, the claim that god exists assumes both the primacy of existence (per formatively) and the primacy of consciousness (notionally) at the same time. Since these principles are contradictory to one another (they both cannot be true), the claim 'god exists', since it assumes both, is necessarily self-contradictory

Thus, the theist literally checkmates himself!


Top
Profile

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Why spend your whole life trying to reach enlightenment and "emptiness"?

We realize that we do not ultimately exist. We are here, however, and have decisions to make. Why not try to do our best to shape the future rather than to do nothing and detach completely? Achieving enlightenment or "emptiness" is denying life rather than embracing it. Did we evolve all this way to turn into creatures who deny all emotion and respond to their opportunity part in life through non-action?

It's a good question. What's the difference between a philosophy from a Quinn or a Solway and lets say the Hare Krishna? Both could be said to ultimately 'surrender' to an Absolute reality and repeat some message as way to convey it. The Hare Krishna is by its very structure a possible escape of normal life, leaving behind materialism or materialist interests while through the organization one is able to exist, only different from the dole in degrees (ie: one has to survive somehow by sacrificing something).

I think it points to the three aspects, modes or expressions that our consciousness functions in or how we know it by and there is first the Absolute (causality, law, 'past', memory, constant, eternal) which we can explore intellectually, making it possible to investigate ourselves or our environment properly, examining how we are bound, exposing ego as well as causality. Modern science is just one application of it, self-inquiry another.

The other mode which is experience itself, or the now, the present, is a powerful, energetic mode which is fueling our sense of being and can be explored by adults through meditation. It can appear as oceanic feeling of Oneness that isn't anything near the totality but a submersion into the 'power of now', immediacy. It's also a kind of submission in the sense that during the experience consciousness is actually lessened, not heightened. But it can also increase the ability of awareness though by heightening the bodies energy levels and attention span to a point.

The third mode you already touched upon is the least understood: the roll of the future, planning, vision, hope, goal, path, way or also the mode of salvation (a tricky teaser term). As you said: "why not try to do our best to shape the future". Fact is that we're already propelled by our visions every day. It's the carrot that fuels all kinds of actions. It's the path you choose to go as well the paths you choose not to. The future is always fictive and imaginary. While we know causation is real (so the past in that sense is tangible) we cannot say the same of the future or our vision for it.

So we arrive at what should separate the wise from the ordinary mystics, believers and meditators. The wise is a prophet in the sense he's concerned about the future, the shape it takes and the vision that lies at the base, the directions that underlie it. He comes down from his mountaintop of insight and creates a new direction by painting a larger picture.

This is what in my view elevates Nietzsche above most Buddhist teachers and Quinn above the founder of the Hare Krishna movement. They are concerned with the future and realize it starts with ideal, painting a picture of possibilities without losing connection with the other modes of reality: the Absolute and the experience of now. In other words: they engage all modes of consciousness and address reality in all three main aspects.

Crafting a future is an insecure undertaking though. One doesn't deal with certainties anymore and all wise men have failed and succeeded at the same time. They succeeded in crafting a view but failed naturally in painting one coherent, precise, do-able landscape. But this failure is part of what defines it as future: non-existing and fundamentally flawed. Still that cannot stop one from engaging in it actively.

That said, I think more bold and consistent futures need to be drawn up by the wise people of this age, if the destructive direction of our civilization has to be changed. It needs visionaries, prophets, a genius to go beyond the individual planning to some century spanning challenge.

We killed the old christ, and we need a new one.

[Pye]

Diebert writes:

That said, I think more bold and consistent futures need to be drawn up by the wise people of this age, if the destructive direction of our civilization has to be changed. It needs visionaries, prophets, a genius to go beyond the individual planning to some century spanning challenge.

We killed the old christ, and we need a new one.

My own future vision consists in eliminating the need for christs altogether . . . that each walks complete in their own phenomenal experience, and in understanding this phenomenality, no longer excuses or rests their behavior in "the-way-it's-always-been."


.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

zara,

Please go to 'How to PROVE GOD EXISTS' forum and see Zarathustra's argument for 'existence' and 'consciousness' then, RECONSIDER 'enlightenment'...

These are unrelated arguments. You are essentially saying:

"A First Cause doesn't exist, therefore there are no philosophers better than me."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

My own future vision consists in eliminating the need for christs altogether . . . that each walks complete in their own phenomenal experience, and in understanding this phenomenality, no longer excuses or rests their behavior in "the-way-it's-always-been."

Hah! But you perhaps missed my ultimate definition of christ as 'future vision'.

And that's exactly what the rest of your comment sounds like: undefining future. Complete in their own phenomenal experience. Christ, she just killed christ again! You b......! *



*) popular cartoon reference

[Imadrongo]

After reading Woman: An Exposition, I have a few comments. It was really interesting and insightful BTW.

If she were fortunate enough ever to catch a glimpse of what it means to be truthful, she would immediately brand it the most inhuman of all things. And she would be right.

What about the truth that we are human?

If one is going to transcend all things, then one must renounce all things.

How so? In my mind one transcends all earthly/humanly things if one understands them/life. I see no necessity to piously renounce everything. As you have been arguing with Jehu in the other thread, ultimately we are things; we are the contingent entities -- there is no higher reality. Once we understand reality, the task should then be to decide how to participate in it, not to try to fully evade it and live in some mystical unity with God, as Nietzsche has described the quest for "emptiness".

Also, as to the woman thing, in my mind I view the way of life that you advocate as incorrect because it would mean the end of humanity if everyone could adopt it. Truth should not inhibit reproduction and life. Truth beyond life is a superstition. That truth negates life is nihilism or fatalism.

[David Quinn]

WhorlyWhelk,

DQ: Woman is a major illusion, one that runs deep in our psyches and underpins many other illusions.

WW: Could you explain to me how "woman" is more of an illusion than, say, food or water? Our bodies have evolved naturally to require food and water for survival. Is it delusional to eat food and drink water? It seems equally as delusional as having sex with a woman, something that is the next closest need to men from food and water.

Or do you just condemn the search of pleasure from a woman which leads to samsara? Would you also say it is delusional to eat food that tastes especially good to you; food that gives you pleasure?

As a general rule, whatever causes us to remain in ignorance about the nature of Reality and act irrationally needs to be dealt with. This is the basic principle we can use to assess all these matters.

Food and water are fuels that sustain our bodies, so we have no choice but to consume them if we want to stay alive. Staying alive is necessary if we want to continue the effort to break out of ignorance and realize the nature of Reality.

If we treat food and water simply as fuels, then there is no problem. The problems only begin when we go that extra step further and project our own egotistical and emotional needs onto them. For example, if we crave and consume fatty foods in order to fill an emotional pain or void inside us, then we are indulging in a band-aid solution which involves the illusion that these foods can resolve deep emotional issues inside us. Or at least, we are using them to distract us from dealing with these deeper issues more directly.

A woman is even more in the realm of illusion in that, unlike food and water, we don't really need her to stay alive and become wise. What people generally look for in a woman is not fuel for their continued existence, but things like emotional comfort, ego-boosting, distraction, approval, etc - all things to do with protecting and maintaining the illusion called the "self".

Or is it just emotion that is ultimately bad? Perhaps woman is evil because we naturally fall in love with her? Is love delusional, love of illusions? "I love going for walks in what appears to me as the park...."

The emotions aren't really bad as such (although they often produce terrible consequences), but they are products of a bad mindset. By "bad mindset", I mean a mindset that is ignorant of reality.

If a person is ignorant and emotional to begin with, as nearly all people are, then he has no choice but to implement emotion as best he can for the development of wisdom. For example, a strong emotional love of truth is important in the early stages. This love is still a product of ignorance, but it is the kind of emotion that can propel one to eventually leave all ignorance and emotion behind.

Is it delusional to say to yourself:
"Okay -- I want to have a woman so I can have children and teach them to be wise and to continue to promote wisdom after I have died. I fully understand that no human, including myself, is an absolute entity, and I fully understand that she is simply an appearance."

Why would you want to have children for that purpose, when there are already enough children in the world? Almost everyone is a child when it comes to spiritual matters. You could just as effectively teach these children to be wise without having to waste 18 years of your life slavishly devoted to the detailed rearing of just one or two of them.

-

[David Quinn]

WhorlyWhelk,

WW: After reading Woman: An Exposition, I have a few comments. It was really interesting and insightful BTW.

Quote:
DQ: If she were fortunate enough ever to catch a glimpse of what it means to be truthful, she would immediately brand it the most inhuman of all things. And she would be right.

WW: What about the truth that we are human?

What does it mean to be human?

Quote:
DQ: If one is going to transcend all things, then one must renounce all things.

WW: How so? In my mind one transcends all earthly/humanly things if one understands them/life. I see no necessity to piously renounce everything. As you have been arguing with Jehu in the other thread, ultimately we are things; we are the contingent entities -- there is no higher reality. Once we understand reality, the task should then be to decide how to participate in it, not to try to fully evade it and live in some mystical unity with God, as Nietzsche has described the quest for "emptiness".

Agreed. My quote above should be interpreted as renouncing the illusion that things inherently exist. A Buddha participates both in the mystical unity of God and in the worldly work of shaping the future for the better. The two activities are really one.

As Chuang Tzu said, "He who knows the part which the Heavenly in him plays, and knows also that which the Human in him ought to play, has reached the perfection of knowledge."

Also, as to the woman thing, in my mind I view the way of life that you advocate as incorrect because it would mean the end of humanity if everyone could adopt it. Truth should not inhibit reproduction and life. Truth beyond life is a superstition. That truth negates life is nihilism or fatalism.

Becoming wise doesn't mean becoming stupid. If it is determined that the human race is getting thin in numbers and needs populating, then wise people will do whatever is necessary to make it happen.

-

[Imadrongo]

David Quinn,

If we treat food and water simply as fuels, then there is no problem. The problems only begin when we go that extra step further and project our own egotistical and emotional needs onto them. For example, if we crave and consume fatty foods in order to fill an emotional pain or void inside us, then we are indulging in a band-aid solution which involves the illusion that these foods can resolve deep emotional issues inside us. Or at least, we are using them to distract us from dealing with these deeper issues more directly.

So personally I like to eat good, healthy food because I want to be healthy as sickness would be a hindrance on my life. But I won't deny that I would rather eat some of my favorite foods than other equally healthy options simply because they taste more appealing to me. Would you consider this a harmful attachment?

A woman is even more in the realm of illusion in that, unlike food and water, we don't really need her to stay alive and become wise. What people generally look for in a woman is not fuel for their continued existence, but things like emotional comfort, ego-boosting, distraction, approval, etc - all things to do with protecting and maintaining the illusion called the "self".

I agree that most people would look for an ego boost in woman. Is it possible though that a woman could provide a sexual outlet and a partner in the mundane tasks of everyday life that would actually aid in one's quest for wisdom and truth?

DQ: Why would you want to have children for that purpose, when there are already enough children in the world? Almost everyone is a child when it comes to spiritual matters. You could just as effectively teach these children to be wise without having to waste 18 years of your life slavishly devoted to the detailed rearing of just one or two of them.

Good point.

DQ: Agreed. My quote above should be interpreted as renouncing the illusion that things inherently exist. A Buddha participates both in the mystical unity of God and in the worldly work of shaping the future for the better. The two activities are really one.

As Chuang Tzu said, "He who knows the part which the Heavenly in him plays, and knows also that which the Human in him ought to play, has reached the perfection of knowledge."

Good point.

DQ: What does it mean to be human?

DQ: Becoming wise doesn't mean becoming stupid. If it is determined that the human race is getting thin in numbers and needs populating, then wise people will do whatever is necessary to make it happen.

To be human is to live within the limits of a "human being" in the world. Humans must create or adopt values to live by and find their place in the world. The question here is: what values should we live by? Deluded people like to adopt Christian values or may reject Christianity but adopt some values around their ego. Existentialists who realize they don't inherently exist must create some other values or adopt a fatalistic attitude.

The wise person obviously values one thing above all else: truth. The second quote suggests you also value advancement of the human race and the spread of truth; otherwise you wouldn't care if human beings went extinct or if they went ignorant.

WW: Or is it just emotion that is ultimately bad? Perhaps woman is evil because we naturally fall in love with her? Is love delusional, love of illusions? "I love going for walks in what appears to me as the park...."

DQ: The emotions aren't really bad as such (although they often produce terrible consequences), but they are products of a bad mindset. By "bad mindset", I mean a mindset that is ignorant of reality.

Why is it that only an ignorant mindset could value anything other than (or on top of) the values that you hold?

[Pye]

Diebert writes:

And that's exactly what the rest of your comment sounds like: undefining future. Complete in their own phenomenal experience. Christ, she just killed christ again! You b......! *

Diebert, whilst you wish for another christ, I am simply looking past that to a time when any and all messages have been received, and further, acted upon. To a time when we do not need "redemption" anymore . . . .

*) popular cartoon reference

:) I guess it's reassuring that you do "dirty" your hands with a musty brown pleasure or two . . . .

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, whilst you wish for another christ, I am simply looking past that to a time when any and all messages have been received, and further, acted upon. To a time when we do not need "redemption" anymore . . . .

The moment you're looking past anything, you're wishing, you're christing (christening?).

There's no time all messages have been received or will be acted upon. That's a false and contradictionary wish. It has no base in the way our existence happens.

Redemption is not a matter of being needed or not. It's already the case, but to define it one has to project it unto a 'future' since we're beings of time. There's not as much mystery in this as you seem to think.

:) I guess it's reassuring that you do "dirty" your hands with a musty brown pleasure or two . . .

I'm just as much a product of culture and age like everyone else so there's no reason to pretend I'm a stranger to human activities of any kind to project some 'noble' image in a time where nobility has lost meaning. There are many common down to earth aspects to my life and I find them useful to keep my demons close.

About cartoons, I was thinking last week about the difference between the Simpsons and Southpark as humor. I discovered that The Simpsons while on the surface less rude and more 'family' oriented has a way more sick and disturbing underlying message. Southpark has a nihilist, amoral and rude level of jokes but is way more healthy and clean in the underlying morals, if any. For example, in The Simpsons the dysfunction of romance and family are highlighted, ridiculed but also encouraged and finally, when it comes to it, affirmed. In Southpark there's only ridiculing, never affirmation or seduction of any kind on this topic that I've seen.

[DHodges]

In Southpark there's only ridiculing, never affirmation or seduction of any kind on this topic that I've seen.

Cartman in particular is a kind of (anti)hero. He has a natural, flowing evil genius nature that Professor Chaos will never be able to approach.

Anyway, South Park did positively affirm that John Edward is the biggest douche in the universe. I was thinking that we could all agree on that, at least, and live in peace and harmony, until I read the Wikipedia article that asks, “Well what about Rob Schneider?”

Indeed. Now there's something to ponder over the weekend...