Enlightenment Finally

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by David Quinn »

maestro wrote:It seems to me Kirkegaard is at a mere spiritual infant's level, where more consciousness is causing him to suffer more. At higher levels more consciousness has the opposite effect.

It isn't so much the increase in consciousness which causes the problems, but rather the direct confronting of the ego - both within oneself and everyone in the human race.

But I can see why you exalt him, Nietzsche and Diogenes. All these played the role of the great-wise man shunned and hated by society whose pronouncements against the exising wisdom are not valued and ridiculed. You are identified with this image, and think it is the same with you.
Take care not to overreach yourself, maestro. You do not yet understand this aspect of things.

-
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Faust »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Faust wrote:the fragmentary nature of infant memories is most likely explained by their developing and changing brain,
Nevertheless, the nature of infant memories, where they actually exist, remains fragmentary. Taking this to the extreme, who among us grew up with any memory of the pain experienced during and/or just after labour shortly after it occurred, for example. I bet mum remembers a good deal more of it than the kiddies do.
…and how do infants not recognize pain and pleasure?
It depends on what you mean by recognition. By it, I do not mean instinct. I mean cognitive, abstract recognition. If there were such recognition in infancy, then as soon as the infant were old enough to discuss such matters (after the introduction of language, that is) one would imagine they might more or less immediately do so, no? How many do? Instead, they easily discuss matters of pleasure and pain occurring to them subsequent to language; that is to say, they recognise pleasure and pain itself precisely when memories become memorable and the ego develops to avoid pain and seek pleasure--with the introduction of language. Until then, there’s no observable, in memory or otherwise, morality, no values, no judgement---it’s all stimulus response.

It doesn’t really matter whether you choose to essentially explain it in terms of ego/superego filters or the more concrete, apparently, developing and changing brains, does it? Both ideas are, at the very least, pointing to the same thing.

A kid learns “good/bad” and “pleasure/pain” by abstractions and associations in the present. Even if you were to demonstrate that some painful aspect of his present environment was rooted in his infant past, the recognition that occurs enabling memory from that point onward is in the identifiable present---and he can talk about it.
I guess you can tell by seeing how early infants avoid pain and seek pleasure, though then you have to ask to which degree is this unconsciously done. I don't think we can tell for sure how conscious an infant is of pain and pleasure before it's able to speak
Last edited by Faust on Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Amor fati
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

David Quinn wrote: Take care not to overreach yourself, maestro. You do not yet understand this aspect of things.
Come on I am openly attacking your philosophy, which I feel has only a tangential relationship to enlightenment, and you come up with a rejoinder like "I am so far advanced than you, do not question my authority"!
Relo
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Relo »

What would we say about comparing the residual content of Enlightenment (considering the thread) compared to social approval and identifying along with gradual sub-isolation / isolation?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by David Quinn »

maestro wrote:
David Quinn wrote: Take care not to overreach yourself, maestro. You do not yet understand this aspect of things.
Come on I am openly attacking your philosophy, which I feel has only a tangential relationship to enlightenment, and you come up with a rejoinder like "I am so far advanced than you, do not question my authority"!
It was more a gentle pointer that your criticism above was so off the mark that it expressed zero understanding of these higher-order matters.

I'm not interested in competing with you. I'm more interested in speaking in favour of a noble path in life that is very dear to me, yet one that very few people understand or are even aware of. I don't feel a need to defend it against baseless criticisms.

You're better off exploring what Gurdjieff has to offer. It would seem to be the most natural thing for you to do at the moment. Should you, in the future, get tired of it, then perhaps we can begin to talk more meaningfully about this noble path that I speak of. Until then, I'm not interested in having a Gurdjieff vs Kierkegaard dogfight with you, or anything along those lines.

-
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

It was more a gentle pointer that your criticism above was so off the mark that it expressed zero understanding of these higher-order matters.
Then perhaps you should have given a coherent reply rather than taking a moral high ground, as you are still doing.

David Quinn wrote:Until then, I'm not interested in having a Gurdjieff vs Kierkegaard dogfight with you, or anything along those lines.
Who is having a dogfight. I always keep the conversation polite.

I raise very pertinent issues about a practical approach to both enlightenment and the path, whereas you prefer to keep it shrouded in a messianic and mysterious garb.

According to me neither Kierkegaard nor Nietzsche or Jesus were enlightened. All these were too self righteous and full of themselves. They did not appreciate cause and effect either very well. For example Jesus went out in a flash of fire as he overestimated himself. While Nietzsche ended up in a madhouse by harming his mind by worrying and thinking too much. Kierkegaard also seems to wallow in misery and feels himself quite superior for it.

All this is too far removed from the idea of enlightenment as a joyous natural and light state of being. Your clumping of all of them together is a disservice to both enlightenment and these thinkers.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Faust »

Nietzsche most likely had a brain tumor or maybe syphillis. You can't "go mad" from thinking too much, and lose your ability to speak, read, and write. I'm sure he still had alot of important things to say, and he isn't going to stop himself from reading, writing, and speaking, simply because he thought too much. The man was physically decrepit

Kierkegaard was good with his anti-herd mentality, which is about 95% of his philosophy. His whole "truth is subjectivity" is not only contradictory but egotistical. He considered himself a "martyr" give me a break
Amor fati
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Carl G »

David Quinn wrote: Do you have links to any of Gurdjieff's material that is comparable to Kierkegaard's?
No, unfortunately. Gurdjieff's Internet presence is rather scanty. I did find this, which contains some interesting bits, but no collection of wise quotes, per se.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by David Quinn »

Thanks for that. Looking over that page, I'm reminded again that I don't like him. He sets himself up as a guru and babbles. And what he babbles sounds generic and impersonal. A lot of it comes across as quackery.

-
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

To be truthful I have not become a Gurdjieff worshipper overnight, only credit is due where it is due, and all the western philosophers put together did not have such clarity about the mind as is shown in the book fourth way by Ouspensky. In my view one cannot become enlightened without tackling the mind once and for all and so it is hard to contemplate any of the western philosophers enlightened.

Another place where such clarity about the mind was shown was in the book Thought as a system by David bohm. That made Bohm seem far ahead than Krishnamurti, who is often vague in his expression.
Faust wrote:Nietzsche most likely had a brain tumor or maybe syphillis. You can't "go mad" from thinking too much, and lose your ability to speak, read, and write.
You can damage your mind from thinking too much just as you can break your arm if stretched too much persistently. But perhaps you cannot lose your ability to speak read and write.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

maestro,
You can damage your mind from thinking too much just as you can break your arm if stretched too much persistently.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I can't think of a single example of a person who damaged his mind from thinking too much.
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I can't think of a single example of a person who damaged his mind from thinking too much.
I do not think it is an extraordinary claim. Thinking is a physical process, and putting too much stress on the brain can lead to formation of pathological habits which over a period of time can cause permanent damage. The Pavlovian experiment with dogs shows an demonstration.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0Hn5nE ... UYTE&hl=en

And in any case anything done to excess will lead to pathology is a universal law.
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

Also it is a serious mistake to take thought separate from feelings and the body. Further most thought is not creative/truthful but reiterates its hidden/faulty assumptions. Thought has created much disorder in the world and is single handedly responsible for much of human misery. I would refer you to the book Thought as a system by Bohm to see what is wrong at the core of thought and what is a possible remedy.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Faust »

maestro wrote:
Trevor Salyzyn wrote: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I can't think of a single example of a person who damaged his mind from thinking too much.
I do not think it is an extraordinary claim. Thinking is a physical process, and putting too much stress on the brain can lead to formation of pathological habits which over a period of time can cause permanent damage. The Pavlovian experiment with dogs shows an demonstration.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0Hn5nE ... UYTE&hl=en

And in any case anything done to excess will lead to pathology is a universal law.
Uhh, that experiment isn't at all the same thing as thinking about things. A dog is much less conscious and able than a thinking person, the dog didn't even realize that it was being conditioned. And if this was the case, then all serious thinkers should have become like Nietzsche. Furthermore, as you said, Nietzsche lost his ability to read and write. If Nietzsche got mad from certain confusions he would have written precisely those confusions, which would have been nothing but misunderstandings and delusions
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Faust »

maestro wrote:Also it is a serious mistake to take thought separate from feelings and the body. Further most thought is not creative/truthful but reiterates its hidden/faulty assumptions. Thought has created much disorder in the world and is single handedly responsible for much of human misery. I would refer you to the book Thought as a system by Bohm to see what is wrong at the core of thought and what is a possible remedy.
Uhh, that's cause people don't like thinking about things because consciousness hurts. Someone like Bohm would of course say "stop thinking! All will be well!"
Amor fati
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

Wan't there a contradiction between Nietzsche believing himself to be a superman, providing deliverance to the world while he was all but ignored and lived a neglected and lonely life. If he could not lead a happy life with his wisdom (zarathustra, gay science), what chance is there for others, it seems all his philosophizing is in vain. This is a significant contradiction between the theory and reality.
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

Faust wrote: Uhh, that's cause people don't like thinking about things because consciousness hurts. Someone like Bohm would of course say "stop thinking! All will be well!"
Not really all people do think a lot. Bohm is a quantum physicist, his prescription is not to stop thinking but become aware of the mechanism of thought and observe where it is corrupted.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

maestro wrote:Wasn't there a contradiction between Nietzsche believing himself to be a superman, providing deliverance to the world
It sounds like you haven't even started reading the stuff. Better keep it that way, I suspect.
while he was all but ignored and lived a neglected and lonely life. If he could not lead a happy life with his wisdom (zarathustra, gay science), what chance is there for others, it seems all his philosophizing is in vain.
What makes you think he was unhappy or lonely apart from this medical cross to bear? Many pages sound hysterically ecstatic to me, his whole philosophy was aimed against the heaviness and gravity that infected current thought and form. His private correspondence sounds mostly cheerful and caring toward friends. And even further: what makes you think happiness is the true fulfillment of life? Can you describe happiness in case you think of something deviating from the norm?
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
It sounds like you haven't even started reading the stuff. Better keep it that way, I suspect.
True indeed, I can barely stand his work. Rather than discussing or saying anything it is more like messianic injunctions and revelations.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: What makes you think he was unhappy or lonely apart from this medical cross to bear? Many pages sound hysterically ecstatic to me, his whole philosophy was aimed against the heaviness and gravity that infected current thought and form. His private correspondence sounds mostly cheerful and caring toward friends. And even further: what makes you think happiness is the true fulfillment of life? Can you describe happiness in case you think of something deviating from the norm?
For me happiness is a state of inner and outer balance and clarity. Neither hysterical ecstasy, not abysmal depression. Someone like Buddha seems to embody what I would look for in happiness.
I do not think anything is the true fulfillment of life, it is just what the correct state has to be effortless and smooth clear and precise.
bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by bert »

maestro wrote:[
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: What makes you think he was unhappy or lonely apart from this medical cross to bear? Many pages sound hysterically ecstatic to me, his whole philosophy was aimed against the heaviness and gravity that infected current thought and form. His private correspondence sounds mostly cheerful and caring toward friends. And even further: what makes you think happiness is the true fulfillment of life? Can you describe happiness in case you think of something deviating from the norm?
For me happiness is a state of inner and outer balance and clarity. Neither hysterical ecstasy, not abysmal depression. Someone like Buddha seems to embody what I would look for in happiness.
I do not think anything is the true fulfillment of life, it is just what the correct state has to be effortless and smooth clear and precise.
by bert on Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:47 pm
the secret of happiness is to be in harmony with yourself;little more is permitted or desirable.do not ask me what is 'yourself'.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

clyde wrote:Are you positing that we are (equal) ego? Or do you mean that along with other attributes (body and mind, etc.), ego is an attribute of us?
It's not an attribute you can turn on or off. I also disagree with the idea of abandoning or getting 'rid' of ego as some others would suggest but it depends really on what is defined to be ego. Some describe a certain aspect, I try to address the whole process.

This is not the forum to go too much into scientific models but I'd like to mention that at the ground we're talking about a natural brain function. I see it as a type of mirror image created within neurological processes that performs an initial function to manage the complex interface between brain and impulses leading in and out of the nervous center. Check out the cockpit of a large airliner to get the picture.

In a more existential way one could say that ego is the way we [which could as well be at times some subconscious self-regulating process] envision ourselves as entity in relation to the world, a world that thereby always will remain in a mirror-like relation to this entity.

This means that ego is in everything we see and do by default. If ego would stop being asserted one would seize recognizing anything. There would be no means to relate to anything at all. This is what I suspect was originally meant by there being "no mountain" during spiritual progress. This is quite literal at the deepest level: once the ego function ceases literally the world collapses - the whole universe ceases to be. It's safer to start with only a few things first though to get the idea. When one is attached too much to the world a sudden ego-death, even a temporary hick-up can easily turn into a great panic.

It's easy to see that the egoless state will not endure as we need a reality principle to survive. Therefore a new 'self-image' has to arise which will create for us 'mountain' again. This is why almost all enlightenment traditions talk about a new or higher self, a new birth or a different path or wise.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by David Quinn »

maestro wrote:To be truthful I have not become a Gurdjieff worshipper overnight, only credit is due where it is due, and all the western philosophers put together did not have such clarity about the mind as is shown in the book fourth way by Ouspensky.
If Gurdjieff possessed such great clarity of mind, then why did he produce so much quackery?

-
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

I seems he was clear about working of the mind, about the fantastic theories, about the moon etc we can hardly judge him, as he cannot verify them empirically anyhow. They seem absurd to us in our scientific context.

In any case the mind is the main hindrance to achieving the state of balance known as enlightenment and is the one which needs to be tackled. Theories about other matters are hardly any help (in this pursuit).
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by David Quinn »

maestro wrote:I seems he was clear about working of the mind, about the fantastic theories, about the moon etc we can hardly judge him, as he cannot verify them empirically anyhow. They seem absurd to us in our scientific context.

In any case the mind is the main hindrance to achieving the state of balance known as enlightenment and is the one which needs to be tackled. Theories about other matters are hardly any help (in this pursuit).
If Gurdjieff possessed such great clarity of mind, why he did not cease engaging in these baseless, trivial speculations, which, as you say, have no bearing on understanding the mind? We can judge him on the basis that he did engage in these trivial matters - and quite a lot, by the looks of it.

-
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Leyla Shen »

Diebert, you wrote:
In the end, a baby cries because IT is hungry or feeling uncomfortable. That it doesn't conceive itself yet consciously in such way is not the issue. The underlying mental process is already in place and is why I call it a natural process to develop ego, it's how a complex organism has to work with the complexity of signals and self-maintenance, to put it in a bit chilling mechanistic way.
Conceiving itself consciously is indeed the issue. How can there be self image/ego without self image? “It” might be crying because “it”--this objective/subjective whole other--is hungry or uncomfortable, but the “I”--the illusory self-image--has no part in the manifestation of that hunger. In fact, the only difference between “primal” and “egoistic” emotion is self-image. That’s the very opus of ego (well, ego is the opus of the id/ego/superego triad, in fact---its joy, its tragedy, its comedy)--the illusory separate self/self-image as distinct from causal and/or primal processes. When ego comes into existence is necessarily incidental to its coming into existence; whatever developmental processes precede it, contrast it, are just that--preceding and contrasting developmental processes from the perspective of self or other. They have significance and are revelatory in those terms only since they only come into view with ego; with self(/other)-image and/or consciousness.

Consciousness, as we speak of it here, is a separate element altogether; perhaps it could be conceived as an evolutionary refinement. The Id/ego/superego triad pointing to, from the perspective of consciousness, the automatic/emergency system designed to get the organism through its most vulnerable stage/s of life.

It’s distinct and separate in the same way that pure logic does not have its foundation in the empirical, any conceived relation or co-existence notwithstanding.

More later.
Between Suicides
Locked