GENIUS FORUMS

Existentialism, as I know it, has its own way of expressing dependent origination:

"There is no human nature, only human conditions."

Conditions form us, we in complete exchange with them. We are ourselves a "condition" in this mutually exchanging of and within conditions. There are only conditions, hence the conditional (dependent origination).

Anything "natural" to us is just that - natural. That of our animal-being, our animal processes, impulses to breathe, etc., and for people like Jung, probably things like anima/animus, archetypical content carried forth in the material of consciousness. Sartre called this of the natural "facticity." The fact-ness of human being. The natural, being natural, would not be a trouble to us, and if all of human existence could be thought of this way, then little would trouble us. But we're troubled. We're troubled about nothingness ("nothingness" explained below). That appears to be a natural feature to our existences, too. What to do with our nothingness; i.e. our "freedom" ("freedom" also explained below). It's natural, but it naturally dogs us on.

If existentialism left it there, it would be a doctrine of determinism. If the Buddha had left it there, there would have been nothing for him to work out, nothing to see, nothing to teach. There would be no 'error' in our conception of ourselves; no need for spiritual, philosophical or concrete address.

But this is not where the condition of human consciousness leads us. The condition of human consciousness leads us to a self - a being whose appearance is bracketed by its private birth and private death and individual experiences in and response to the whole molten dependency of conditions. A being - who in the midst of all these conditions seeks itself beyond its mere facticity. That would be the 'nature' of human-being. If this is ultimately in 'error' it is still ultimately. This is where the ambiguity comes in.

not just this (self), not just that (conditions). neither and both. Many many products of consciousness have sought to resolve this original ambiguity in flight from it: all spirit and no facticity; all facticity and no spirit. Cog-in-machine or no cog, even no machine. Whole world residing in self (solipsism); self residing in whole world (determinism). A subject in a world of objects; an object for every other subjectivity, etc.

Ambiguity: not this (alone); not that (alone); neither and both. Self And Other. World outside; world inside, etc.

With all that mutually canceling, mutually reinforcing ambiguity, the math would add up to "nothing." Nothingness. But this won't work because there is something, there is definitely something (a world, selves-in-it, etc.) Existential sentence #2:

There is only existence.

To speak of prior-to existence, or beyond existence, or any such gathering around any such locus of things-beyond-existence is completely incoherent. World-and-Self defeating, annihilating. It is seen as flight from what actually is: existence. Everything that "be." And the flight is understandable given the exigencies and vicissitudes of existing (i.e. "Life is suffering").

The Buddha wanted to do something about it, address something about it and in so doing, recognized the "Lack" of being of a proper address to the problem and goes about creating it out of that lack. This is the closest we can get to a conceptual understanding of nothingness.

The human being does the same thing: recognizes something (existence), then creates something else, something else to exist out of its lacking. A lacking is something, not nothing. By definition alone can it be brought forth from nothingness. The recognition of a lacking is a recognition of something. There's never nothing (as pye has mantra'd now and again). There is only existence.

Beauvoir and Sartre ultimately express this as "freedom," and freedom isn't anything - yet. Freedom projects itself toward more of itself and cannot have any other absolute goal than itself.

This would be the same with being. Being is never in a "state" but always a matter of becoming - more of existence disclosed, and more of it disclosed because in our original recognition of a lack (suffering, what we're not and would like to be, etc.), we create i.e. disclose more of being. This is not a thing disattached from other things (i.e. does not escape dependent origination), but what comes forth from it, being as there is only being. And being that being is only, ever and always becoming. Otherwise, cause and effect would also be done causing and effecting, and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either.

The human being who seeks an 'end' within existence (any end: place to rest; place of ultimate resolution; being arrested into a 'state' of being, etc. like, I know me, I know my ultimate self (ego), or, I have understanding of the whole of the world; I'm done, etc.) - these are all expressions of arrested being. Arrested being is not-becoming. Arrested being is flight from being i.e. becoming. Arrested being is nihilism/denial of being.

And becoming (the not-yet) and freedom (the nothing yet), along with the buddhistic no-self (nothing) - and all other expression of nothingness are actually something. They are very much something indeed.

For Beauvoir (more than Sartre), there is work to be done here: the disclosure of being (the disclosing itself being a matter of becoming). This disclosure is from an original lacking (which is not "nothing" but in fact something recognized as lack).

Every "lack" is the expression of more being not-yet being and needing disclosed.

There is 'fixing' to be done right within what's already there (already 'right' in its thereness).

Anyone here trying to work upon themselves, reach different, better understandings; address sufferings both in self and world are involved in a creative act of disclosing being from an original lack.

It stays ambiguous, for nothing has "being" (as in a state) when all of it is perpetually becoming.

Buddhism and existentialism part here. The former seeks an 'arrest' to suffering; the latter sees the arrest as the suffering itself what needs addressed.

And perhaps here is where they can be brought together again vis-a-vis the discussion that dogged us on another thread:

In a World that itself does not need fixing, there are plenty of things to fix. Not this (no-fix needed); not that (lots of fixing needing address). Neither one, nor the other exclusively; not this, not that; both and neither. Ambiguity.

In the end, even existentialism recognizes the failure assumed in bringing forth more being by 'fixing' it, when no thing can ever reach a state-of-being (fixed) in a condition of infinite becoming . . . .

More ambiguity, like it or not. Things need "fixed" but can never stay that way, outside the streaming nature of cause and effect . . . .

Translation: Buddhist philosophy doesn't provide me with the paltry and palpable answers that existential philosophy does.

I wonder what would happen if you tried teaching like that for a day.

Pye wrote: Buddhism and existentialism part here. The former seeks an 'arrest' to suffering; the latter sees the arrest as the suffering itself what needs addressed.

They part there? The way you describe it they seem to be in line. The end to suffering spoken about is through the ceasing of arrest, a release. It seems Buddhism sees the arrest as the suffering itself also. Here is a description I knew I would come to reference soon, wouldn't you say this is a clear interpretation of clinging as 'the arrest as suffering itself'?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But since we're here, the best interpretation is to release, to unblock. This theme of fluency and flexibility has always been connected to the time this particular wisdom was thriving. Nothing is stopped but the stopping, the hindrance, the static. Fluency which means essentially not resting in one place, for consciousness not to land and build a nest for self and pure mental attachments to grow. This whole "restlessness of eternity".

All we're doing here is getting to something central to the human experience: existence as imperfection, like a wobbly wheel. Assertion, counter, movement. The friction involved is then being experienced as suffering, stress, unpleasantness, pain: dukkha. This is why at the core Buddha taught about arising and cessation, the tension and release of existence. Then "there is no landing of consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released".

Pye wrote:along with the buddhistic no-self (nothing) - and all other expression of nothingness are actually something. They are very much something indeed.

"Bound round with delusion, the world
only appears to be competent.
Bound with acquisitions, foolish,
surrounded by darkness,
it seems eternal,
but for one who sees,
there is nothing."


There are numerous expressions of nothingness from a variety of sages. This to me is really an expression of transience/appearance.

Sure that was something.......where is it now?

Seeker writes: Sure that was something.......where is it now?

On to becoming something else . . . .

As well, the ambiguity of clinging to a principle of non-clinging.

The aforementioned (long-post) might tell you that I'm not concerned about the above 'math' (clinging to non-clinging) canceling itself out . . . .

Just more of the ambiguous condition in which we will always find ourselves.

As well, the limits of its (reality's) conformation and confinement to logic alone.

Seeker muses: I wonder what would happen if you tried teaching like that for a day.

[Since you comment, the above is the armature upon which one day's lecture and discussion hangs in an upper level philosophy course, further developed in subsequent meetings. Lots 'happens.'

O but wait - nothing of any worth takes place in a philosophy class at university - that's the [smug] consensus here, isn't it? They, them have nothing of worth to offer . . . ;) ]

Pye wrote: Just more of the ambiguous condition in which we will always find ourselves.

As well, the limits of its (reality's) conformation and confinement to logic alone.

So that's where we end up, its ambiguous, the wtfness, can't be explained properly with words?

I think that's because there isn't much to confirm, when you see, it is exactly as its experienced, no curiosity left, what questions are there to ask? It is what is.

The relevancy of this is only apparent in comparison with millions who imagine something it isn't and can't see it, laying down conditions, experiencing suffering. This is where communication is useful, to get around egotism which is blinding. Liberating through 'creating confusion in those who think they know'.

"The ignorant cling to names, signs and ideas; as their minds move along these channels they feed on multiplicities of objects and fall into the notion of an ego-soul and what belongs to it; they make discriminations of good and bad among appearances and cling to the agreeable. As they thus cling there is a reversion to ignorance, and karma born of greed, anger and folly, is accumulated. As the accumulation of karma goes on they become imprisoned in a cocoon of discrimination."

Right? Right?
House of jack-shit?

Pye wrote:O but wait - nothing of any worth takes place in a philosophy class at university - that's the [smug] consensus here, isn't it? They, them have nothing of worth to offer . . . ;)

Yeah pretty much exactly correct Pye! You've got it! :)
It isn't the they, it's the situation, try talking non-self while perpetuating a public self. The way I see it most anyone(not always) will have a hard time coming to realization with a 9-5 schedule, duties, obligations, social appearance, familial appearance, this is one of the essential teachings, "Get the fuck away from all that, even if you have to beg" or more specifically

"All subjection to others
is painful.
All independence
is bliss."

Pye wrote:O but wait - nothing of any worth takes place in a philosophy class at university - that's the [smug] consensus here, isn't it? They, them have nothing of worth to offer . . . ;) ]

It's the consensus of all wise people. How can people who are paid by the public to value the truth be expected to do so?

“Life in itself is neither good nor evil. It is the place of good and evil, according to what you make it.” MONTAIGNE.

ethics of ambiguity.

Hiya Pye

As you noted, "being," defined as dependent upon conditions, is actually "becoming."

Becoming is conditional. Suffering is conditional.

Being is unconditional.

To be “in love” … dualistic, subject/object, conditional.

To be love … non-dual, unconditional, causing effects, independent of cause.

Pye

Great piece of work. Ignore all those who say your work has no value. As the great master Yoda would say "offended are you? A shit, I do not give."

It appears that some knowledge is about as useful as using a pitchfork to move smoke from one end of the barn to the other. This is the dilemma you are pointing out. There is a great misperception that truth can only be perceived by one who is void of all desire - that has never been the case with any state of consciousness that has ever lived - now that, is the Truth.

To be void of all desire is a pipedream - unless of course you can show me a single example of a form of life that has none. If all life demonstrates desire - that is the truth and to embrace what is self evident within yourself and all life is the measure of truth we are perceiving.


To embrace the deepest desire within carries with it an infinite amount of value.

It allows one to participate and observe reality, thats a good start.

Example:
If I were to tell you that you had just won the lottery, and you were to believe me. That would create a paradigm in your mind that would alter they way you viewed your present moment and life. It would alter your desire for that day.

If you were to check the numbers on your ticket and found they did not match, that would create another paradigm in your mind and life. Your desires would change again.

If you were to continue believing you had the winning lottery ticket even if the numbers do not match - that would be a good example of "What good is enlightenment, if it won't get me laid?"

Your odds of winning the lottery are one in millions, but if you had won the lottery last week, your odds of winning the lottery are 100% for last week.

In other words; the perception of the truth of your innermost desire allows us to experience reality just as it is and coming to terms with it. Understanding what you really and truly want is insulated from the extreem highs and lows of circumstances.This allowing for freedom of our true desire allows for the clarity of seeing through the roller coaster, ups and downs, ins and outs.

There ceases to be a struggle with life and a union with it. In this way do we have every desire fulfilled.

Life becomes your friend and ceases to be something that must be striven for - it becomes a gift. Once this happens, the mind opens and the contemplation of what has been your desire (buried deep in most) arises to the surface. It then follows its natural course and is free to accomplish what you have always wanted but did not know.



The nothing you spoke of becomes being. It is a state of being that is in sync with the universe as the innermost desire, regardless it is determined, becomes the focus. It does not matter what the commercials on TV, billboard signs or movies tell us what we want, we are free to allow our own desire to determine our course of action as a natural remedy.

This may not appear initially as the same discussion - I would say - look again.

If you asked someone "what do you want, more than anything else"? They might answer " to win the lottery." This answer, is subtlety deceptive. It is not money that they want. If they were to dig deeper they would begin to understand it is a new car, home and way of life that is desired, not the money. If they were to dig even deeper, it would be the way they feel about themselves and the world that they want to change, not just things.


What do you want more than anything?

When this question is answered, we begin to see if our state of being is to suffer or experience bliss and why.

jupiviv wrote:

Pye wrote:O but wait - nothing of any worth takes place in a philosophy class at university - that's the [smug] consensus here, isn't it? They, them have nothing of worth to offer . . . ;) ]

It's the consensus of all wise people. How can people who are paid by the public to value the truth be expected to do so?

As Pye wrote in another thread:

Pye wrote:Obviously, one doesn't have to go to university to 'become' a philosopher, to make accomplishment with philosophy.
You just [might] have to go if you want to 'make a living' at it.

University degrees are about career, plain and simple. Career is about how one makes a living.

University degrees are just a piece of paper that let you get a job. They are expensive pieces of paper that may or may not represent anything. Pye happens to be a good teacher, so that represents something - but there is no way to know from the paper itself whether or not the paper represents something.

It is wrong that those pieces of paper cost so much. They lead graduates into a life of debt slavery, so the living that you can make from that piece of paper is mitigated by the cost of the paper itself (unless you are lucky enough to get a full ride scholarship).

Elizabeth Isabelle writes: It is wrong that those pieces of paper cost so much. They lead graduates into a life of debt slavery, so the living that you can make from that piece of paper is mitigated by the cost of the paper itself (unless you are lucky enough to get a full ride scholarship).

Spot on, Elizabeth, spot-on. It is wrong, this withholding-from and then held-to debt. This is the "racket" part of the deal.

But everything in capital culture is about the generation and movement of capital. This here's a built-in contract to be busy about it for a very long time.

I'm still paying off student loans, and I make squat in the position of maverick-for-hire.

Elisabeth Isabelle wrote:University degrees are just a piece of paper that let you get a job.

Knowing the truth is a job, and one that warrants neither payment or university degrees. Livelihood is another matter.

As far as I can see, Pye is not a good teacher of philosophy. She may be nice to listen to, dedicated etc. but all that has nothing to do with philosophy.

Pye wrote: Just more of the ambiguous condition in which we will always find ourselves.

I'm not sure that we can really say that we always find ourselves in an ambiguous condition. We know that we are becoming, and I believe that we can know what we are becoming. Not all the people do not know what they are becoming, none of the people know what they are becoming all of the time, but some of the people know what they are becoming some of the time.

jupiviv, make your petulant swats all you please.
U Can't Touch This

Elizabeth writes: I'm not sure that we can really say that we always find ourselves in an ambiguous condition . . . [et al].

Yet, here it is again, this ambiguity :)

jupiviv wrote:

Elisabeth Isabelle wrote:University degrees are just a piece of paper that let you get a job.

Knowing the truth is a job, and one that warrants neither payment or university degrees. Livelihood is another matter.

As far as I can see, Pye is not a good teacher of philosophy. She may be nice to listen to, dedicated etc. but all that has nothing to do with philosophy.

I'll take that distinction between livelihood and job, but you don't have the mental ground to say that Pye is not a good teacher of philosophy. She may not be a perfect philosopher, but that does not mean that she isn't good.

I don't want this excellent thread to degrade into a fight, so lets not fight about it, okay?

Pye wrote:

Elizabeth writes: I'm not sure that we can really say that we always find ourselves in an ambiguous condition . . . [et al].

Yet, here it is again, this ambiguity :)

Haha.

How many of you actually have jobs/careers?

Why :\ Afraid of starving or getting too cold perhaps? Isn't that really all that can go wrong from not having 'security'. Perhaps illness or problems in old age? Maintaining duty/obligation, schedule, workload, debt, is causing (whoever) continuous suffering and I wouldn't believe otherwise if any said so, appears to be pure insanity. This isn't meant to be offensive, just something to consider, and if I'm wrong and such bondage isn't causing you suffering, then by all means ignore this completely as it is totally irrelevant in your situation, the relevance is dependent solely upon that question.

Elizabeth: I don't want this excellent thread to degrade into a fight, so lets not fight about it, okay?

(:D)

Yes, please. I drew fire to myself to reply to Seeker's query, and it was parenthetically, you know . . . .

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:How many of you actually have jobs/careers?

Why :\ Afraid of starving or getting too cold perhaps? Isn't that really all that can go wrong from not having 'security'. Perhaps illness or problems in old age? Maintaining duty/obligation, schedule, workload, debt, is causing (whoever) continuous suffering and I wouldn't believe otherwise if any said so, appears to be pure insanity. This isn't meant to be offensive, just something to consider, and if I'm wrong and such bondage isn't causing you suffering, then by all means ignore this completely as it is totally irrelevant in your situation, the relevance is dependent solely upon that question.

I don't. My husband and I are both on disability, and poverty is causing some suffering. I'd gladly work if I could at a job where I could help people, and it would relieve the suffering of poverty as well as help relieve the suffering of others.

Seeker writes: Why :\ Afraid of starving or getting too cold perhaps? Isn't that really all that can go wrong from not having 'security'. Perhaps illness or problems in old age? Maintaining duty/obligation, schedule, workload, debt, is causing (whoever) continuous suffering and I wouldn't believe otherwise if any said so, appears to be pure insanity.

Okay, well "This isn't meant to be offensive, just something to consider" but only a callow youth whose clothes are washed for him; whose food is given to him; whose roof is already provided; whose health is secured in youth; whose hands are not dirty with earth yet; whose energy bills for gaming and internetting are not his responsibility - in short, only a person whose own security is being attended to by others could ask this . . . .

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

jupiviv wrote:

Elisabeth Isabelle wrote:University degrees are just a piece of paper that let you get a job.

Knowing the truth is a job, and one that warrants neither payment or university degrees. Livelihood is another matter.

As far as I can see, Pye is not a good teacher of philosophy. She may be nice to listen to, dedicated etc. but all that has nothing to do with philosophy.

I'll take that distinction between livelihood and job, but you don't have the mental ground to say that Pye is not a good teacher of philosophy. She may not be a perfect philosopher, but that does not mean that she isn't good.

I don't want this excellent thread to degrade into a fight, so lets not fight about it, okay?

To be a good teacher of philosophy you have to be a good philosopher, and judging by what I've read of Pye's posts, she isn't a good philosopher. In fact, she probably isn't even a good teacher, because any academic philosopher who cared about their students would tell them they've made a grave mistake by joining a philosophy course and that they should rectify it before their souls are completely killed off.

Okay, well we're derailed anyway, but to this point . . . .

As far as I understand Elizabeth and her husband (and you correct me if I'm wrong), your lives have been arranged by yourselves to answer to certain values you seek to uphold (just as mine has, by the way); to answer to certain conditions in them. From available options - and it's always just what's available, i.e. conditions - these are choice-options you've made and every choice-option comes with its subsequently restricted conditions.

The thing is, Seeker, (and correct me if I'm wrong), you're not at the level of arranging yet; have not been pressed-into it. As fine a spiritual line you speak here - worthy in concept and all - you haven't been pressed into any self-arrangements yet. Your conditions do not yet warrant it.

Some day they will, and you'll have to make value-choices just like the rest of us about your own existence. For myself, I hope those choices are a going-towards, and not just a running-away-from in anxiety . . . .

jupiviv wrote:Knowing the truth is a job (...) any academic philosopher who cared about their students would tell them they've made a grave mistake by joining a philosophy course and that they should rectify it before their souls are completely killed off.

[Laughs.] A proper job sabotaging or at least seriously undermining its own continuance? Knowing the truth is a therefore indeed the proper job. Existence, the whole of being unsecured.