Most Logical After Death Scenario

[Russell Parr]

Why do you have such a heavy bias against fighting, war, greed, indulgence, etc? If it weren't for all of those things, we wouldn't exist by a long shot. The eukaryotes would've become monks N billion years ago. Plants, fish, insects, mammals, humans, etc all evolved out of competition, not out of peace and meditation. Cavemen, tribes, societies, and megacities came about by the same forces. On a personal level, things like intelligence require similar conditions to develop; if you or I were extremely "normal" people we'd be out drinking and partying every night of the week and living on welfare, because brains don't grow any more than they're forced to by a hostile [social] environment. Are fighting and greed and stuff really such bad things despite how far they've brought us? Do you regret your own existence, your extraordinary intelligence, and the development of all man-made marvels which hinged upon them? Or would you arrogantly say "that's enough, I've been born, we can stop evolving now!" and seek to withhold an interesting future from our heirs? And what is the value proposition of your bias? Is it all for the sake of a little laziness, comfort, and security in your waning, weakening days?

Even if you could stop them from bombing one another out of sheer boredom (which is unlikely - we'd probably have to use drugs or machines to render all human beings harmless), a world full of monks would not work. I'm sure you've heard the expression "use it or lose it". After a couple generations of not using it (it being our brains and the stuff in them - without competition, mostly all useless stuff), mankind would be rapidly degenerating. It would only be a matter of time until the world full of monks fell apart and started fighting again or we degenerated to the point where some other species of animal started eating us. Or, if we eliminated all other animal species beforehand, perhaps we'd evolve to the stage where killer bacteria start eating us!

What in your view is the better picture of the future of humanity, of a worthy goal?

Good stuff. I'm not saying that a global monk society work, or would even be possible. Natural selection favors the ego for many of the reasons you suggest. Call it a pipe-dream if you'd like, but the most worthy goal for all of humanity, in my opinion, is the understanding and intellectual transcendence of egotism. This would not render all of us into meditating monks.. we would still go about our business, providing for one another, maintaining various relationships, studying and inventing new ways to improve the quality of life, but without all of the disruptive hangups that consume much of our lives, such as envy, greed, lust, etc.

Of course, as nature has it, this is possible for only a very small segment of humanity.

Aren't thinking and communicating in false dualities and using fictitious concepts essentially delusional habits that inhibit one from understanding reality at the most fundamental level? If not, please clarify what the student sacrifices, and why he doesn't go the whole way.

The dualities aren't false and concepts aren't fictitious. They are simply a part of what makes consciousness what it is, and are real. But this doesn't have to stop us from seeing and appreciating the ultimate state of reality, which is non-dual/infinite.

The ego can do nothing nor wants nothing to do with this realization. Within the moment of dealing with everyday things and situations, it is a useless and trivial factoid. But without having things in this proper perspective, the ego can lead the mind and body down the road of mindless indulgences, losing itself into a topsy turvy world in which the latest emotional urge drives everything about oneself. This can't be considered "consciousness".. it's just animalism. Is there anything wrong with it? Not really. Nature has designed us to be this way. We'll all live then die, multiplying ourselves along the way and eventually cease to exist just like everything else in the universe.

What "rewards" obtained by removing things that please the ego? Obviously these "rewards" shouldn't appeal to the ego (or they'd just be another form of what was supposed to be removed), so what then do they appeal to? Sorry, but that's nonsense. The real rewards for the monk are the same rewards experienced by any religious person: precisely their ego is stroked to the maximum by belief in their extremely self-righteousness, even if phrased in words that sound as though they mean the opposite; the feeling that nothing can touch you, that you're an enlightened genius, that you're living in truth while nobody else is, that other people need your compassion and help... oh man, the ego loves that feeling! An honest monk would feel nothing at all, and certainly not all rewards, happiness, and bliss. That's too comical!

Indeed, rewards, happiness, bliss are not the end goal for the true aspirant. Rather, it is the epitome of consciousness. He might experience those things as a side effect, but true wisdom lies in the infinitude of reality, not in the finite conditions of a human life.

[RZoo]

Good stuff. I'm not saying that a global monk society work, or would even be possible. Natural selection favors the ego for many of the reasons you suggest. Call it a pipe-dream if you'd like, but the most worthy goal for all of humanity, in my opinion, is the understanding and intellectual transcendence of egotism. This would not render all of us into meditating monks.. we would still go about our business, providing for one another, maintaining various relationships, studying and inventing new ways to improve the quality of life, but without all of the disruptive hangups that consume much of our lives, such as envy, greed, lust, etc.

You idealize humanity like a giant hospital, everyone's simultaneously a patient and a nurse. What a sickly ideal! I can only imagine that you idealize such a world out of a personal desire to be pitied and nursed yourself and to avoid a modicum of suffering and inequality at all cost.

Oh yea, we'd raise the standard of "living" (if you can still call it that) until all humans could be in a perpetual state of joy for their entire lives. The best way to do that would probably be to invent a drug called soma that keeps everyone happy. Ideally we'd genetically modify humans to produce the drug naturally in our own bodies, 100% of the time, like an endless whole-body orgasm. We'd have machines producing our food and piping it to us. We ourselves would eventually live our whole lives in playpens like little babies (make no mistake, it takes suffering and oppression to grow up, and a truly sustainably happy society would have no use for stuff like language, thinking, and so on).

There are only a few problems that I have with your ideal. First, without pain I don't believe you can appreciate pleasure (as with hot and cold), so I'm skeptical that humans can get happier by eliminating suffering, rather than by increasing it (we'd only get number, which is to say we'd be approaching a limit of death or not being alive). Second, we'd lose all consciousness (let's face it, consciousness is a product of a lot of suffering and a hostile environment, which we aim to eliminate), so we wouldn't really be awake to experience whatever world we created (we'd be just like rocks), and all of this seems like a very silly thing for someone with a giant consciousness to idealize. Third, I personally tend to value things like change, growth, diversity, and evolution, so the idea of intentionally stagnating our world is an ugly one to me.

Aren't thinking and communicating in false dualities and using fictitious concepts essentially delusional habits that inhibit one from understanding reality at the most fundamental level? If not, please clarify what the student sacrifices, and why he doesn't go the whole way.

The dualities aren't false and concepts aren't fictitious. They are simply a part of what makes consciousness what it is, and are real. But this doesn't have to stop us from seeing and appreciating the ultimate state of reality, which is non-dual/infinite.

The ego can do nothing nor wants nothing to do with this realization. Within the moment of dealing with everyday things and situations, it is a useless and trivial factoid. But without having things in this proper perspective, the ego can lead the mind and body down the road of mindless indulgences, losing itself into a topsy turvy world in which the latest emotional urge drives everything about oneself. This can't be considered "consciousness".. it's just animalism. Is there anything wrong with it? Not really. Nature has designed us to be this way. We'll all live then die, multiplying ourselves along the way and eventually cease to exist just like everything else in the universe.

Consciousness is no less "animalistic" than feeling emotions. There's no escaping what you are: an animal. Similarly, there's no escaping stroking your ego. You can do it under a mountain of words and convictions to the contrary (self-delusively), but you're doing it nonetheless. Proof: you're doing what your ego wants and idealizes, and it's impossible for you to do otherwise. (Pure reason or logic would dictate to do nothing, but you don't do nothing, and even if it did it would be because your ego values reason and logic exclusively.)

What "rewards" obtained by removing things that please the ego? Obviously these "rewards" shouldn't appeal to the ego (or they'd just be another form of what was supposed to be removed), so what then do they appeal to? Sorry, but that's nonsense. The real rewards for the monk are the same rewards experienced by any religious person: precisely their ego is stroked to the maximum by belief in their extremely self-righteousness, even if phrased in words that sound as though they mean the opposite; the feeling that nothing can touch you, that you're an enlightened genius, that you're living in truth while nobody else is, that other people need your compassion and help... oh man, the ego loves that feeling! An honest monk would feel nothing at all, and certainly not all rewards, happiness, and bliss. That's too comical!

Indeed, rewards, happiness, bliss are not the end goal for the true aspirant. Rather, it is the epitome of consciousness. He might experience those things as a side effect,

If he experiences those things a side effect, he ought to correct himself immediately. If, instead of correcting them, he actually brags about them (as you have), then he's betraying something that he has probably hidden even from himself.

but true wisdom lies in the infinitude of reality, not in the finite conditions of a human life.

Pure jibberish; "true wisdom", "infinitude", "reality", "finite"... all meaningless (perhaps a religious dogma?).

[Russell Parr]

You do so much projecting that you can't even read what I'm saying properly.

You idealize humanity like a giant hospital, everyone's simultaneously a patient and a nurse. What a sickly ideal! I can only imagine that you idealize such a world out of a personal desire to be pitied and nursed yourself and to avoid a modicum of suffering and inequality at all cost.

Oh yea, we'd raise the standard of "living" (if you can still call it that) until all humans could be in a perpetual state of joy for their entire lives. The best way to do that would probably be to invent a drug called soma that keeps everyone happy. Ideally we'd genetically modify humans to produce the drug naturally in our own bodies, 100% of the time, like an endless whole-body orgasm. We'd have machines producing our food and piping it to us. We ourselves would eventually live our whole lives in playpens like little babies (make no mistake, it takes suffering and oppression to grow up, and a truly sustainably happy society would have no use for stuff like language, thinking, and so on).

This is highly laughable. I've never even heard of anything like this. Sounds like a bad sci-fi socialist totalitarian world.

After I repeat myself in saying happiness is not the goal, you go on spouting this "pro good-feelings" nonsense. I'm beginning to think that this is really your idea of a utopian planet.

Suffering and oppression might help one grow up, but it takes a developing, determined, and open mind to perceive and accept reality in any profound sense. Sure, suffering can provide the lessons, and nudge one along the way, but in the end it is up the intellect of the individual.

There are only a few problems that I have with your ideal. First, without pain I don't believe you can appreciate pleasure (as with hot and cold), so I'm skeptical that humans can get happier by eliminating suffering, rather than by increasing it (we'd only get number, which is to say we'd be approaching a limit of death or not being alive). Second, we'd lose all consciousness (let's face it, consciousness is a product of a lot of suffering and a hostile environment, which we aim to eliminate), so we wouldn't really be awake to experience whatever world we created (we'd be just like rocks), and all of this seems like a very silly thing for someone with a giant consciousness to idealize. Third, I personally tend to value things like change, growth, diversity, and evolution, so the idea of intentionally stagnating our world is an ugly one to me.

The poverty and war stricken areas in the world probably entail the most suffering, are they the most evolved people to you?

Consciousness is no less "animalistic" than feeling emotions. There's no escaping what you are: an animal. Similarly, there's no escaping stroking your ego. You can do it under a mountain of words and convictions to the contrary (self-delusively), but you're doing it nonetheless. Proof: you're doing what your ego wants and idealizes, and it's impossible for you to do otherwise. (Pure reason or logic would dictate to do nothing, but you don't do nothing, and even if it did it would be because your ego values reason and logic exclusively.)

Of course we're animals.. we're simply able to use logic and memory in a way that is quite a bit more advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom. I agree that we can't really completely do away with our ego. It is built into us biologically. Rather, we can and should learn how to overcome it's overbearing influence on our thoughts and actions.

If you think logic dictates that you do nothing, then you're doing it wrong. You should work on that.

If he experiences those things a side effect, he ought to correct himself immediately. If, instead of correcting them, he actually brags about them (as you have), then he's betraying something that he has probably hidden even from himself.

When and what have I bragged about?

Pure jibberish; "true wisdom", "infinitude", "reality", "finite"... all meaningless (perhaps a religious dogma?).

Yes it's becoming quite clear that you can't see beyond the material world in front of you. I wonder what your ideas are for a growing, evolving human society. A little more war here, more suffering there?

Furthermore, what are you even doing here? Looking for a place to vent some self righteous indignation? What are you looking for?

[RZoo]

Suffering and oppression might help one grow up, but it takes a developing, determined, and open mind to perceive and accept reality in any profound sense. Sure, suffering can provide the lessons, and nudge one along the way, but in the end it is up the intellect of the individual.

Very true.

The poverty and war stricken areas in the world probably entail the most suffering, are they the most evolved people to you?

I'm skeptical of that claim. Many people in poverty seem very happy. They may suffer far less than us, although in more primitive ways. As to whether they're more or less evolved... that's a difficult question considering that we're co-evolved.

I agree that we can't really completely do away with our ego. It is built into us biologically. Rather, we can and should learn how to overcome it's overbearing influence on our thoughts and actions.

The ego is us and is what controls us. There's no reducing or avoiding its influence; that drive itself is merely part of its influence, which is ubiquitous and inescapable.

If you think logic dictates that you do nothing, then you're doing it wrong. You should work on that.

Logic alone dictates nothing. Not even staying alive. Only when logic is operating on subjective/untruthful/irrational values and beliefs can it dictate doing anything.

Furthermore, what are you even doing here? Looking for a place to vent some self righteous indignation? What are you looking for?

I wanted to be around geniuses; I thought maybe their brilliance would rub off on me. :-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Aha! Here's where I think you erred before with your statement: "causality doesn't exist" or even the earlier "the sun still comes up after death". A negative relation ("non-existence") is still a relation, inversed perhaps but that doesn't matter. You are still asserting existence by including one thing or excluding another. It's the same defining movement essentially.

What about this: causality does not exist and does not not exist, it's not both and not neither. This keeps the logic of it not possessing any causal nature. It would however open up the idea that causality is one way to describe existence itself, since any thought of existence introduces causality. It becomes absolute in its reality - beyond causation but not "uncaused" either.

Thereby demonstrating Diogenes knew enough about relative motion! But more importantly he rejected abstraction and was more interested in dealing with simpler and more fundamental experiences like all coming and going.

Your way of putting it intrigues me.

I think this is what you might be getting at, and please correct me if I'm wrong. On paper nothing exists, but in experience everything exists. I can talk about the sun all day long, but nothing I say is the sun. Only when I stand in its radiance will I understand. Likewise explaining the color blue to a blind man is utterly futile. Yet give the man sight, and it becomes utterly obvious. To sit and form a principle of causality will end in confusion and contradiction, yet the sheer ability to perform such a task is the experience of causality itself.

Perhaps it is this mind/body gymnastic we struggle with that gives irony its sting.

What can bring the two together? Must I accept that logic and experience will always be at odds?

Well, I'm not sure why you'd think they are, or must be, at odds. Even our experiences are limited, like that one of the blind man in your example. His experiences will be formed by other elements I suppose. So perhaps even our experiencing would "end in confusion and contradiction", just like those thought through principles. So what's the fundamental difference between the sun coming up and some truth, or a story? Or a bright shining lie? The gymnastic I see is the struggle to remove our imagined "inherent" differences and instead chase the quality in every experience, that of thought, of a solid logical argument, of a feeling, a sound or a silence. And with quality I can only refer to a degree of awareness and attention. From that position a lot of other things can surpisingly unfold, depending.

[Russell Parr]

I'm skeptical of that claim. Many people in poverty seem very happy. They may suffer far less than us, although in more primitive ways. As to whether they're more or less evolved... that's a difficult question considering that we're co-evolved.

Agreed. Just the other day I was explaining to my nephew how some mentally disabled people suffer less than "normal" people do, even though we might consider their situation to be relatively unfavorable.

As for who is happier, I would agree that poorer people have a better shot at developing the philosophical perspective which would enable them to experience less psychological suffering than the rich. People from "privileged" societies tend to have a stronger sense of self-entitlement, or that they are inherently "better".

The ego is us and is what controls us. There's no reducing or avoiding its influence; that drive itself is merely part of its influence, which is ubiquitous and inescapable.

Searching the net for a definition of ego gives many different answers. I think the first three definitons from dictionary.com are the most useful:

1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
2. (Psychoanalysis) the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.
3. egotism; conceit; self-importance.

You seem to be describing the first two definitions, which I can't argue against. For me, enlightenment is the overcoming of the 3rd definition, egotism. The process for doing this includes gaining and fully appreciating a perfect and logically consistent understanding of the nature of reality.

Logic alone dictates nothing. Not even staying alive. Only when logic is operating on subjective/untruthful/irrational values and beliefs can it dictate doing anything.

While logic doesn't lead to anything in and of itself, as it exists only in the abstract, it is still a fundamental, unavoidable part of what makes up intelligence. That said, I don't know where you are going in saying that logic dictates action only in untruthful, irrational ways. It is only by logic that we can discover and use truth and rationality.

What are you looking for?

I wanted to be around geniuses; I thought maybe their brilliance would rub off on me. :-)

Lol, well maybe you're at the right place, though it isn't anything close to what it use to be when its founders were active.

Also, be sure to check out the introduction post here. That should calm your fears that we're here to look for ways to avoid conflict, change, and evolution. At least some of us, anyway.

[RZoo]

Hi Russell,

Searching the net for a definition of ego gives many different answers. I think the first three definitons from dictionary.com are the most useful:

1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
2. (Psychoanalysis) the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.
3. egotism; conceit; self-importance.

You seem to be describing the first two definitions, which I can't argue against. For me, enlightenment is the overcoming of the 3rd definition, egotism. The process for doing this includes gaining and fully appreciating a perfect and logically consistent understanding of the nature of reality.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant by the ego. (Personally I'd prefer to call that egotism or some other word so that we're in line with the most common definition of ego.) Unfortunately I still have to disagree that enlightenment or logic has anything to say about avoiding egotism or self-importance.

In my view, enlightenment could be described as the point where the drive for truth and logic above all else realizes that truth is a phantom, realizes that logic is merely one tool of human intelligence, and rejects their ultimate importance. From this point onward, the "enlightened" one may embrace egotism (the best thing to do in my personal view) or may reject it (it seems that most religions are spun around the idea of rejecting it), but neither is dictated by truth, logic, or enlightenment themselves, they're dictated by some other values which are adopted in the absence of any real "truth" and the diminution of the value of logic (if these values weren't already present in the background the whole time).

(Note: I'm not sure if we'd agree on this view of what "enlightenment" is, but I welcome further discussion on it. There are at least 2 other active threads in which I've been trying to discuss it.)

Logic alone dictates nothing. Not even staying alive. Only when logic is operating on subjective/untruthful/irrational values and beliefs can it dictate doing anything.

While logic doesn't lead to anything in and of itself, as it exists only in the abstract, it is still a fundamental, unavoidable part of what makes up intelligence. That said, I don't know where you are going in saying that logic dictates action only in untruthful, irrational ways. It is only by logic that we can discover and use truth and rationality.

Agreed, logic is a tool of thought and reasoning.

What are you looking for?

I wanted to be around geniuses; I thought maybe their brilliance would rub off on me. :-)

Lol, well maybe you're at the right place, though it isn't anything close to what it use to be when its founders were active.

Also, be sure to check out the introduction post here. That should calm your fears that we're here to look for ways to avoid conflict, change, and evolution. At least some of us, anyway.

Thanks. I'd like to get on to discussing more interesting things, but it's difficult when people on here can't seem to agree on the basics. It may all be a semantic argument, but it needs to be solved nonetheless. :-)

[Russell Parr]

Hello RZoo

In my view, enlightenment could be described as the point where the drive for truth and logic above all else realizes that truth is a phantom, realizes that logic is merely one tool of human intelligence, and rejects their ultimate importance. From this point onward, the "enlightened" one may embrace egotism (the best thing to do in my personal view) or may reject it (it seems that most religions are spun around the idea of rejecting it), but neither is dictated by truth, logic, or enlightenment themselves, they're dictated by some other values which are adopted in the absence of any real "truth" and the diminution of the value of logic (if these values weren't already present in the background the whole time).

Actually this sounds like a failure of attaining enlightenment, followed by a relapse back into full-blown egotism, AKA normal life.

Not that some headway wasn't made at all, if only accidentally. Truth is a phantom, though not unlike everything else is in the universe. That is, truth is a thing which exists only as an appearance to an observer. Like everything else, it is a mirage of the moment of perception. But to properly see things this way, one must realize the causal connections between everything, and that duality only exists in the mind. This isn't easy. It's much easier, and convenient in the short-term, to write it all off as nonsense.

From what I can gather, and maybe I'm wrong, but you seem like the type to reject all forms of spirituality as hogwash. I say this because you remind me of myself when I dropped out of religion. These days I am certain that religions like Christianity and Buddhism are stemmed from the teachings of wise philosophers (Jesus, Buddha) which eventually became muddled and manipulated to better suit the masses for soothing and control.

(BTW, religion doesn't reject egotism, it just masks it and serves it in an offhand, cowardly way. What else can you say for the desire to live forever in blissful heaven to be anything but the ultimate egotistical fantasy? Satanists are egotists too, but at least they are a lot more honest about it, except for the magick crap.)

Anyway, what I'm getting at is you're going to have to give the spiritual sounding, metaphysical nonsense you read around here a chance in order to get where we're coming from, if you decide it's worth it. But I wouldn't recommend this forum if you're really interested in learning; I would instead point to the websites and youtubes of the founders. This place is really only good for some mental sparring with others. [edit: Actually, I shouldn't say that. You can learn plenty here with the right amount of discernment. But it's still a good idea to brush up on the materials of the founders for a better understanding of the purpose for the forum and the language used here.]

[Glostik91]

Must I accept that logic and experience will always be at odds?

In other words, must you accept that life is a mystery that's beyond a nice, neat, tidy comprehension by your mind? No, there are always religions and similar delusions offering a comfortable way out. ;-) If you're rigorously logical and honest, though, that seems to be the conclusion: logic implodes back in upon itself (all truth is tautological), language is a model of experience (inherently limited and only contains utility, not truth), logic is a tool (know its limitations), etc.

Religious people accept that logic and existence are at odds. The book of Job makes this fairly clear in my opinion.

(categorical imperative?)

Ask Mr. van Rhijn.

[Glostik91]

Well, I'm not sure why you'd think they are, or must be, at odds. Even our experiences are limited, like that one of the blind man in your example. His experiences will be formed by other elements I suppose. So perhaps even our experiencing would "end in confusion and contradiction", just like those thought through principles. So what's the fundamental difference between the sun coming up and some truth, or a story? Or a bright shining lie? The gymnastic I see is the struggle to remove our imagined "inherent" differences and instead chase the quality in every experience, that of thought, of a solid logical argument, of a feeling, a sound or a silence. And with quality I can only refer to a degree of awareness and attention. From that position a lot of other things can surpisingly unfold, depending.

I believe they are at odds. Consider the fact that logically causality doesn't exist, yet I am experiencing it right now. How can this be?

[RZoo]

Hello RZoo

In my view, enlightenment could be described as the point where the drive for truth and logic above all else realizes that truth is a phantom, realizes that logic is merely one tool of human intelligence, and rejects their ultimate importance. From this point onward, the "enlightened" one may embrace egotism (the best thing to do in my personal view) or may reject it (it seems that most religions are spun around the idea of rejecting it), but neither is dictated by truth, logic, or enlightenment themselves, they're dictated by some other values which are adopted in the absence of any real "truth" and the diminution of the value of logic (if these values weren't already present in the background the whole time).

Actually this sounds like a failure of attaining enlightenment, followed by a relapse back into full-blown egotism, AKA normal life.

Do you attach a specific set of moral values to enlightenment (ie. anti-egotism)? If so, then I'd say your enlightenment is just another dogmatic religion.

If you define it amorally (like me), from a perspective of logic, truth and understanding only, then it need not be pitted against egotism or favor any particular means of living once attained.

Why does attainment of enlightenment need to be different than normal life?

From what I can gather, and maybe I'm wrong, but you seem like the type to reject all forms of spirituality as hogwash. I say this because you remind me of myself when I dropped out of religion. These days I am certain that religions like Christianity and Buddhism are stemmed from the teachings of wise philosophers (Jesus, Buddha) which eventually became muddled and manipulated to better suit the masses for soothing and control.

Christianity is certainly different than what Jesus and Buddha had intended, but what they had intended was still basically a religion. They seasoned their philosophy with a good dosage of moral thou-shalts which are merely their personal biases.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is you're going to have to give the spiritual sounding, metaphysical nonsense you read around here a chance in order to get where we're coming from, if you decide it's worth it. But I wouldn't recommend this forum if you're really interested in learning; I would instead point to the websites and youtubes of the founders. This place is really only good for some mental sparring with others. [edit: Actually, I shouldn't say that. You can learn plenty here with the right amount of discernment. But it's still a good idea to brush up on the materials of the founders for a better understanding of the purpose for the forum and the language used here.]

I've already read much of the material I saw on there. I'm not particularly interested in reading more, because I already understand it.

[Russell Parr]

Do you attach a specific set of moral values to enlightenment (ie. anti-egotism)? If so, then I'd say your enlightenment is just another dogmatic religion.

Nope. Enlightenment has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with disillusionment.

If you define it amorally (like me), from a perspective of logic, truth and understanding only, then it need not be pitted against egotism or favor any particular means of living once attained.

Egotism is based on the belief in an inherently existing self, out of which thoughts and actions are dictated. This is where morality comes from.

While it is true that the enlightened cease to be pitted against one thing or the other, in a personally invested sense, he still recognizes and expresses the differences between the right and wrong way to go about becoming enlightened.

Why does attainment of enlightenment need to be different than normal life?

If enlightenment is identical to normal life, then it isn't enlightenment, is it?

I've already read much of the material I saw on there. I'm not particularly interested in reading more, because I already understand it.

Well I certainly have my doubts. You don't seem to be so dense that you've read it and still have to ask the questions above.

[RZoo]

Do you attach a specific set of moral values to enlightenment (ie. anti-egotism)? If so, then I'd say your enlightenment is just another dogmatic religion.

Nope. Enlightenment has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with disillusionment.

If you define it amorally (like me), from a perspective of logic, truth and understanding only, then it need not be pitted against egotism or favor any particular means of living once attained.

Egotism is based on the belief in an inherently existing self, out of which thoughts and actions are dictated. This is where morality comes from.

While it is true that the enlightened cease to be pitted against one thing or the other, in a personally invested sense, he still recognizes and expresses the differences between the right and wrong way to go about becoming enlightened.

The morality of disillusionment? "An enlightened person must act such and such because to act any other way is to believe in illusions...."

Can an enlightened person be a serial killer?

Enlightenment as the destruction of beliefs: The final belief to be challenged and destroyed is the belief in enlightenment itself, or the belief that beliefs and illusions are bad and should be avoided. Hence, upon reaching enlightenment, an individual has grasped the absurdity and irrationality of their condition and is free to formulate new values and challenges for themselves and generally to do whatever they like.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Consider the fact that logically causality doesn't exist, yet I am experiencing it right now. How can this be?

But you are not really experiencing "things existing" at all. That's just some hindsight conceptualization, just a way to order, to deal, to make sense. There's only causality, logically, and nature, experimentally.

• NATURE AND MAN
  
  In all the known universe,
  Change is the only constant,
  Causality the only force,
  Nature the only law,
  Truth, the ultimate source.
  
  In all the heart of man
  Illusion is the only constant,
  Emotion the only force,
  Self, the only law,
  Ego, the ultimate source.
  
  D. Rowden 1991

[Russell Parr]

The morality of disillusionment? "An enlightened person must act such and such because to act any other way is to believe in illusions...."

Oh come now.. aren't you just stretching the meaning of morality now?

Can an enlightened person be a serial killer?

Probably not, because we tend to reserve the label "serial killer" for people who murder for twisted egomaniacal reasons.

Enlightenment as the destruction of beliefs: The final belief to be challenged and destroyed is the belief in enlightenment itself, or the belief that beliefs and illusions are bad and should be avoided. Hence, upon reaching enlightenment, an individual has grasped the absurdity and irrationality of their condition and is free to formulate new values and challenges for themselves and generally to do whatever they like.

You're basically saying to be enlightened is to completely strip the word of it's meaning, which is clearly contradictory. It's like saying to become a piano master is to throw away the piano. To become a chef is to burn the kitchen to the ground. How absurd.

(edit: I literally just read you and Diebert using the "burn to the ground" analogy in the other thread after I posted this, though I used it slightly differently. Funny coincidence.)

[RZoo]

The morality of disillusionment? "An enlightened person must act such and such because to act any other way is to believe in illusions...."

Oh come now.. aren't you just stretching the meaning of morality now?

I don't know, am I? The morality of disillusionment: "believing in illusions is bad, being disillusioned is good". Is that not a moral principle?

Enlightenment as the destruction of beliefs: The final belief to be challenged and destroyed is the belief in enlightenment itself, or the belief that beliefs and illusions are bad and should be avoided. Hence, upon reaching enlightenment, an individual has grasped the absurdity and irrationality of their condition and is free to formulate new values and challenges for themselves and generally to do whatever they like.

You're basically saying to be enlightened is to completely strip the word of it's meaning, which is clearly contradictory. It's like saying to become a piano master is to throw away the piano. To become a chef is to burn the kitchen to the ground. How absurd.

If enlightenment is the quest for truth and disillusionment, then yes, all fake/illusory meaning must be stripped from the world.

If enlightenment is the quest for a pleasant life under belief in some comforting religious dogma, then no, you don't need to strip all meaning from the world.

I'm trying to figure out which it is...

Absurd? Maybe, but no more absurd than life itself.

[Russell Parr]

I don't know, am I? The morality of disillusionment: "believing in illusions is bad, being disillusioned is good". Is that not a moral principle?

You'd be right to say that it is morality during the process of becoming disillusioned, since the pursuer has yet to shed his egotism, by definition. But if enlightenment is the transcendence of egotism, then morality, as a set of self-serving principles that one bases his actions, goes out of the picture upon attainment.

Let me further clarify what I mean by egotism: it is the belief in an inherently existing ego, which operates independently of the causal processes that make up Reality. It is born out of biological necessity, and maintained by the lack of insight into the fundamental nature of reality in which all things are ultimately bounded in indistinguishable unity by causation.

If enlightenment is the quest for truth and disillusionment, then yes, all fake/illusory meaning must be stripped from the world.

After reaching enlightenment, one naturally expresses enlightenment. If this results in helping others in shedding away the delusional thoughts and habits (which is rare), this is simply a natural consequence of the enlightened one expressing himself. Like the saying goes, you are who you hang with. But, again, no personal, self-righteous investment is involved, because the belief in an inherently existing self is absent from such a person.

If enlightenment is the quest for a pleasant life under belief in some comforting religious dogma, then no, you don't need to strip all meaning from the world.

I'm trying to figure out which it is...

You seem pretty hellbent on making the pursuit of enlightenment out to be this. That's up to you.

[Glostik91]

But you are not really experiencing "things existing" at all. That's just some hindsight conceptualization, just a way to order, to deal, to make sense. There's only causality, logically, and nature, experimentally.

Its hard to believe you when you say that I'm not really experiencing things existing. What is this thing that's going on? Is there just noumenon? Are you proposing there is only transcendental logic?

Your idea that there are two realms, logic and nature, is basically Kant's metaphysical philosophy, however I believe Kant said that phenomenon are directly accessible to observation. Essentially a phenomenon is just observation alone with no comprehension.

I've heard some say that I don't know what my hand really looks like, but surely the phenomenon itself is occurring. Either my hand really looks like this or it doesn't yes? Or perhaps my hand remains in a sort of superposition until at last the phenomenon hits me. Is this what you're saying?

[Leyla Shen]

It's not his fault. He's European! (I think he might think he's being funny, though. He has a reputation in Europe for being a comedian!) (:

What you are questioning is exactly the mindset Nietzsche addresses when he says that the "proper phenomenalism and perspectivism" is the belief that:

the nature of animal consciousness involves the notion that the world of which we can become conscious is only a superficial and symbolic world, a generalised and vulgarised world; - that everything which becomes conscious becomes just thereby shallow, meagre, relatively stupid, - a generalisation, a symbol, a characteristic of the herd; that with the evolving of consciousness there is always combined a great, radical perversion, falsification, superficial-isation, and generalisation. Finally, the growing consciousness is a danger, and whoever lives among the most conscious Europeans knows even that it is a disease. As may be conjectured, it is not the antithesis of subject and object with which I am here concerned: I leave that distinction to the epistemologists who have remained entangled in the toils of grammar (popular metaphysics). It is still less the antithesis of "thing in itself" and phenomenon, for we do not "know" enough to be entitled even to make such a distinction. Indeed, we have not any organ at all for knowing, or for "truth": we "know" (or believe, or fancy) just as much as may be of use in the interest of the human herd, the species; and even what is here called "usefulness" is ultimately only a belief, a fancy, and perhaps precisely the most fatal stupidity by which we shall one day be ruined.

And here is his reason for it:

As is obvious, my idea is that consciousness does not properly belong to the individual existence of man, but rather to the social and gregarious nature in him; that, as follows therefrom, it is only in relation to communal and gregarious utility that it is finely developed; and that consequently each of us, in spite of the best intention of understanding himself as individually as possible, and of "knowing himself," will always just call into consciousness the non-individual in him, namely, his "averageness"; - that our thought itself is continuously as it were outvoted by the character of consciousness - by the imperious "genius of the species" therein - and is translated back into the perspective of the herd. Fundamentally our actions are in an incomparable manner altogether personal, unique and absolutely individual there is no doubt about it; - but as soon as we translate them into consciousness, they do not appear so any longer.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Where on earth do girls like Leyla hang out?

And for a deeper question: how would you pick one up?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

John, you mean chicks quoting Nietzsche and embracing Marx? University I'd say. You pick them up by impressing and complimenting them slow and wisely. :-)

[Cahoot]

See her last posting.
Leyla likes to laugh.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Its hard to believe you when you say that I'm not really experiencing things existing. What is this thing that's going on? Is there just noumenon? Are you proposing there is only transcendental logic?

Logic is certainly closer to the ideal of a "thing" since it's changing less and is more connected to universalities. But I guess I cannot deny whatever you are experiencing, just that the experience itself has no necessary relation to a thing (even causality, or any "now") existing or not.

Your idea that there are two realms, logic and nature, is basically Kant's metaphysical philosophy, however I believe Kant said that phenomenon are directly accessible to observation. Essentially a phenomenon is just observation alone with no comprehension.

No, I meant causality, logically spoken, as axiomatic truth. But whatever you experience is "nature" by definition, in terms of characteristics and qualities. They are "phenomenons" but not accessible in the rather abstract sense of the object "being" somewhere and opening a peeping hole or translation agency. That's just not what happens. It's only the way we describe that introduces the Kantian unknowable "thing" or "realm" [perhaps a function of social consciousness & its framework of needs and passions?]. But it's not just unknowable, it even has no "existence" in the way we normally think of existence or what we "demand" of existence to mean. Noumenon is a long, long way from emptiness. Causality however is virtually interchangeable.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Leyla, you need to read good old Nietzsche a bit more carefully and contextually!

First, the text you quote without any reference (The Gay Science -Book V - Aphorism # 354) is out of order. The first part is the "reason" for the second and it's written in that order too. It's a minor complaint though.

Anyway, one has to first see what Nietzsche means with consciousness (or "self-consciousness", "self-image"). From the same aphorism, the part you left out:

• For we could in fact think, feel, will, and recollect, we could likewise "act" in every sense of the term, and nevertheless nothing of it all need necessarily "come into consciousness" (as one says metaphorically). The whole of life would be possible without its seeing itself as it were in a mirror: as in fact even at present the far greater part of our life still goes on without this mirroring, - and even our thinking, feeling, volitional life as well, however painful this statement may sound to an older philosopher. What then is the purpose of consciousness generally, when it is in the main superfluous?

So Nietzsche defines here "in fact" that thinking, feeling , willing, remembering and acting does not need the "consciousness" he's going to discuss. For some reason I suspect that's not what you thought he was going for.. actually it smells a lot like U.G. Krisnamurti or even Nisargadatta and such. It makes me wonder if there's any deeper linkage possible between Nietzsche's view on "genius of the species", the consciousness of language and the earlier mentioned social passions, the emotional framework of the socially constructed self, as Dan's poem waxed: "Emotion the only force, Self, the only law".

[RZoo]

Nietzsche views consciousness from an evolutionary and biological perspective: as an organ, developed for survival utility and power enhancement, something unnecessary, limited, and highly overrated (ie. by some people on this forum ;-). He questions whether it belongs to ascent or exhaustion, and whether perfection wouldn't be unconscious (more efficient and automatic). He views thought, feelings, and emotions (it sounds like your beloved "social passions" fit in here) as things filtering through our consciousness. We have no access to anything that may lie outside of our consciousness (the source of the things that enter it, from our perspective) although we may try to find a scientific explanation (for the utility of controlling and manipulating people). All of our "knowledge" is "ultimately only a belief, a fancy" (from the above quote).