Why I Am So Clever

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Following tome of text always resonated so well with me that I think others might enjoy it. It has simple direct prose although with some run-along sentences. It's most of paragraph 9 and bit of 10, all from the chapter "Why I am So Clever" of Nietzsche's Ecco Homo, his last book (Levy translation).
  • At this point I can no longer evade a direct answer to the question, how one becomes what one is. And in giving it, I shall have to touch upon that masterpiece in the art of self-preservation, which is selfishness... Granting that one's life task — the determination and the fate of one's life task — greatly exceeds the average measure of such things, nothing more dangerous could be conceived than to come face to face with one's self by the side of this life task. The fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is.

    From this standpoint even the blunders of one's life have their own meaning and value, the temporary deviations and aberrations, the moments of hesitation and of modesty, the earnestness wasted upon duties which lie outside the actual life task. In these matters great wisdom, perhaps even the highest wisdom, comes into activity: in these circumstances, in which "know thyself" would be the sure road to ruin, forgetting one's self, misunderstanding one's self, belittling one's self, narrowing one's self, and making one's self mediocre, all amount to reason itself. Expressed morally, to love one's neighbour and to live for others and for other things may be the means of protection employed to maintain the hardest kind of egoism. This is the exceptional case in which I, contrary to my principle and conviction, take the side of the altruistic instincts; for here they are concerned in subserving selfishness and self-discipline.

    The whole surface of consciousness — for consciousness is a surface — must be kept free from any one of the great imperatives. Beware even of every striking word, of every striking attitude! They are all so many risks which the instinct runs by "understanding itself" too soon. Meanwhile the organising "idea," which is destined to become master, grows and continues to grow into the depths, — it begins to command, it leads you slowly back from your deviations and aberrations, it prepares individual qualities and capacities, which one day will make themselves felt as indispensable to the whole of your task, — step by step it cultivates all the serviceable faculties, before it ever whispers a word concerning the dominant task, the " goal," the " object," and the " meaning " of it all. Looked at from this standpoint my life is simply amazing.

    For the task of transvaluing values, more capacities were needful perhaps than could well be found side by side in one individual; and above all, antagonistic capacities which had to be free from the mutual strife and destruction which they involve. An order of rank among capacities; distance; the art of separating without creating hostility; to refrain from confounding things; to keep from reconciling things; to possess enormous multifariousness and yet to be the reverse of chaos — all this was the first condition, the long secret work, and the artistic mastery of my instinct. Its superior guardianship manifested itself with such exceeding strength, that not once did I ever dream of what was growing within me — until suddenly all my capacities were ripe, and one day burst forth in all the perfection of their highest bloom. I cannot remember ever having exerted myself, I can point to no trace of struggle in my life; I am the reverse of a heroic nature. To " will " something, to "strive" after something, to have an " aim " or a " desire " in my mind — I know none of these things from experience. Even at this moment I look out upon my future — a broad future! — as upon a calm sea : no sigh of longing makes a ripple on its surface. I have not the slightest wish that anything should be otherwise than it is: I myself would not be otherwise...

    You may be wondering why I should actually have related all these trivial and, according to traditional accounts, insignificant details [note: this is referring to text earlier in the chapter, not included here] to you; such action can but tell against me, more particularly if I am fated to figure in great causes. To this I reply that these trivial matters — diet, locality, climate, and one's mode of recreation, the whole casuistry of self-love — are inconceivably more important than all that which has hitherto been held in high esteem!

    It is precisely in this quarter that we must begin to learn afresh. All those things which mankind has valued with such earnestness heretofore are not even real; they are mere creations of fancy, or, more strictly speaking, lies born of the evil instincts of diseased and, in the deepest sense, noxious natures — all the concepts, " God," " soul," "virtue," "sin," "Beyond," "truth," "eternal life." ... But the greatness of human nature, its "divinity," was sought for in them... All questions of politics, of social order, of education, have been falsified, root and branch, owing to the fact that the most noxious men have been taken for great men, and that people were taught to despise the small things, or rather the fundamental things, of life.
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Glostik91 »

I liked it thanks.
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

I agree about the "tone", but not the content. Ecce homo is bad compared to Nietzsche's other books. It's not without insight, but the padding and posturing gets irritating very quickly.

An order of rank among capacities; distance; the art of separating without creating hostility; to refrain from confounding things; to keep from reconciling things; to possess enormous multifariousness and yet to be the reverse of chaos — all this was the first condition, the long secret work, and the artistic mastery of my instinct.

He seems to have been so desperate for attention at this point that he *imagined* the bafflement that others would feel at his contradictory intellectual life. He became the ultimate Mary Sue (which is probably a tautology). This is why Nietzsche's bad books are so popular amongst all manner of windbags.

Its superior guardianship manifested itself with such exceeding strength, that not once did I ever dream of what was growing within me — until suddenly all my capacities were ripe, and one day burst forth in all the perfection of their highest bloom. I cannot remember ever having exerted myself, I can point to no trace of struggle in my life; I am the reverse of a heroic nature. To " will " something, to "strive" after something, to have an " aim " or a " desire " in my mind — I know none of these things from experience. Even at this moment I look out upon my future — a broad future! — as upon a calm sea : no sigh of longing makes a ripple on its surface. I have not the slightest wish that anything should be otherwise than it is: I myself would not be otherwise...

Nietzsche's point here is that we shouldn't try to guess what the conclusions of a process of reasoning before we reach them, since we will inevitably guess wrongly. Very good advice, but I'm pretty sure he said the same thing elsewhere in a less pompous and arrogant way.

It is precisely in this quarter that we must begin to learn afresh. All those things which mankind has valued with such earnestness heretofore are not even real; they are mere creations of fancy, or, more strictly speaking, lies born of the evil instincts of diseased and, in the deepest sense, noxious natures — all the concepts, " God," " soul," "virtue," "sin," "Beyond," "truth," "eternal life." ... But the greatness of human nature, its "divinity," was sought for in them... All questions of politics, of social order, of education, have been falsified, root and branch, owing to the fact that the most noxious men have been taken for great men, and that people were taught to despise the small things, or rather the fundamental things, of life.

A fine observation. But why do humans seek human greatness in unreal things? Simple - they don't want to seek it.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:I agree about the "tone", but not the content. Ecce homo is bad compared to Nietzsche's other books. It's not without insight, but the padding and posturing gets irritating very quickly.
You prefer the overly dramatic swollen otherworldly prose of some other books, that's okay :-) The book has a different aim altogether. Anyway, I was not discussing the book, just a chapter which I think jumps out in its self-reflection, and can help tremendously understanding some of what has been written in his earlier years..
He seems to have been so desperate for attention at this point that he *imagined* the bafflement that others would feel at his contradictory intellectual life. He became the ultimate Mary Sue (which is probably a tautology). This is why Nietzsche's bad books are so popular amongst all manner of windbags.
I don't agree with how you interpret this. But perhaps I'm only the only one to see the laughing writer here. Obviously this chapter is, as he writes himself, a casuistry of self-love. It's no surprise though people get enamoured with Nietzsche's books (his best or worse) for all the wrong reasons. He actually writes about this too, how that happens. It should be no surprise, most people sign up on this forum and write hundreds of posts because of one big misunderstanding, of themselves.
....that people were taught to despise the small things, or rather the fundamental things, of life.
A fine observation. But why do humans seek human greatness in unreal things? Simple - they don't want to seek it.
It's in my view related to a resistance to causality, or how relative and subjective small issues like diet, locality, climate, one's mode of recreation and little celebration of selfishness are of great effect to the question: can one become great, genius, or wise. Or just sane. But there's no formula, just the understanding that things do relate more than you might think but nobody else can help you find them and explain how they shape your understanding fundamentally: self-knowledge. All the big truths can guide from afar but won't shed much light when you want to deal with ignorance up close.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You prefer the overly dramatic swollen otherworldly prose of some other books, that's okay :-)
If you mean "Zarathustra", then yes. Despite the homiletic style, it is more candid and coherent than any of Nietzsche's other books.
It's in my view related to a resistance to causality, or how relative and subjective small issues like diet, locality, climate, one's mode of recreation and little celebration of selfishness are of great effect to the question: can one become great, genius, or wise.
But if people truly wanted to be wise, they wouldn't neglect things like diet and climate. They would use all means at hand to get what they want, like they do with things like women, money and power.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:
It's in my view related to a resistance to causality, or how relative and subjective small issues like diet, locality, climate, one's mode of recreation and little celebration of selfishness are of great effect to the question: can one become great, genius, or wise.
But if people truly wanted to be wise, they wouldn't neglect things like diet and climate. They would use all means at hand to get what they want, like they do with things like women, money and power.
Most people seem to prefer to chase a formula: like how to become a millionaire, how to have good marriages, how to enjoy the moment, etc. Workshops, books, conventions are big business. And sometimes it even works! Same with desiring to be wise or enlightened: around the desire books, workshops, techniques, diets, camps and conventions arise like mushrooms. The power of ideas and desire work all alike, perhaps "like a charm".

Of course there's no single set of diets, localities, climates and recreations which would guarantee anything at all. What Nietzsche did here is to explore the causality of his own becoming wise. It's a trip in subjectivity with possibly only a few things in common with any modern readership. That is understood. But the exercise itself is revealing: he writes basically that he first was wise or at least "something" was pulling things together, not seldom to do with the minute detail of ones life, to get there without having a name or clear desire. It became a matter of attention and realizing it's happening, perhaps even after the fact. And aren't we always solving the puzzle after the fact?

This is the start of Also sprach Zarathustra: the journey downwards which reflects the publishing life of the author. To be at the mountain peak is a given. Therefore his teaching is ironic because nobody is going to climb the mountain because of anything he says ("a book for everybody and no one"). It's written for people who are on their way down, not struggling upwards. It's perhaps a matter of realizing which direction one is going.

The swollen pride and claims of Ecco Homo can be seen through all his work (implied, only now made explicit) and most condensed in this notebook fragment of Nietzsche (1884):
  • All combinations demonstrate such tremendous random character: from this follows, that every action of a person has an infinitely large influence on everything that is to come. With the same awe which he, looking back, sanctifies the whole of destiny, he has to sanctify himself. I am fate.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Most people seem to prefer to chase a formula: like how to become a millionaire, how to have good marriages, how to enjoy the moment, etc.

Yes, but my point is that they chase those formulas because they sincerely want the things the formulas purport to give them. They want the formulas to be true. Not so with the formulas for understanding reality or living truthfully (which is what I like to think Nietzsche means by "human greatness"). People want *those* formulas to be as untrue as possible.

...diet, locality, climate, and one's mode of recreation, the whole casuistry of self-love — are inconceivably more important than all that which has hitherto been held in high esteem!

I.e., trivial things like diet are made valuable when they serve a great purpose - infinitely more valuable than ornate fantasies which purport to serve such a purpose.
What Nietzsche did here is to explore the causality of his own becoming wise. It's a trip in subjectivity with possibly only a few things in common with any modern readership.
Yes, and what I said above ties into that fact. He is saying that since his wisdom is genuine, even the trivial things that allow it to exist are far superior than the causes of a mundane (or worse - false) wisdom.
But the exercise itself is revealing: he writes basically that he first was wise or at least "something" was pulling things together, not seldom to do with the minute detail of ones life, to get there without having a name or clear desire. It became a matter of attention and realizing it's happening, perhaps even after the fact. And aren't we always solving the puzzle after the fact?
Yes, we shouldn't presume ourselves so wise as to be able to understand all the causes of our wisdom, since they are infinite. Much less should we try to determine a first/unique cause of our wisdom, in the form of, say, God, or the Sexman.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote:
Very good advice, but I'm pretty sure he said the same thing elsewhere in a less pompous and arrogant way.
Couldn't agree more, it seems to be that he thinks higher of himself the more he is able to repeatedly points out the obvious delusions others cling to. It's a beginners wisdom to recognise the extent of delusion/belief in others, but what about his own greatness and genius? Appears to be grasping firmly to self identity, the very foundation of the delusions he outlines.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Very good advice, but I'm pretty sure he said the same thing elsewhere in a less pompous and arrogant way.
Couldn't agree more, it seems to be that he thinks higher of himself the more he is able to repeatedly points out the obvious delusions others cling to. It's a beginners wisdom to recognise the extent of delusion/belief in others, but what about his own greatness and genius? Appears to be grasping firmly to self identity, the very foundation of the delusions he outlines.
You might have misunderstood. The book is about his own development and how those delusions are probably for the best in most cases. It's also about a level of honesty in admitting you think you are the greatest as a result of pointing out how others are fundamentally mistaken about something. Take for instance your self: outlining delusions while hiding behind your "non-identity". But really, all you do is actually positioning your self as a "genius" who has realized "ultimate truths" and you think you are clever and wise. But somehow, because of some decadent and nihilist form of deceit, you try now to diminish your self-in-action. This is why I think Ecco Homo still can teach some things or two.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

It's empty and meaningless.

"clever, delusional, knowledgeable, genius, greatness, me, other, god, atoms, energy, body"

Transient, meaningless names which refer to nothing other than transient meaningless appearances. You are not a person, a small or individual part of any world, you are not caused by anything, there is no self-substance, no person taking action, if there is curiosity or "great ideas" they are not yours or of your concern, the same with delusion, you are absolutely and utterly egoless. Reality is no different from you, it is of your own nature. Any discrimination leading to "delusion/belief" or ideas of an imagined "self-in-action" doesn't change the fact that there is no "self-in-action".

Everything seen is empty of any effort or action because it exists only as it appears. That every day ordinary vision-like experience you have sometimes called consciousness, is the essential nature of reality, it's all you've ever known or seen, it is the entire scope of your insight, you imagine there to be "more out there", and ask empty questions about how it all came to be.

Holding too much stake in people like Nietzsche, go re-read the Tao Te ching or maybe a simplified version of some Buddhist texts and try and get to the core of the message :)

Perhaps the amount of hippys talking about their third eyes, mother nature and oneness, who re-create and distort simple truths and make them simple untruths has given you an aversion to anything that seems "too easy". It's often the case to veer toward larger or more complex texts thinking them more worthy. Maybe take a look at the ashtavakra gita with an "open mind", or possibly some of the yogi's Cahoot has mentioned.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: You might have misunderstood. The book is about his own development and how those delusions are probably for the best in most cases. It's also about a level of honesty in admitting you think you are the greatest as a result of pointing out how others are fundamentally mistaken about something.
It is my experience that one must believe what they are saying is absolutely/objectively true even when one has the wisdom that all views are ultimately subjective. I do believe this game of "Why I am right"/ "Why I am so clever" is how awareness expands. Of course, included in this expansion game of certainty of view is its contrast, the game of uncertainty, the game of why I am wrong and why I am not so clever.

What comforts me is my logical conclusion that I not alone in the disequilibrium experience that is the alternating hierarchal self-relationship of teacher-student of self.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Transient, meaningless names which refer to nothing other than transient meaningless appearances. You are not a person, a small or individual part of any world, you are not caused by anything, there is no self-substance, no person taking action, if there is curiosity or "great ideas" they are not yours or of your concern, the same with delusion, you are absolutely and utterly egoless. Reality is no different from you, it is of your own nature. Any discrimination leading to "delusion/belief" or ideas of an imagined "self-in-action" doesn't change the fact that there is no "self-in-action".
Why addresing anyone with "you" then? Whose nature is "your own nature". In action, to start with your own words, you cannot deny the self-centric motions. You claim an understanding which differs and contrasts but your solution is to deny this appearance, like you'd deny a mountain with a claim of "no mountain".
Everything seen is empty of any effort or action because it exists only as it appears. That every day ordinary vision-like experience you have sometimes called consciousness, is the essential nature of reality, it's all you've ever known or seen, it is the entire scope of your insight, you imagine there to be "more out there", and ask empty questions about how it all came to be.
Sounds like self-soothing to me. But a particular one that covers up the self and denies the soothing with it. For you that might have been a wise move!
Holding too much stake in people like Nietzsche, go re-read the Tao Te ching or maybe a simplified version of some Buddhist texts and try and get to the core of the message :)
You hold way too much stake in those texts modified by whole (to you alien) cultures almost beyond recognition. There's a lot of mindless nihilism to go around, wisdom is like a diamond under a ton of gritty rock and you won't find it easily no matter which book you open or which rock you might turn.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Why addresing anyone with "you" then? Whose nature is "your own nature".
Limitations of language, absolutely irrelevant.

Also, in case it seemed otherwise, "you" is referring to "who you really are", your being, which is not a body or any perishable self-substance, nor is it bound in a certain collection of words, emotions or thoughts. It may have even seemed like in that writing there was a denial of the Self, which would be a misinterpretation.

To outline that you are not the body, that you are not a person taking action, is not the same as denying the Self, which is no different from reality.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: You hold way too much stake in those texts modified by whole (to you alien) cultures almost beyond recognition. There's a lot of mindless nihilism to go around, wisdom is like a diamond under a ton of gritty rock and you won't find it easily no matter which book you open or which rock you might turn.
Consider what is expressed in the texts.

Try for a moment disregarding all imaginations about the nature of reality, and you'll quickly notice that it is what it is, not what you dream it to be.

Consider also that all information and knowledge which can possibly be discerned is a result of awareness, experience, being, or consciousness. However you would like to describe that ordinary every day thing you're doing.

You discern the nature of reality only from awareness. The best you can do with language in this regard is promote awareness and realization, reading alone won't do it for you. Perhaps attempt regular meditation, if you don't regard that as self-soothing nonsense. ;)
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Why addressing anyone with "you" then? Whose nature is "your own nature".
Limitations of language, absolutely irrelevant.
And imagine I'd walk with you today during all your mundane activities. And I'd point out all the things you do for "your self" or for egotistic pleasure or relief, I guess you'd give me "left-over habits" or "limitations of my life situation" or "irrelevant"? This is what I mean with you-in-action. Your person arises for others and in any mirror because your actions distinguish themselves from nothing through their various interpretations. Or as smoke screen perhaps.
Also, in case it seemed otherwise, "you" is referring to "who you really are", your being, which is not a body or any perishable self-substance, nor is it bound in a certain collection of words, emotions or thoughts. It may have even seemed like in that writing there was a denial of the Self, which would be a misinterpretation.
Unbound identity is no identity.
To outline that you are not the body, that you are not a person taking action, is not the same as denying the Self, which is no different from reality.
Then lets call it reality! But I might suggest to differentiate between the reality of that wall and the one of that door. It might help when you need to get out.
You discern the nature of reality only from awareness. The best you can do with language in this regard is promote awareness and realization, reading alone won't do it for you. Perhaps attempt regular meditation, if you don't regard that as self-soothing nonsense. ;)
Hey, you told me to read things ("re-read Tao" and other shit I was pooping before you were born)! And now you oppose your own words by saying I should instead meditate. Make up your mind. Gain wisdom. Get some sense. Hurt your brain. Don't flee in hiding places for comfort. Won't last for ever, either, so why reside there?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Why addresing anyone with "you" then? Whose nature is "your own nature".
Limitations of language, absolutely irrelevant.

So where does the limitation of language lie in this instance? Also, it's not irrelevant that you cannot properly convey with language, since that is precisely the purpose of language.
Also, in case it seemed otherwise, "you" is referring to "who you really are", your being, which is not a body or any perishable self-substance, nor is it bound in a certain collection of words, emotions or thoughts. It may have even seemed like in that writing there was a denial of the Self, which would be a misinterpretation.

By denying the existence of even the tiniest speck of dust, you will have denied the Self. He who thinks the All is deficient is himself completely deficient.
To outline that you are not the body, that you are not a person taking action, is not the same as denying the Self, which is no different from reality.
It is the same, since you are denying something that appears to your or someone else's mind. You seem to have supplanted the delusion of inherent existence with that of inherent non-existence.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

The speck of dust exists as it exists, who is denying that.

Things are as they are, despite any descriptions in language or imaginations of something other than Being.

Otherwise explain the reasoning as to why there is that which exists despite/separately.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The speck of dust exists as it exists, who is denying that.
You are, apparently. :)

Why else are you denying the existence of selves, or calling them meaningless appearances?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The speck of dust exists as it exists, who is denying that.

Things are as they are, despite any descriptions in language or imaginations of something other than Being.
But their existance in those descriptions, as language, is just reflecting the same process of recognition, of cognition.

That's why things are never "as they are". They are how you are happen to discern them, subjectively, with hopefully enough relation to truth and reason. Of course, the debate often starts exactly there, asking if one can be reasonable enough in each instance.
jupiviv wrote:
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The speck of dust exists as it exists, who is denying that.
You are, apparently. :)

Why else are you denying the existence of selves, or calling them meaningless appearances?
Indeed, meaningless appearances do not exist since appearances are shaped already by a process of meaning giving (relating, contrasting, pulling together, ordering).
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Pam Seeback »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The speck of dust exists as it exists, who is denying that.

Things are as they are, despite any descriptions in language or imaginations of something other than Being.

Otherwise explain the reasoning as to why there is that which exists despite/separately.
Seeker, if you want to live a spirited life you have no choice but to take up your dust and walk. I assume your question about explaining the reasoning of the appearance is a rhetorical question as I am quite certain that you are aware that no such absolute reason can be found. What a relief it is to finally let go of this metaphysical first-cause albatross! I also assume that you are aware that the appearance is not despite/separate, rather it is the ontological subjective, two-in-one nature of consciousness: I am That I am.

You may feel at ease at the moment at leaving your dust on the ground, but as Job discovered "I was at ease, but he hath broken me asunder: he hath also taken me by my neck, and shaken me to pieces, and set me up for his mark." Interesting that once upon a time you believed that suffering does not end, and now you seem to be asserting the opposite. Not picking on you because as you know, I too once rode this very same yes and no see-saw.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: That's why things are never "as they are". They are how you are happen to discern them, subjectively, with hopefully enough relation to truth and reason. Of course, the debate often starts exactly there, asking if one can be reasonable enough in each instance.
Ah, but when the rule of subjectivity is known and accepted, suffering what is most reasonable becomes the suffering of ecstasy. The perfect blend of seriousness and laughter at one's seriousness makes for a delicious frustration sandwich!
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Leyla Shen »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But they exists in those descriptions as language is just reflecting the same process of recognition, of cognition.

That's why things are never "as they are". They are how you are happen to discern them, subjectively, with hopefully enough relation to truth and reason. Of course, the debate often starts exactly there, asking if one can be reasonable enough in each instance. [...]

Indeed, meaningless appearances do not exist since appearances are shaped already by a process of meaning giving (relating, contrasting, pulling together, ordering).
Right, things without the inverted commas are always as they are, including the individual. Otherwise, the existence of cognitive differences would be impossible.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But they exists in those descriptions as language is just reflecting the same process of recognition, of cognition.

That's why things are never "as they are". They are how you are happen to discern them, subjectively, with hopefully enough relation to truth and reason. Of course, the debate often starts exactly there, asking if one can be reasonable enough in each instance. [...]

Indeed, meaningless appearances do not exist since appearances are shaped already by a process of meaning giving (relating, contrasting, pulling together, ordering).
Right, things without the inverted commas are always as they are, including the individual. Otherwise, the existence of cognitive differences would be impossible.
They are quotation marks, I was just quoting Seeker's way of phrasing. And no, things are never as their being because that reflection is a logical action and tells something about your logic, your reason and cognition itself. It's doesn't tell you much about something existing. Causality exists. The absolute. But reflecting on that starts with a mirror. And not always a clean one either.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:
Diebert: That's why things are never "as they are". They are how you are happen to discern them, subjectively, with hopefully enough relation to truth and reason. Of course, the debate often starts exactly there, asking if one can be reasonable enough in each instance.
Ah, but when the rule of subjectivity is known and accepted, suffering what is most reasonable becomes the suffering of ecstasy. The perfect blend of seriousness and laughter at one's seriousness makes for a delicious frustration sandwich!
The discovery that things do not exist, that "meaninglessness of meaninglessness" is indeed the ecstasy of the "liberated" nihilist: that there's no mountain! But getting lost is not the liberation which was offered, it's a private satisfaction, still a response to suffering and therefore still the wheel of suffering. No clearing laughter yet!
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Leyla Shen »

They are quotation marks, I was just quoting Seeker's way of phrasing. And no, things are never as their being because that reflection is a logical action and tells something about your logic, your reason and cognition itself. It's doesn't tell you much about something existing. Causality exists. The absolute. But reflecting on that starts with a mirror. And not always a clean one either.
If that is the case, then, using your example, existing causality has necessarily remained exactly as it is regardless of the fact that your vision is blurred by something else.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

A=A

Post by Leyla Shen »

Something jupiviv quoted in the recent past springs to mind:
If, rather than acknowledging the proposition A = A, I wanted to attempt to refute it, in so doing I would have to make use of logic, i.e., of exactly this proposition. If at some point I did not comply with it, that would mean that my deduction was false. The proposition itself is thus the criterion of truth and falsity, and from the start it is the measure of my deduction, the standard which I work from as soon as I begin to deduce. Therefore, I can at most reject all inferences, and abstain from judgement. Whether I undertook to refute the proposition, or to prove it, in both cases it would already be presupposed in the argumentation, in both cases I would have obtained the result by fraud. The proposition thus remains a thesis that can neither be proven nor disproven. I can trouble myself about it, but am not logically obliged to, for logic culminates precisely in the content of this proposition (and its other two forms of expression, the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle, the relative advantages of which, greater or lesser, will not be gone into here). That I cannot escape from this proposition may be of interest to pathological psychology, but it is of no significance for the explanation of the proposition; I cannot escape from various other things, either, e.g., from myself. Thus logic cannot be proven, cannot be derived from something else—Weininger
Logic relies precisely on the assumption that a thing is what it is (A=A).
Between Suicides
Locked