Return to body, substance & meaning

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:35 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Do you see problems with left wing feminist views or, in fact, with increasing LGBTQI+ or Islamic presence in your society?
I see problems with pretty much everything about 'my' society, so, yes, I'd see problems with the increasing of pretty much any aspect of it, whether they are objectively worse or better problems and the relevance of the above topics I answer below.

The question is more how you'd argue for the dangers of degrading or destroying a place where:

- "any conversation which challenges, is more or less illegal".
- "the majority is so deluded, arrogant, egotistical, etc, that the only way which they can be described is as harshly as possible"
- "most people are so far removed from reality they end up being the equivalent of mad children"
- "people are incapable of even a conversation while they yell all sorts of nonsense"
- "people still almost never get past their own arrogance, delusion, egotism, distrust, anger, resent',

Also you said in reality it is indeed "nearly everyone" and it has been that way, with changes to environment, education, culture".

So John, why do you have any position or concern on "dangers" to this society, considering all of the above?
It's in the process and has been already of degradation and destruction, so those truths about people are expected consequences. A society having serious problems does not mean it cannot degrade further or come to worse or absolute 'destruction' (in one form or another, even an end to 'humanity' may come about or perhaps is already occurring since we are right now communicating through a screen) since it is still functioning and there are still some reasonable aspects to it, still some freedom of speech, etc. 'The feminine mind' has had a negative effect probably throughout all of history, which is why I don't imply that people were much better in the past and of course people have different sets of delusions, I'm unsure but I'd presume that the impact has increased hugely since the rise of feminism including women's rights and social acceptance of LGBTQI+. Again that's if I were to believe second-hand reports and statistics since I have not been alive or aware for that long. But it is my understanding that femininity literally destroys or makes worse any logical or 'good' thing (the objective reference frame being wisdom, virtue, 'higher' discussion, etc), almost like some cancer which all but the most aware and masculine minds are highly susceptible to or are already embodying.

If I had to make a guess about what the future would look like, it will simply resemble what already exists but just in a more extreme form. I.E: More people living in smaller homes/apartments with less land/nature 'plugged in' whether it be to phones, screens, virtual reality or games. More surveillance. More regulation of citizens. More police and military power going unquestioned. Less marriage. Less family homes. Less lasting relationships. Less large families. Less in-person interaction. Less community interaction. More sexual partners. More LGBT. Less religious affiliation. Less religious gathering. Less free speech. More restrictions on what is legal behavior. Etc and so on. Thus more degradation and destruction is indeed possible and it seems is to be expected.

As for why it would be my concern at all I've described that already. While my concerns are primarily not focused on such broad worldly matters (the first being wisdom for myself), secondly worldly matters become relevant not in contradiction to my views but in conjunction with them as a lesser goal, since it is also, in my view, wise to free all sentient beings from suffering. Thus it's necessary to promote the sharing of wisdom. Many causal factors are relevant for that to occur. Causality being so intricate that all of these details become relevant, including relationships, forms of communication, economics, etc: bringing about whatever would be a holistically ideal human civilization.
How is it possible something remotely worthy and valid was created by such problematic and idiotic people?
Actually I'd say it has only degraded since the dawn of what was apparently a tribal lifestyle, but perhaps some of the tools invented could be used to make something ideal.
Something benefiting you so much that you could develop into whatever you think your self to be?
What is that exactly? An under educated person (in comparison to what might be an ideal education) that came across 'eastern' wisdom by pure chance?
This is in fact a variation on the question I asked David Quinn when he seemed defending a still "partly" rational, progressive society against the irrationality of the right and especially of Trump.
I've always thought that while the founders have many deep and well thought out insights, 95% + of which I would agree with absolutely- just based on how much I would find wise in texts such as poison for the heart- in my view they still seem to hold various delusions, some of these differences are core ones and I have outlined them, such as what I see as a misguided understanding of the relevance of the body/brain and that metaphysical discussion.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:23 am

JohnJAu wrote:I see problems with pretty much everything about 'my' society, so, yes, I'd see problems with the increasing of pretty much any aspect of it, whether they are objectively worse or better problems and the relevance of the above topics I answer below.
Meaning food, transportation, architecture, medicine etc.? I agree that human beings in general are extremely deluded, but your alt-right-esque expression of that view has a sort of "uncanny valley" quality to it, quite similar to your earlier incarnation's expression of Buddhist philosophical concepts. It's like you're using all of these ideas as a foothold to express a deeper desire for a change, perhaps even a redemption.

You can't wave a metaphorical magic wand as in "family values", "race realism", "nothing is really real", "exactitude is most definitely real", "progressive movement" or whatever else, and make world + dog any less deluded (or real). Should you feel the desire to do so, then listen closely to the cosmic voice telling you:

PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF!

Only you can be truly concerned about the depth or authenticity of your own wisdom. Please remember that when you feel the urge to post on this forum.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:02 am

jupiviv wrote: Meaning food, transportation, architecture, medicine etc.?
Topics are too broad, everyone has their own idea of what they think an ideal way of life would be and all the implications of that, I'm not implying I have some well thought out answer to it all, but I think part of philosophy requires you to be holistic and strive to have that answer. But as an example of how I might find fault with certain aspects, transportation is an easy one, I wouldn't include people sitting in traffic three hours a day, etc, etc.
jupiviv wrote: I agree that human beings in general are extremely deluded,
I don't see how anyone could disagree.
jupiviv wrote: but your alt-right-esque expression of that view has a sort of "uncanny valley" quality to it, quite similar to your earlier incarnation's expression of Buddhist philosophical concepts. It's like you're using all of these ideas as a foothold to express a deeper desire for a change, perhaps even a redemption.

You can't wave a metaphorical magic wand as in "family values", "race realism", "nothing is really real", "exactitude is most definitely real", "progressive movement" or whatever else, and make world + dog any less deluded (or real).
The illusion of the world and the relevance of all that it includes is a distant second in terms of importance compared to my own 'path'. So distant in fact that it borders on being totally irrelevant and deluded. For example as you say below, one needs to 'heal' (become wise) before presuming to be able to do too much for others or know where that would fit in.

jupiviv wrote: PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF!

Only you can be truly concerned about the depth or authenticity of your own wisdom.
Of course.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:30 pm

JohnJAu wrote:
jupiviv wrote: Meaning food, transportation, architecture, medicine etc.?
Topics are too broad, everyone has their own idea of what they think an ideal way of life would be and all the implications of that, I'm not implying I have some well thought out answer to it all, but I think part of philosophy requires you to be holistic and strive to have that answer. But as an example of how I might find fault with certain aspects, transportation is an easy one, I wouldn't include people sitting in traffic three hours a day, etc, etc.
Fair enough, but you should discuss these topics *after* attaining a clear holistic view. For example, what I've read of your new output indicates that you are variously trying to connect everything you perceive to be wrong with the world to "delusion" and alternating sets of ideas like Buddhism, alt right etc. The purpose of this isn't apparent, other than to seek some kind of reassurance for how quickly you are progressing down the path to wisdom.
jupiviv wrote: I agree that human beings in general are extremely deluded,
I don't see how anyone could disagree.
Well then don't go on about it. Basically, you are expressing a lot of incomplete and disordered thought/reasoning processes before resolving them. Some of them have merit, but others don't. Like I say, it's up to you to sort that out on your own. "Discussions" with online personalities about your notions about the world's ills won't help you. I can understand if you are looking for guidance or reassurance, but the only guidance helpful in such matters is what I just gave you.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:55 pm

jupiviv wrote: Fair enough, but you should discuss these topics *after* attaining a clear holistic view.
I disagree, and only see positive sides to such discussion. Even Alex, tho I find him to be unnecessarily long winded, provides some interesting insights every thousand words or so.
jupiviv wrote: For example, what I've read of your new output indicates that you are variously trying to connect everything you perceive to be wrong with the world to "delusion" and alternating sets of ideas like Buddhism, alt right etc. The purpose of this isn't apparent, other than to seek some kind of reassurance for how quickly you are progressing down the path to wisdom.
I've only described those perceptions briefly and often upon prompt, I see the worldly matters section of the forum to be one almost predicated on a less wise and maybe even egotistical approach to the world. It seems to be used for entertainment to some degree. I have no gripe with such discussions and am not really attempting to holistically connect my perceptions or come up with detailed explanation, such an endeavor would take up a lot of time and presumes I'd even be able to do so. These are just my relatively shallow opinions based on what I've seen. That I tend to believe they likely hold truth to a large degree, despite being unsure or even deeply informed, is just due to a level of trust in my own reasoning.
Like I say, it's up to you to sort that out on your own. "Discussions" with online personalities about your notions about the world's ills won't help you. I can understand if you are looking for guidance or reassurance, but the only guidance helpful in such matters is what I just gave you.
I agree with that statement more so for 'discussion of the nature of ultimate reality and the path to enlightenment' as there you can interact with others who serve as catalysts at best. For worldly matters such as these, reading the insights of online personalities is helpful.

Also, while I don't have a problem with constant challenge, the necessity of it being clear - especially for preventing delusion and working against the ego - it is still my opinion that the general tendency of "I will focus on discussing only what I disagree with or find lacking" that you'll see trending on any comment section online is imbalanced and counter productive in a lot of ways, it is a tendency which you and Diebert appear to share and I don't think you could deny that. Whereas I would say there ought to be an equal balance or even focus on agreements sometimes, (I'm aware of how blasphemous this notion is to you and all that you'll say it implies), even if it is just the temporary entertainment of ideas as if they were true, and progress via that process. This is in my eyes much more reasonable an approach, and is just as necessary as challenge, at least some of the time(Completely absent here), otherwise conversations remain focused on the void between reasons and a never ending process of attempting to fill in those empty spaces, rather than allowing any room for an attempt to build upon whatever is already present. It is often more like a debate than a conversation, even less structured as any clear cut positions are often completely avoided.

I'm aware of the reasoning driving these tendencies, I also engage in this behavior myself of course, but at least for this comment have refrained as I normally would have asked you to elaborate on which of my thought processes specifically don't have merit, hopefully for a bit of a change. I also am happy to make statements here that I simply could not prove, such as that I've assumed and am mostly convinced voting in the US doesn't do anything at all and that the entire election process is fabricated for show.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:16 pm

JohnJAu wrote:I see problems with pretty much everything about 'my' society, so, yes, I'd see problems with the increasing of pretty much any aspect of it, whether they are objectively worse or better problems and the relevance of the above topics I answer below.
But if there would be problems with "pretty much everything" about the past and present state of "X" while not describing any viable alternative "Y" in past, present and future, the most reasonable conclusion would be that you're just describing the nature of "X" in the first place and so have undermined by your own description the whole reasoning on there being a major "problem".
A society having serious problems does not mean it cannot degrade further or come to worse or absolute 'destruction' since it is still functioning and there are still some reasonable aspects to it, still some freedom of speech, etc. '
Since it's still unclear to me what we can compare this current tragic-fantastic society with, we can easily flip this conversation around without changing anything but ones perspective. For example: you're living in a society populated by immense geniuses (to various degrees) who have been able to carve out a living arrangement beyond the animal and initiated and maintained some form of reason, including the development of free speech, free time, experimentation and so on. Would you credit this to only a few individuals (please name them) or to the unbelievable, near-divine, twisted, counter-current effort of generations of hard working and brilliantly desperate dreaming people who you prefer to call delusional and almost imply as worthless and unnecessary?

Yes, I'm polarizing the issue a bit for maximum contrast. But it's a view which is possible, based on facts, history, our actual situation and so on. Just imagine the human being as elementary suffering and somehow finding a way, mostly blind, stumbling, falling, lying, cheating its way forwards and backwards. If that is seen as the human condition, it is --because of causality-- also linked to whatever we have achieved so far. Or at least one cannot go around and be certain about it being unrelated.
The feminine mind' has had a negative effect probably throughout all of history, which is why I don't imply that people were much better in the past
So it's always been there despite humanity having developed over and beyond ape. Amazing feat! What are the odds?
But it is my understanding that femininity literally destroys or makes worse any logical or 'good' thing (the objective reference frame being wisdom, virtue, 'higher' discussion, etc), almost like some cancer which all but the most aware and masculine minds are highly susceptible to or are already embodying.
So could you specify a bit further where and how these 'good' things like wisdom, virtue, 'higher' discussion happened and who were engaged in this, whose efforts made them possible for the masses to enjoy if they desired to? Because as you mentioned "nearly everyone" is and ever was incapable of even a conversation and the majority is so deluded, arrogant, egotistic and " it has been that way, with changes to environment, education, culture". And yet here you are defending unique, rare qualities like freedom of speech, masculinity, wisdom, virtue and 'higher' discussions as something within that same society. I mean, all despite nearly everyone being "so far removed from reality"? This very idea would imply some amazing miracle indeed!

I mean, if a delusional, insane society can produce such qualities, I'd almost wonder if we even should try to change anything at all, including the delusions we are seeing elsewhere.
If I had to make a guess about what the future would look like, it will simply resemble what already exists but just in a more extreme form. I.E: More people living in smaller homes/apartments with less land/nature 'plugged in' whether it be to phones, screens, virtual reality or games. More surveillance. More regulation of citizens. More police and military power going unquestioned. Less marriage. Less family homes. Less lasting relationships. Less large families. Less in-person interaction. Less community interaction. More sexual partners. More LGBT. Less religious affiliation. Less religious gathering. Less free speech. More restrictions on what is legal behavior. Etc and so on. Thus more degradation and destruction is indeed possible and it seems is to be expected.
So you'd value of course the opposite I assume: less people, larger homes, more land and nature to connect to, less virtualization, less militarization, more marriage and family homes, more organized religion, less restrictions and so on?

Before I continue, could you affirm you look at the above list as being positives, wise or as accomplishments of human society, something in danger to degrading and also, of course, a product maintained by millions of deluded people in the past and present? Or perhaps a few wise rulers or thought leaders, not sure yet how you're seeing this.
secondly worldly matters become relevant not in contradiction to my views but in conjunction with them as a lesser goal, since it is also, in my view bringing about whatever would be a holistically ideal human civilization.
The worldly matters is just another way to explore the contradictory nature of humans, living, existence and delusion. It's a bit messier and for that reason they have their own section at this forum. But the principle is the same.

In how far a holistically more ideal human civilization would include the things you were valuing before: larger homes, marriage and family homes, organized religion, less restrictions etc? Sorry I've to chase you down on these specifics as it's just a stepping stone to a more general theme.
Actually I'd say it has only degraded since the dawn of what was apparently a tribal lifestyle, but perhaps some of the tools invented could be used to make something ideal.
So the tribal lifestyle with all its suffering, lesser individuation or "free speech", increased ignorance on the supernatural and more unconscious living is now some more ideal state from where we have "fallen"? Then you need to make clear what exactly has been degraded. I suppose you might think of all the intimate, direct connections and dependencies with natural surroundings and of course with other tribe members. But it's hard to not call this simply femininity or perhaps "wombism".
I've always thought that while the founders have many deep and well thought out insights, 95% + of which I would agree with absolutely- just based on how much I would find wise in texts such as poison for the heart- in my view they still seem to hold various delusions, some of these differences are core ones and I have outlined them, such as what I see as a misguided understanding of the relevance of the body/brain and that metaphysical discussion.
Fair enough. My own views, in case I need to explain them beyond what I already inserted, would look more like the acceptance of delusion as prime element of the current "human condition" including any "achievements". One could endlessly argue over "degrees" but that remains wholly relative, circumstantial and contemporary. Furthermore I sincerely doubt the idea of "utility" linked to any deeper wisdom. Or perhaps I should ask: utility for whom or what exactly?

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:47 pm

Diebert wrote:Fair enough. My own views, in case I need to explain them beyond what I already inserted, would look more like the acceptance of delusion as prime element of the current "human condition" including any "achievements". One could endlessly argue over "degrees" but that remains wholly relative, circumstantial and contemporary. Furthermore I sincerely doubt the idea of "utility" linked to any deeper wisdom. Or perhaps I should ask: utility for whom or what exactly?
From my perspective --- of course --- it has always been revealing and instructive to observe these unending, circular, thoroughly unproductive conversations predicated on assertions about 'wisdom'. One will leave and come back in a century and the same stuckness will be evident. I guess there comes a point when one revels and celebrates it? and when stuckness becomes wisdom itself. That's a nice transvaluation of values. 'I'm the most stuck and therefor the most wise'.

But if one predicates *good philosophy* and *good philosophical discussion* and *self-empowerment in the world* and *constructive action in one's world* on the assertion that 'deeper wisdom has no utility' there you have the self-fulfilling prophecy of what will occur in one's 'philosophy' and one's relationship to one's own culture. My question is: What brought this about? What happened in this person so that such a view came to be seen and believed as 'right, proper and true'?

'Birds of a feather flock together'. At some point, I reckon, one must come out and state that there is no utility --- no use at all --- of the predicate that produces 'philosophy as floundering'. If one wishes to retreat from all relationship, all service, all commitment, all involvement, why particularly must it accrete around itself the self-claim of 'wisdom'? *It* seems to desire with the use of that term to claim some higher purpose, which is to say importance and relevancy. But yet it is predicated on becoming irrelevant.

There is like this liminal zone halfway between life and halfway between extinction in which you have set up your 'life' as philosopher. Always dying, always extinguishing, but never taking philosophical deathliness to its necessary end. It is a philsophical and existential conumdrum.

It is interesting to attempt some definitions about the Players here. Doing that is somewhat sinful I guess since it tends to operate against the endlessly abstracting mind --- and narcissistic wisdom jerkoffery. How would one go about it? That project's aim would be to contextualise and recontextualise each opinionator, each incipient 'sage', each Doctor of Philosophy, each metaphysical agent.

John for example, in these discourses, seems to be moved to turn his attention back to his social matrix. (Yet soon he will levitate up to the 'wisdom' section of the forum and get back to serious business). That is, in thinking about family, about marriage, about people's well-being in their physical circumstances; as-against the strange influence of the freaky-acids of homosexual delusion and gender-exoticism. But John is notable because (seen from my viewpoint and certainly said with no malice) he seems so far outside of accumulated cultural and civilizational wisdom. Kind of like the post-millennial hippy-of-sorts who gets high and also has epiphanies. But what relationship do these epiphanies (or visions or revelations) have with anything at all? I certainly cannot know because I cannot inhabit that body and mind. But seen from my distance I am inclined to ask: What is really going one here?

Given that --- that is, this superficial revelation, the vainglorious declarations about enlightenment and such, it seems fitting that he is drawn *here* (as 'the place where all seriousness and commitment end because it is predicated that it must end). I ask (privately of course): What happens to a person like this? What does he go on to achieve in life? Where will he stand, and what will he have committed to, when he gets to be 50 or therabouts?

And Jupi? It is not impossible that in 25 years he will still be living in his parent's house in Bangalore sniping against the Occident from an uncomfortable Orientalism. I expect that the speakers will have improved in quality and in instead of being merely plump and angry he will be fat and vicious. But the core will be the same I imagine. Having sacrificed connect the only connection will be ... the facsimile of connection-by-internet. But how oddly predicated is this unusual Seeker of Wisdom! I always wonder about his context. That is to say the ancestral line that has produced him. The relationship to the specific Deities, the original and valid familial and cultural traditions, 'one's own cultural traditons': what happened? It was pottage apparently that was traded for fabulous gems and pearls of the Occident!

Is it that *Our Modernity* has splattered us through a fan and discombobulated us to such an extreme that 'wisdom' is defined through abstractions and disconnections? It seems so. That is why I would propose an alternative motion. That is why it is that motion that appears the 'wise choice'. But that requires arming oneself with definitions that function against discombobulation however insistent and convincing it appears. You have to defeat those defisions and the structures that support them which is like dismantling an enormous neurotic flying-machine!

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:21 pm

John wrote:Ultimately all effort beyond a focus on 'spiritual/wisdom growth' is vain effort in my view, but we're sticking to worldly matters as opposed to ultimate ones here (and I do make a division) so I would say that I think you underestimate yourself like many do. You are more than capable of the greatest possible 'influence' (world-wide influence) if you put your mind to it, it's really just about whether you firstly reach a final confidence (or deluded confidence) in your own wisdom and message. As well as the levels of determination and innovation you have.
You first declaration seems bizarrely predicated. I would say that it represents a very basic error. There is no separation possible between spiritual and worldly matters. The division is sick and expresses a fundamental error. To arrive at knowledge, understanding, wisdom and also power is no mean feat, and it is just in that that it becomes necessary to conceive of oneself as responsible and also sober. One immediately assumes a leadership position because what one has done has given one that power. One has no choice but to make responsible choices about how one uses one's power and influence. The fact that for you there is this division, and you insist on it, is in my view evidence of fracture. The one who makes such a statement has become fractured and therefor makes the statement.
I think it would be relatively easy, but of course it is wise to delay/postpone any such endeavour to allow as much time as possible for personal growth before going and spreading what may be misinformation. Although like I mentioned earlier, positive change in some aspects is still possible.
If one has no clear idea of what 'personal growth' is one will end up doing very little and, I suggest, growing very little. Personal growth cannot be separated from one's relationship to one's culture. There cannot be an 'abstracted' growth that is not narcissistic and solipsistic. To have such disconnected notions of 'personal growth' is itself misinformation. Also, if one cannot define 'positive change' how could one then change positively? Everything turns around and gets hinged on the definitions of 'positive'. But any positive attainment is a result of positive and creative work and since there is no separation possible between inner and outer levels of work and commitment, the relationship between the man doing 'growth work' and his social and cultural context come immediately into focus.
You can substantially change how a person orients themselves in the world easily, since people, perhaps especially nowadays, are almost like programmable dough, their actions, beliefs, world views, metaphysics, and even perhaps their consciousness, can be moulded extremely easily.
What a bizarre, irresponsible statement! I cannot decide if is merely cynical or simply stupid. If after all that you say about wisdom and such and the importance of growth and progress, if after all that you would encourage efforts to manipulate and mould people because of some narcissistic mood, I venture to say that you need to return to Wisdom School m'boy!

What I notice in this --- please excuse me for putting it so directly --- is a man who has fundamentally and substantially lost his connection with proper seriousness. There certainly was a time --- there have been times --- when people were raised up to have genuine and articulated concern for their own selves and for other people. Even the Christian consideration of concern for the status of one's soul in relation to God is a veritable seriousness. But when I read what you write I do not at all sense that. I sense a fractured man, disconnected with himself and rather adrift ... who yet wishes to claim the domain of 'wisdom'. I think it true that your condition is predominant and everywhere evident but I cannot see it as healthy, good or even sane.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:34 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: But if there would be problems with "pretty much everything" about the past and present state of "X" while not describing any viable alternative "Y" in past, present and future, the most reasonable conclusion would be that you're just describing the nature of "X" in the first place and so have undermined by your own description the whole reasoning on there being a major "problem".
There are plenty of alternatives. Just off the top of my head, I know of a certain community of around 200-300 people living in the forest, growing food, living minimally, nightly fires, close interactions community wide, lots of discussion, non-violence, no police presence, focus on compassion, discussion, meditation, and so on. While this isn't some ideal I've chosen and I'd no doubt find faults with some aspects of it (they're probably just classic hippies on drugs from what I hear) it still seems a far better example of a lifestyle than a Sydney lets say. Suicide rates will no doubt agree with that estimation in regard to a city lifestyle...the power of logic, common sense, and estimations, see? Don't even need to look that up to know it's true. But how? How could I possibly accurately guess such a thing which couldn't be known without in depth studies? Preposterous right? You see, it would only be possible if my reasoning fit in line with the reality of the human condition.
For example: you're living in a society populated by immense geniuses (to various degrees) who have been able to carve out a living arrangement beyond the animal and initiated and maintained some form of reason, including the development of free speech, free time, experimentation and so on. Would you credit this to only a few individuals (please name them) or to the unbelievable, near-divine, twisted, counter-current effort of generations of hard working and brilliantly desperate dreaming people who you prefer to call delusional and almost imply as worthless and unnecessary?
Of course it's entirely relative, that is beyond obvious. I am comparing the average person to wise sages and the like, that's where all of those harsh truths I listed become clear cut. Even compared to you Diebert those truths would be beyond obvious, do I really need to give you my mothers/aunties/uncles/cousins/female acquaintances/friends numbers so you can form your own opinions? It's all perspective and relative of course but we are subscribers to the view that there is absolute truth and objective wisdom are we not? You're denying reality for no reason at all save for that disagreement/challenge tendency I mentioned to jupiviv.

The feminine mind' has had a negative effect probably throughout all of history, which is why I don't imply that people were much better in the past
So it's always been there despite humanity having developed over and beyond ape. Amazing feat! What are the odds?[/quote]

Since at least the bible backwards, yes it has been since there are numerous references to the perils of the feminine, sexual license, and so on, but yes men have still developed despite it. A relative example of degradation might be the massive rise in sexual partners of women in recent decades since the rise of feminism. Again, I won't go in detail to explain to you why I count this as degradation since it's all relative and a holistic picture would need to be painted, if I were to tho I would make many estimations as to the varying negative effects of such changes. Including things like mental illness, depression, etc.

So could you specify a bit further where and how these 'good' things like wisdom, virtue, 'higher' discussion happened and who were engaged in this, whose efforts made them possible for the masses to enjoy if they desired to?
Men with masculine qualities.

Because as you mentioned "nearly everyone" is and ever was incapable of even a conversation and the majority is so deluded, arrogant, egotistic and " it has been that way, with changes to environment, education, culture". And yet here you are defending unique, rare qualities like freedom of speech, masculinity, wisdom, virtue and 'higher' discussions as something within that same society. I mean, all despite nearly everyone being "so far removed from reality"? This very idea would imply some amazing miracle indeed!
Yeah, it was the minority, (assuming human nature has been similar in the past), which are not part of that "nearly everyone".


I mean, if a delusional, insane society can produce such qualities,
They're only unique and rare relative to the delusional, insane society. I'd assume nearly everyone would be wise if you altered education. Wise people had those qualities despite the others and it was not as virtue of the specific ways in which the society functioned or to be attributed to them, but rather a result of the truth that wisdom is simply present 'within'/'awaiting' all sentient beings and it is inevitable that it would flourish in at least a minority.

I'd almost wonder if we even should try to change anything at all,
When you're constantly playing devils advocate/challenging every idea to the point of ridiculousness as there's no exceptions for you, I'm not surprised you'd wonder that.
So you'd value of course the opposite I assume: less people,
No, I meant more living in smaller homes, not 'more people'.
larger homes,
The size of the home wouldn't be so relevant in an ideal off the top of my head, just the prevalence of nature.
more land and nature
Yes but only because I'd be choosing between one or the other, not because I think natural settings are necessary for wisdom growth.
less virtualization, less militarization,
Definitely, those I can say with relatively much more certainty.
more marriage


No not necessarily, that is again just a better option than what you have trending in the west today as I mentioned above.

The important factor here would simply be for men to have dominance over women so their insanity doesn't gain foothold or is given such power as today, and so they could teach wisdom to the women since they would be much less likely to seek it on their own.

and family homes,
Again this is just in contrast to glorified storage containers stacked upon one another, not any utopian ideal.
more organized religion,
Christianity being better than materialist 'death is the end' atheism or YOLO-based-vanity for sure, but again, only relative. Ideally the 'organized religion' would not be anything like Christianity but instead focused on studies of a very broad variety of texts with a core focus on 'eastern wisdom' and all that's entailed there like meditation.
less restrictions and so on?
Too tricky a question to answer holistically but I'd say less insane restrictions for sure and the number of restrictions and responses to those, whatever they would be, would probably go down hugely and be simplified. People tend to over complicate things beyond what's necessary. Feel free to ask for examples. Luckily for this one they have a very long list of insane laws I can google.
a product maintained by millions of deluded people in the past and present? Or perhaps a few wise rulers or thought leaders, not sure yet how you're seeing this.
It's an intricate causality, whatever came about was not ordained by men, but by God, and if those wise ideals mentioned spread further, that would also be causality. These deluded people are potential Buddha's after all, so as I said, it's no surprise some truth shines through the mess.

a holistically more ideal human civilization would include the things you were valuing before
I elaborated above but a holistically more ideal human civilization would take weeks even for me to create a bad fantasy draft of, I'm not sure how I'd answer that question beyond what I have already said on those topics since there are so many moral questions and other concerns that come up.

Actually I'd say it has only degraded since the dawn of what was apparently a tribal lifestyle, but perhaps some of the tools invented could be used to make something ideal.
So the tribal lifestyle with all its suffering, lesser individuation or "free speech", increased ignorance on the supernatural and more unconscious living is now some more ideal state from where we have "fallen"? [/quote]

You made a few assumptions there. Ignorance on the supernatural is relative, I think materialists are up there when it comes to believing in fantasies. Of course that's very different to monsters and the such, but plenty still believe their dreams are demonic visions and whatnot.

One might also assume that the relative silence and natural peace would be a better catalyst for ineffable inner wisdom. One might assume there would be a lot less vanity and egotism too. I don't see why you'd assume humans were any less conscious.
Then you need to make clear what exactly has been degraded. I suppose you might think of all the intimate, direct connections and dependencies with natural surroundings and of course with other tribe members.
Yes that's entirely what I was referring to. I was not referring to the prevalence of wisdom at all really, just my own subjective view on what kind of surroundings and interactions are 'better' relatively. Especially in terms of worldly matters, you'd have a hard time proving that drastically changing the environment of an animal which had lived in a natural environment for tens of thousands of years is a good idea. Whether people did it to themselves in the past is irrelevant since that says nothing about whether it was in their benefit, especially since 'humanity' lasted at least tens of thousands of years and only relatively recently abandoned or even massacred remnants of its former tribal existence, and more recently the industrial age, plus 'humanity' may be gone entirely soon (merged with AI or whatever happens). Also, nowadays we are born into the results of those changes.

A few things to think about off the top of my head are how being locked up in a whitewashed room might drive a person mad, or where suicide might take place, or in what scenario depression is more likely to occur, or how wisdom cannot be shared without communication.

I see it a bit like the possibility of the garden of eden having been replaced with grey pavement. Ideally technological advancements would be fine but only if they were strictly monitored, some being abandoned for potential harm, based on whatever holistic ideal platform is there which would decide those greater moral questions such as longevity through technology.
. Furthermore I sincerely doubt the idea of "utility" linked to any deeper wisdom. Or perhaps I should ask: utility for whom or what exactly?
I did not manage to catch your meaning here.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:40 pm

Santiago Odo wrote:
You can substantially change how a person orients themselves in the world easily, since people, perhaps especially nowadays, are almost like programmable dough, their actions, beliefs, world views, metaphysics, and even perhaps their consciousness, can be moulded extremely easily.
What a bizarre, irresponsible statement! I cannot decide if is merely cynical or simply stupid. If after all that you say about wisdom and such and the importance of growth and progress, if after all that you would encourage efforts to manipulate and mould people because of some narcissistic mood, I venture to say that you need to return to Wisdom School m'boy!
I'm headed to bed but just responding to this part first. I'm not sure why you reacted as such. I simply said people's beliefs, world views, actions, tendencies, etc, are easily manipulable. That should be very obvious and shouldn't be a controversial statement at all? A single popular song can even do that just as a minor example.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:46 pm

Santiago Odo wrote:There is no separation possible between spiritual and worldly matters. The division is sick and expresses a fundamental error
There's indeed no division until someone decides to make one. For that reason I'm thinking of moving the last few pages to the main forum but I'm still looking for a good title, a direction, a particular focus or theme to assign to this. Any suggestion is welcome. And these kind of operations are indeed necessary, although too much of it would be as bad as too little. Stay tuned!

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:03 am

Santiago Odo wrote:I guess there comes a point when one revels and celebrates it? and when stuckness becomes wisdom itself. That's a nice transvaluation of values. 'I'm the most stuck and therefor the most wise'.
A better and more insightful summarizing would be the infinitely more realistic and humanistic view of human as suffering, imperfect being. And it's my position as existential philosopher to counter teleological, ideological attempts to extent the human themes of hope and redemption to those larger, global, ecological --or even eschatological-- scales. Our salvation can happen only at the level of existence which is a personal one. The waves of history can of course still be studied and described but just as the rest of nature, not in any moral or "progressive" terms.
If one wishes to retreat from all relationship, all service, all commitment, all involvement, why particularly must it accrete around itself the self-claim of 'wisdom'? *It* seems to desire with the use of that term to claim some higher purpose, which is to say importance and relevancy. But yet it is predicated on becoming irrelevant.
Wisdom is wisdom and simply has to supersede the question of looking for personal meaning, satisfaction, utility and what is dreamed up to be important. Wisdom simply rains from the top down -- you don't go building towers and bridges to reach it. The reverse is already happening! It's the end result we call "creation", "history", "meanings" etc. It's a 180 degrees turn and therefore called "enlightenment" by some. It's not changing anything, only everything.
Always dying, always extinguishing, but never taking philosophical deathliness to its necessary end. It is a philsophical [sic] and existential conumdrum [sic].
Ah yes, but it's the human's plight, not just mine. You are just bravely resisting to that view, which is understood and addressed.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:14 am

JohnJAu wrote: I know of a certain community of around 200-300 people living in the forest, growing food, living minimally, nightly fires, close interactions community wide, lots of discussion, non-violence, no police presence, focus on compassion, discussion, meditation, and so on.
So these people are way less deluded and are open to the types of conservations you described as not being possible with the "99%"? In any case, we need to establish more in detail what these communities are or are doing apart from living minimally. Are they developing in any way the society you were protective of earlier? It's difficult though to talk about one specific group with a minimum of detail. If I understand it correctly you are using it as some ideal to offset against a type of society you have dismissed earlier as nonviable and unwise. It seems important to me to understand this example of your ideal, to understand your views on the illness of society and the delusional state of most of human kind, now or in the past.
Even compared to you Diebert those truths would be beyond obvious, do I really need to give you my mothers/aunties/uncles/cousins/female acquaintances/friends numbers so you can form your own opinions? It's all perspective and relative of course but we are subscribers to the view that there is absolute truth and objective wisdom are we not?
Well I think it's an important challenge. My own mothers/aunties/uncles/cousins/female acquaintances/colleagues/friends do not posses all those negative qualities you have been listing. There's, like with everybody else, still significant levels of conversation possible, some spirituality, some insight, some wisdom in many cases can rise out of those conversations. So I'll give you the same consideration as I gave Alex: you're just reaping what you're sowing: mostly your own condition and confusion.

Furthermore I do acknowledge the delusional, infantile and suffering aspects of being human. But since we're all in this together, there's no need to categorize a major part of the population as one thing just to carve some existence or "position" for your self. Which is obviously what you're doing. It's completely understood but it just cannot be maintained. Wisdom demands inquiry here!
Again, I won't go in detail to explain to you why I count this as degradation since it's all relative and a holistic picture would need to be painted, if I were to tho I would make many estimations as to the varying negative effects of such changes. Including things like mental illness, depression, etc.
You mean it's just your ("holistic") opinion on the effects of some moral degradation. A sense of things. Fair enough. But you cannot bring these things in as some kind or argument or proof of things. You know it can be challenged when made explicit, right?
I'd assume nearly everyone would be wise if you altered education. Wise people had those qualities despite the others and it was not as virtue of the specific ways in which the society functioned or to be attributed to them, but rather a result of the truth that wisdom is simply present 'within'/'awaiting' all sentient beings and it is inevitable that it would flourish in at least a minority.
Lets go with your view here for the sake of discussion. Lets agree that these wonderful wise elites have developed in these dysfunctional societies and somehow made things moving along, caused some progress, freedom, science and reason to happen.

Again, that's a good thing right? Look at what has been accomplished despite the odds and resistance! And it's just as well possible the resistance was needed to develop the qualities, the courage, determination and the will to go further. For that reason I'm hesitant to preach some giant modification to things and promote peaceful forest communities as better incubators for masculine activity. Not without some very good examples that this indeed, happens.
"and family homes"
Again this is just in contrast to glorified storage containers stacked upon one another, not any utopian ideal.
But it makes me wonder how that forest community you mentioned actually lives. Please realize that I sincerely am interested in this topic and have visited a few intentional communities and read and talked about way more of these.
People tend to over complicate things beyond what's necessary. Feel free to ask for examples. Luckily for this one they have a very long list of insane laws I can google.
It seems to me that all complex systems and societies will show these properties. And are perpetually in need for improvements, efficiency, overhauls etc. But that's the world of politics for you. Again, only compared with currently non-existent, hyper-idealistic systems, the presence of overcomplicated procedures, rules and laws would indicate any fundamental issue.
it's no surprise some truth shines through the mess.
Yes. It's something to think about more deeply, in my view, on what such idea would mean to our general orientation.
a holistically more ideal human civilization would take weeks even for me to create a bad fantasy draft of
And yet you try to use these pre-draft descriptions to explain or prove exactly what to me? Don't forget that you're measuring the fault of society in comparison with your draft on how it could be differently. But now you say you haven't got that draft ready?
One might also assume that the relative silence and natural peace would be a better catalyst for ineffable inner wisdom. One might assume there would be a lot less vanity and egotism too. I don't see why you'd assume humans were any less conscious.
Yeah, you got me there! Agreed. Well done.
A few things to think about off the top of my head are how being locked up in a whitewashed room might drive a person mad, or where suicide might take place, or in what scenario depression is more likely to occur, or how wisdom cannot be shared without communication.
Yes disconnection ultimately leads to suicide, that is: the ending of any unbearable self-existence and self-memory and self-disgust which was completely imaginary to begin with but then again most people have found some mechanism, some magical potion to make it all work for them, eg to "live with themselves". There are people who are not succeeding because A. overdoses of self-by-disconnect and/or B. lack of fantastic coping mechanism with depression being just the most basic of self-preservation tactics here. In any case, people in these ultra-real situations will have no option than to self-destruct, one way or another. In my view, it's the unavoidable outcome of having the human condition in the first place. It's not something to cure unless we take away "self" or supply some unlimited uninterrupted stream of illusion (e.g. "The Matrix")
Furthermore I sincerely doubt the idea of "utility" linked to any deeper wisdom. Or perhaps I should ask: utility for whom or what exactly?
I did not manage to catch your meaning here.
The use of wisdom in terms of progress for humanity or society? Or just to review the idea "progress": who or what is progressing, what is benefiting? Like for example a human carries genes (DNA or a virus) and will work towards replication of this. One could argue it benefits humans but the prime benefactor are the genes (or the virus). See for example the work of Richard Dawkins on this perspective. It's just one example of how one can view progress and utility in the light of different actors altogether. Ideas which can change everything if they could be believed strongly enough.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:04 am

Diebert wrote:A better and more insightful summarizing would be the infinitely more realistic and humanistic view of human as suffering, imperfect being. And it's my position as existential philosopher to counter teleological, ideological attempts to extent the human themes of hope and redemption to those larger, global, ecological --or even eschatological-- scales. Our salvation can happen only at the level of existence which is a personal one. The waves of history can of course still be studied and described but just as the rest of nature, not in any moral or "progressive" terms.
I would ask what your view is of, say, Greek idealism? For example in the sculpted form. To round out and perfect nature's imperfections and to establish an ideal vision.

I think that in certain senses we all still deal on the theme of 'salvation' and we are always ultimately concerned about the theme and meaning of the salvific. It is as if the defined (and visible) metaphysical strings that connect one's personal salvation to the angelical region have been effaced and are no longer seen nor conceived, but yet we still live in accord with the quest. Even the people that come out thoroughly opposed to the spiritual notion present their view as if it is in itself a salvation.

Clearly, I think that ideals and idealism need to be brought out and defined. But I also think that it needs to be carried out in more limited domains. I think that is why, idealistically, I am attracted to European identity movements: their reaction makes sense to me. It may be skewed and yet it is necessary.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:40 am

JohnJAu wrote:
jupiviv wrote: Fair enough, but you should discuss these topics *after* attaining a clear holistic view.
I disagree, and only see positive sides to such discussion. Even Alex, tho I find him to be unnecessarily long winded, provides some interesting insights every thousand words or so.
Unclear and arbitrarily stringed together thoughts have no positive sides as far as I'm concerned.
Like I say, it's up to you to sort that out on your own. "Discussions" with online personalities about your notions about the world's ills won't help you. I can understand if you are looking for guidance or reassurance, but the only guidance helpful in such matters is what I just gave you.
I agree with that statement more so for 'discussion of the nature of ultimate reality and the path to enlightenment' as there you can interact with others who serve as catalysts at best. For worldly matters such as these, reading the insights of online personalities is helpful.
Fine, but what worldly matters do you actually want to discuss? For example, all I've gathered from your expectoration on this thread is that you want us all to live in the forest while being completely dependent upon industrial civilisation for basic needs like food (both what they grow and the majority of the food that they actually "import"), clothing, shelter etc.

Compare that to people, for example here in India, who do live in a rural environment which is more or less self-sustaining (and not crucially dependent on things like electricity, camp supplies or processed foods). Their life consists of hard manual labour for ~8-10 hours per day with the reward being food, rest, sex/playing with peter puffer, hunting, cigs, hooch, ganja, cock fighting, carnivals, community theatre, religious festivals (in that order) and a few other pastimes every now and then. Have you ever actually done hard manual labour? Spent a day strapping bales after carrying about 10 of them over 1 km in repeat installments? I have, and it wasn't particularly peaceful or pleasant.

Sure, I only did it once when visiting a friend's home village, and I wasn't used to that kind of effort, but even were I to be it would not be somehow *more* nurturing of wisdom than what I normally do, i.e., flap my fat cheeto-stained fingers on the keyboard all day while mammy feeds me rotis dipped in cerelac-cheeto-lentil soup and roshogollas (Indian enough for you, Alex?)

In fact, people in the west today who really *are* serious about "living off the grid" do the exact same thing, i.e. more hard manual labour and less living in trees pretending to be spiritual tribals. They make use of the fruits of industrial capitalism when needed while avoiding becoming too dependent upon same.
Also, while I don't have a problem with constant challenge, the necessity of it being clear - especially for preventing delusion and working against the ego - it is still my opinion that the general tendency of "I will focus on discussing only what I disagree with or find lacking" that you'll see trending on any comment section online is imbalanced and counter productive in a lot of ways, it is a tendency which you and Diebert appear to share and I don't think you could deny that.
Bruh...I'm a melting pot of friendship! I'm a nice guy! Just ask Alex, or witness the fiery bromance between Diebert and myself!

Besides, I did agree with the gist of your position: that people are extremely deluded. The problem is you're not putting that into any clear or discernible context beyond your bucolic daydreams, which makes the idea/assertion itself quite meaningless. I believe I also said that *some* of your thoughts have merit.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:33 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: So these people are way less deluded and are open to the types of conservations you described as not being possible with the "99%"?
Not necessarily no, but the environment/societal structure/focuses are different and that likely allows the potential for much more growth.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: In any case, we need to establish more in detail what these communities are or are doing apart from living minimally. Are they developing in any way the society you were protective of earlier?
It's just a temporary example of something better than sitting in traffic listening to katy perry always afraid to hear your own thoughts. It is by no means a holistic answer.

My own mothers/aunties/uncles/cousins/female acquaintances/colleagues/friends do not posses all those negative qualities you have been listing. There's, like with everybody else, still significant levels of conversation possible, some spirituality, some insight, some wisdom in many cases can rise out of those conversations. So I'll give you the same consideration as I gave Alex: you're just reaping what you're sowing: mostly your own condition and confusion.
They aren't completely egotistical?

Obviously ability to communicate varies and perhaps the average is better in your circles, as I said I expect nearly any person can become incredibly wise if the circumstances favor it, and many are indeed capable of attempting higher conversation if they are lightly nudged toward it and the circumstances are correct, they aren't set off in one way or another, etc, but like I pointed out, it is almost always going to be more vain "hear me" comments, the sound of one's own voice, craving browny points of validation and mentally resting on those, and so on, as it is ego driven and nearly always accompanied by lots of emotion. Not to mention filled with ideas which are usually delusional and perhaps obvious manifestations of defending tactics due to attachments with an associated belief system, or altogether a sort of disassociation from any relevant reality of such discussion. It is almost like the entire affair is either this inwardly focused self-conscious striving or otherwise some impersonal unconscious desirous activity.

Like I said, I think you give people too much credit and while it can appear they deserve it on the surface, if you probe a little further it's usually something like the wizard of oz end scene, you find (the ego) him behind a curtain and with no brain and no heart.

The average egotistical person is in my eyes more like an unconscious straw man or child than a mindful sage.

Furthermore I do acknowledge the delusional, infantile and suffering aspects of being human. But since we're all in this together, there's no need to categorize a major part of the population as one thing just to carve some existence or "position" for your self. Which is obviously what you're doing.


I attempt to describe what I see and estimate to be true, whatever my conclusions end up looking like are unintentional consequences of that attempt to be realistic and tell the truth. This 'cynical' view about people heavily relates to my suspicion that there is some sort of planned socio-engineering going on via mainstream media, laws and education which molds and maintains people and their environments according to what is required for the huge monstrous ball to keep rolling with further technological advancement and without imploding, yet also to maintain the pyramidal structure of freedoms. (Rather than for the purpose of educating individuals in a more broad, extensive or beneficial way).
You mean it's just your ("holistic") opinion on the effects of some moral degradation. A sense of things. Fair enough. But you cannot bring these things in as some kind or argument or proof of things. You know it can be challenged when made explicit, right?
Ultimately Diebert, all any of us rely on is our personal 'sense of things' and those inevitably appear to others to be mostly empty space with some substance here and there inter-dispersed between gaps in reasoning which I cannot reasonably be expected to fill without writing a few books worth perhaps.
Lets agree that these wonderful wise elites have developed in these dysfunctional societies and somehow made things moving along, caused some progress, freedom, science and reason to happen.
Well, I don't think they have achieved much at all in any successful way. The Buddha and other sages surely made some positive impacts, but as I said I don't think scientific advancement has been used in a beneficial way as I rate 'progress' as being equal to how much time people spend in meditation, studying eastern philosophy, which I understand as idealism based as opposed to materialism based, etc. In the western world from what I see and the way it is 'progressing', people can barely spend ten seconds without the radio, phone or TV on and it seems to be an entirely materialistic and vain way of life, likely only heading toward less possibility of people wanting to explore meditation or spirituality as the availability of virtual entertainment only increases and spreads across the world.

In fact, I have read various articles including accounts from Buddhist monks in countries such as Thailand speaking of how less and less people attend monasteries and temples for things like meditation or hearing discourse. Again, that's second hand, but my 'sense of things' reasons out the same likelihood.

I do not rule out the possibility that technology could be used in such a way as to be a great benefit according to these ideals.
But it makes me wonder how that forest community you mentioned actually lives. Please realize that I sincerely am interested in this topic and have visited a few intentional communities and read and talked about way more of these.
I'd assume as jupiviv (I still don't know his name, or is that it?) pointed out that they likely rely on the fruits of others and in ways you can attribute this to capitalism/scientific achievements, but I never implied it was any kind of answer other than a temporary and more ideal lifestyle if you were an individual deciding between working sixty hours a week and that option.

Also, when it comes to the individual, I could barely care less what everyone else is doing or the holistic morality behind where one gets his food, etc, and like the Buddha, would not mind if it was the result of taking alms from those hard laborers, as long as it meant free time for meditation and working toward liberation from the cycle of rebirth. I put 'saving myself' as a priority beyond any number of people or other morality (unless of course I came to understand that larger numbers of other people coming to find wisdom is more beneficial to my future existence, but that's still the same priority as 'saving myself').
And yet you try to use these pre-draft descriptions to explain or prove exactly what to me? Don't forget that you're measuring the fault of society in comparison with your draft on how it could be differently. But now you say you haven't got that draft ready?
I'm just answering questions and letting the conversation flow in accordance with destiny.

I haven't got the draft ready but I do have a sort of strong 'faith' in the depth and realism of my own 'sense of things'.

I see fault in your approach to it as I described, always focusing on what has not been said or reasoned, essentially under the assumption or implication that it is indeed lacking.

It's my understanding that thoughts and ideas float to the surface and there is clearly more knowledge we have access to than what is present at any given moment, but from where does it come? The inner or hidden or subconscious intelligence we have is in my estimation natural, a result of being of 'the mind of God', a 'Buddha', and is more accurate or more vast or better accessed depending on the level of awareness with which one perceives 'un-distorted reality'. Perhaps it is derived as karmic residue from having lived so many lives. Clearly I work out of the context of the understanding of existence that I've currently deemed most likely.

"If a man can control his mind he can find the way to Enlightenment, and all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to him."
Yeah, you got me there! Agreed. Well done.
Is it another coincidence that you did not discuss further or build upon what you agree with? I only ask because as I said I find discussion focused on empty spaces less beneficial.
It's not something to cure unless we take away "self" or supply some unlimited uninterrupted stream of illusion (e.g. "The Matrix")
But it does seem to be an indication that the human condition does not sit so well with the ever spreading lifestyle I've described as being a lesser ideal.

I also see that possibility of an unlimited uninterrupted stream of illusion/The Matrix as being the natural result of desire for the world/Maya the deception. Craving which ultimately cannot be satisfied, yet with beings endlessly trying anyway. That is the thirst which binds one to the endless cycle of existence. It is also why I have a tendency to favor even fundamentalist Christianity with any delusional baggage as a belief system over let's say scientific atheism, since the bible is full of warnings against lust of the flesh, loving the world, Satan being the god of this world, etc.
The use of wisdom in terms of progress for humanity or society? Or just to review the idea "progress": who or what is progressing, what is benefiting? Like for example a human carries genes (DNA or a virus) and will work towards replication of this. One could argue it benefits humans but the prime benefactor are the genes (or the virus). See for example the work of Richard Dawkins on this perspective. It's just one example of how one can view progress and utility in the light of different actors altogether. Ideas which can change everything if they could be believed strongly enough.
Progress in terms of good karma for sentient beings. I only ever speak of genes, DNA, evolution, etc, in conventional/worldly terms, ultimately in my view any enduring substance and the causal world of form is all illusory. Conceptualized causal explanations bearing little to no relation to what is really vague forms arising of the void. As I've said it is my view that you literally are reality, one with God so to speak, some eternal being with no enduring form just enduring qualities which are the very nature of existence, the stream of appearances being some dream-like 'experience' with you only possibly being defined as the entirety of it all or at any given moment(oneness), or as an enduring 'framework' of that fleeting show; "the universe manifests at my glance". Obviously this language is just an ultimately meaningless attempt to describe that which I see and intuit.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:07 pm

Santiago Odo wrote: Even the Christian consideration of concern for the status of one's soul in relation to God is a veritable seriousness.
It has a very similar concern that fits in line with my understanding of life and death; that what you do in this life may very well be the deciding factor in whether you experience 'hell' (existence rife with suffering, even tho a single lifetime may not be so bad) or 'heaven'.

The difference here and the reason for my 'division' is that I place concern for my own future existence far above what happens to others in the world. To me it is only logical.

You also forget that you are very much attached to a world that I don't see as really existing, at least not in the same way.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:57 pm

John wrote:I'm headed to bed but just responding to this part first. I'm not sure why you reacted as such. I simply said people's beliefs, world views, actions, tendencies, etc, are easily manipulable. That should be very obvious and shouldn't be a controversial statement at all? A single popular song can even do that just as a minor example.
It may be fair or unfair, well-guided or mis-guided, but the strategy that I have devised for myself when I read here at GF begins from an initial definition: I am going to be reading the philosophy and the opinions of men (and some women) who have skidded off the rails in certain peculiar ways. The momentum they carry in this skid is formidable and they go careening forward, propelled as it were by the causes which has set them in motion. Though they should have self-consciousness and circumspect awareness (insofar as they are or should be responsible intellects) they lack such circumspection and their 'enlightenment' and their 'wisdom' is narcissistic and solipsitic. Well, that is by definition a reduction, a generalization, but it is a handy one for someone like me who is, apparently, geared toward the utilitarian!

My approach is meta-relational. I theorize that *you* do not have any clear idea at all as to how you have ended up in these states of mind and having adopted, unconsciously, what I term 'peculiar metaphysics'. Where did I get this idea? Well, originally from *you*. I mean from the notion of 'causation' that at one time was so much referred to. The idea, then, was that you had to be 'caused' to be 'enlightened'. Obviously, when one observes so very much that is not enlightened at all, but rather endarkened, one has to ask the 'Physician' for the Rx. "What were the pills that you took, son? do you remember?" asks the responsible adult. "If you help me to find out what they were I can prescribe a countermanding substance that will help you come down off the bad trip".

I know that *some* here do not like my approach and yet I have determined that it is fair, reasonable, intellectually responsible, quite revealing, and also very positive insofar, I suppose, as it is 'utilitarian'. I have not been dishonest about my intentions. It is a question of *overcoming* and mastering. Just as you notice a disease in your society and you criticise it --- which means that you feel you have a kind of authority and right to do so --- I take no different position. But I see *you* as a series of *symptoms* that manifest as I say 'in people who have gone off the rails'.

The question is obviously What is 'the rail'? It is of course the Guiding Question, the main question, the primary question. As I have said numerous times: the Forum began on a certain note and had the audacity to ask the most important questions, or at least to pretend toward a relationshp to those questions. I can only say that that intentionality has a lot of power. Anytime one succeeds in formulating such a question it will necessarily produce reaction and generate energy. And everything depends on how the question is answered.

"Cursed is he who misleads a blind man on the road". I just happened to have come across this (from Deuteronomy) in other reading. But it does answer your question. You were speaking about being able to create immense followings among the benighted Internet masses and the various fools that you notice surrounding you. Yet you speak of yourself as a wise man and you have an exalted sense of your own realizations. As you know at the moment that you say such things the red flags immediately go up. 'Beware of what he will say next because he will directly reveal ignorance and precisely what must be avoided at all cost!' This is the attitude I have learned is most 'wise' in regard to narcissists and solopcists --- people intoxicated with their 'enlightenment'.

As I have said many times, the most interesting conversation is about how a person 'comes back' into their body, into their being, into the life they have. It is basically what I started with of course lo the many years. This I recognize. I am interested now in what is happening as people turn back into themselves and their specific communities and attempt to apply their understanding --- their sense of *value* and *meaning* --- to specific circumstances. I am just not intererested in people and ideas that have become unfettered from *connection* and from *tangible mission*. As I have said (also many times) I think that we must *mine* that which has value and meaning within our own self, within our own traditions, within our own history and terms.
Progress in terms of good karma for sentient beings. I only ever speak of genes, DNA, evolution, etc, in conventional/worldly terms, ultimately in my view any enduring substance and the causal world of form is all illusory. Conceptualized causal explanations bearing little to no relation to what is really vague forms arising of the void. As I've said it is my view that you literally are reality, one with God so to speak, some eternal being with no enduring form just enduring qualities which are the very nature of existence, the stream of appearances being some dream-like 'experience' with you only possibly being defined as the entirety of it all or at any given moment(oneness), or as an enduring 'framework' of that fleeting show; "the universe manifests at my glance". Obviously this language is just an ultimately meaningless attempt to describe that which I see and intuit.
But it is not meaningless, it can only mean many different things. Or better said can and must determine many things. In no sense it is a casual observation. It must determine and guide activities. It wil either become real and be made to be real and effectual, or it will attenuate into some background sense, some dreamy determinant.

Ortega y Gasset had an effect on my understanding and my choices, perhaps more than I realised at the time...
  • "Professional noisemakers of every class will always prefer the anarchy of intoxication of the mystics to the clear and ordered intelligence of the priests, that is, of the Church. I regret at not being able to join them in this preference either. I am prevented by a matter of truthfulness. It is this: I think that any theology transmits to us much more of God, greater insights and ideas about divinity, than the combined ecstasies of all the mystics; because, instead of approaching the ecstatic skeptically, we must take the mystic at his word, accept what he brings us from his transcendental immersions, and then see if what he offers us is worth while. The truth is that, after we accompany him on his sublime voyage, what he succeeds in communicating to us is a thing of little consequence. I think that the European soul is approaching a new experience of God and new inquiries into that most important of all realities. I doubt very much, however, if the enrichment of our ideas about divine matters will emerge from the mystic's subterranean roads rather than from the luminous paths of discursive thought. Theology---not ecstasy!"

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:29 am

Diebert wrote:There's indeed no division until someone decides to make one. For that reason I'm thinking of moving the last few pages to the main forum but I'm still looking for a good title, a direction, a particular focus or theme to assign to this. Any suggestion is welcome. And these kind of operations are indeed necessary, although too much of it would be as bad as too little. Stay tuned!
Well, Coco can help! It is all very mysterious really, but as you see she has lifted her sunglasses. Do you understand the implications? She is revealing her eyes. Very powerful Darshan she is giving you. This has profound meaning and I assume you are feeling it. Stare deeply into those mystic blue eyes Diebert. Establish a connection. And then begin your thread-cutting activity!

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:43 am

JohnJAu wrote:the environment/societal structure/focuses are different and that likely allows the potential for much more growth.
You can place your bets wherever you like of course!
They aren't completely egotistical?
Everything we can call currently "human" is that by definition if we allow for "ego" to include any form self-identification and subsequent fostering and caring for this self-existence in terms of growth, pro-creation, metastasis and so on.
Not to mention filled with ideas which are usually delusional and perhaps obvious manifestations of defending tactics due to attachments with an associated belief system, or altogether a sort of disassociation from any relevant reality of such discussion. It is almost like the entire affair is either this inwardly focused self-conscious striving or otherwise some impersonal unconscious desirous activity.
Yes, dealing with reality of existence or perpetually being distracted away from it through seductive processes.

My focus here is really about society and which elements you think are worthy or protecting or caring about.
it's usually something like the wizard of oz end scene, you find (the ego) him behind a curtain and with no brain and no heart.
Yes, as I noted before: the human condition. The difference perhaps here is that you might think it's like a disease and you are "curing" your self from it. To me that's more like a charming, naive and ultimately distracting view. And my opposition is more like an attempt to nudge you to wake up from it, if you so desire.
Ultimately Diebert, all any of us rely on is our personal 'sense of things' and those inevitably appear to others to be mostly empty space with some substance here and there inter-dispersed between gaps in reasoning which I cannot reasonably be expected to fill without writing a few books worth perhaps.
You seem to advocate again the pointlessness of discussing this at all? At least Alex went the "few books" route.
I rate 'progress' as being equal to how much time people spend in meditation, studying eastern philosophy
It could be questioned and should be questioned, if you dare, how true that perception actually is. It only needs a sliver of doubt and curiosity, a little "what if" to work its way. Right now, it sounds you have a firm set of beliefs around these things.
a temporary and more ideal lifestyle if you were an individual deciding between working sixty hours a week and that option.
That's very black and white. What about a situation of say, having more than 50 waking, active hours per week available for anything else someone would like to do?
I put 'saving myself' as a priority beyond any number of people or other morality (unless of course I came to understand that larger numbers of other people coming to find wisdom is more beneficial to my future existence, but that's still the same priority as 'saving myself').
That all hinges on what you think "self" is and why you've even want to save it and from what exactly. These are all perfect meditational questions to explore inwardly! Do you actually meditate or are you just spacing out, minimizing your troubles?
I see fault in your approach to it as I described, always focusing on what has not been said or reasoned, essentially under the assumption or implication that it is indeed lacking.
I'm just focusing on what has not been said or reasoned and letting the conversation flow in accordance with destiny. :-)
By the way how does that answer work for you when you're the one receiving it?
But it does seem to be an indication that the human condition does not sit so well with the ever spreading lifestyle I've described as being a lesser ideal.
It seems to me the human condition is all about what "not sits so well" although it's not always experienced like that exactly.
Craving which ultimately cannot be satisfied, yet with beings endlessly trying anyway.
But what if that particular "wheel" has been what made the human world go around so far, I wonder. Just think about it, people stilling their cravings seem to have ended up pushing little to advance the world in terms of inventions, scientific obsession, drama, war, exploring, poetry, tragedy and so on.
Obviously this language is just an ultimately meaningless attempt to describe that which I see and intuit.
Anything what is seen or intuited is already language; there's already a conversation. To describe it more meaningful you might just lack the proper connections to the medium, your own experiences, a larger context and your audience. Just saying it cannot be done is just denying the deeper truth of your own experiences, possibly because of comfort concerns. Not blaming you though.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Return to body, substance & solidity (was Trumpism)

Post by jupiviv » Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:20 am

Speaking of returning to body and substance, I've got a question for Alex.

Why do you always focus on cultural rather than familial dysfunction, with solutions coming in the form of going back to vaguely defined cultural roots rather than traditional family structure? Even in your critique of myself and other misled young minds, the emphasis seems to be on cultural conflict/disconnect rather than bad parenting/genes. One does wonder.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Return to body, substance & meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Aug 03, 2017 6:44 am

In relation to the subject matter of this post, "return to body, substance and meaning", it is my experience that just such a post-bliss-abstract-logical-mystical return is not only necessary, but inevitable, and not only inevitable, but beneficial if the integrated Man of Heaven and Earth (to include biological woman) is to be realized. Is the heaven and earth Man the ideal man? Yes, but not in the sense of being made perfect, but in the sense of being made whole.

What are the qualities of the Man of heaven and earth? As I realize them to be now, they are a combination of awareness of the (heavenly) mysterious causality of human rationality and feeling and of their earthly practical purpose (body/substance) that serves to guide one to living a wise and meaningful sentient existence. In other words, because how the causality of 'human' experience-based rationality and love cannot be known, there is the realization that all man has to guide him and define him is their concrete (earthly) appearance, which of course, appears because of the heavenly mystery of the Totality of the Causality.

How this integration of awareness of the Mystery and of the Concrete in/as Human Being plays out on the world stage depends, of course, on how many humans are mystery-concrete-causally realized.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Fri Aug 04, 2017 4:11 pm

Santiago Odo wrote:
  • "Professional noisemakers of every class will always prefer the anarchy of intoxication of the mystics to the clear and ordered intelligence of the priests, that is, of the Church. I regret at not being able to join them in this preference either. I am prevented by a matter of truthfulness. It is this: I think that any theology transmits to us much more of God, greater insights and ideas about divinity, than the combined ecstasies of all the mystics; because, instead of approaching the ecstatic skeptically, we must take the mystic at his word, accept what he brings us from his transcendental immersions, and then see if what he offers us is worth while. The truth is that, after we accompany him on his sublime voyage, what he succeeds in communicating to us is a thing of little consequence. I think that the European soul is approaching a new experience of God and new inquiries into that most important of all realities. I doubt very much, however, if the enrichment of our ideas about divine matters will emerge from the mystic's subterranean roads rather than from the luminous paths of discursive thought. Theology---not ecstasy!"
Everything you said and even this quote is entirely dependent on disagreeing with certain points and views on what is considered true and important, yet you do nothing to actually logically argue against those views besides to say that you don't like the conclusions and where they lead and therefore they must be wrong. You only reason from the assumption that you must be right in your approach to the world and that one must 'connect' with the world, body and so forth, disagreeing with and disregarding the philosophy that leads to words like 'detachment' altogether, and never once attempting to explain why the views and conclusions are wrong.

We're just supposed to take your word on it that the conclusions of this 'mysticism' are delusional? Just because you say so, with no argument or reasoning, the 'abandonment' or 'non-attachment' to the world promoted by eastern philosophy, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc, is misguided.Thanks Alex, if only I knew earlier all that I had to do was take your word on everything to find wisdom I'd get right into raising someone's kids!

Then you say we're narcissistic and solipsistic, it's hypocritical. This is why no one takes you very seriously, you won't even attempt to reason about topics which might be closer to metaphysics or the nature of existence/self/causality/consciousness/desire/suffering, etc.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:11 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: You can place your bets wherever you like of course!
That's all any of us are really doing hey.
Everything we can call currently "human" is that by definition if we allow for "ego" to include any form self-identification and subsequent fostering and caring for this self-existence in terms of growth, pro-creation, metastasis and so on.
In my view the ego is not simply being human as that defines us all irregardless and becomes meaningless altogether.

Egotism is something which varies, I agree that we are all egotistical to a degree...unless perhaps there is some final enlightened state whether that's non-existence or complete non-attachment.
But it can be more or less prevalent as I understand it. That is, whether it manifests most obviously as more identification, or more vanity, more self-consciousness, more attachments, more emotional clinging, more defending, more alignment with form as self-substance, more investment in illusion and opinion, etc and so on, or whether through the process of wisdom growth the ego naturally dissipates. That lessening or that experience is difficult to describe, egolessness, oneness, etc.

One possible view on the subject:
"How much 'ego' do you need? Just enough so that you don't step in front of a bus."
-Shunryu Suzuki
My focus here is really about society and which elements you think are worthy or protecting or caring about.
I just can't see how anything in society focused around 'enjoying' this fleeting lifetime of suffering could be beneficial. I have always taken the first noble truth very literally, suffering also referring to things like pain, sorrow, stress, etc.

Praying cannot save a person from the cycle of suffering, that is obvious to me. Attempting to achieve immortality through technology cannot save a person from the cycle of suffering, that is obvious to me. So either the mind-experience/existence (reality itself in my view) comes to an end at 'death', which is absurd to me, or it continues, in which case nothing of any self-substance can be taken with you (just as nothing can be taken with you day by day).
All that carries on in reality are causal 'energies', habits, perpetuation, which in a sense defy impermanence. All form is impermanent, that to me is undeniable. However, the 'qualities' of what reality is are permanent, and then there is the momentum of cause and effect, which is not permanent, but is an impermanent stream with direction/continuation, so to speak.

Hence, assuming this understanding of life after life is true, absolutely nothing is worthy of caring about save for perpetuating those habits. And nothing in the world can help you with that save for free time for reading, listening, discussion, contemplation, meditation, introspection, and certain experiences perhaps, tho it may be difficult to say which ones.

And if death were actually the end of existence, or it was not possible for even karma to follow one, then there would be no benefit in any of it. Logically only worldliness, pleasure and happiness would be worth anything, and perhaps seeking after longevity. There would be no use for wasting one's time on philosophy.

This is not some idea I want to be true Diebert, it is something I reason and attempt to follow despite desires and temptations which one can easily go chasing for their whole life.
Yes, as I noted before: the human condition. The difference perhaps here is that you might think it's like a disease and you are "curing" your self from it. To me that's more like a charming, naive and ultimately distracting view.
Attachment to the world is a bit like a disease in that it causes incomprehensible suffering.
Ultimately Diebert, all any of us rely on is our personal 'sense of things' and those inevitably appear to others to be mostly empty space with some substance here and there inter-dispersed between gaps in reasoning which I cannot reasonably be expected to fill without writing a few books worth perhaps.
You seem to advocate again the pointlessness of discussing this at all? At least Alex went the "few books" route.
It could be questioned and should be questioned, if you dare, how true that perception actually is. It only needs a sliver of doubt and curiosity, a little "what if" to work its way.
Questioning, challenging, and re-questioning, would all be part of the process and included in contemplation, etc.

What about a situation of say, having more than 50 waking, active hours per week available for anything else someone would like to do?
Sounds alright.
That all hinges on what you think "self" is and why you've even want to save it and from what exactly. These are all perfect meditational questions to explore inwardly! Do you actually meditate or are you just spacing out, minimizing your troubles?
I've explained the first part.
Yes they are, I think all sorts of meditation are useful, even if they ought not to count as meditation? Such as simple isolated contemplation or attempting to answer questions like of free will, or reason out what is true. Beyond that, inward exploration which is something ineffable really, as well contemplation on feeling/experience, 'observation', and the attempt to focus one's mind, the area of focus can vary, even trying to engage in clear and directed (if it's possible) verbal thought seems extremely useful to me.

I think anyone who denies the great and near constant suffering of existence is just that, living in denial. So even if someone were just keeping ones eyes closed to minimize troubles that would still make a hundred times more sense than defending a life of suffering as if that were some virtue or wiser path, it's almost laughable and I consider people who deny that life is suffering to be objectively insane. Even with a good life, i.e, no illness, health, youth, etc, life is still obviously full of it. It is as absolutely certain as existence itself. The vain simply drown their minds and thoughts out with so much desire and sensual pleasure/distraction that even the most obvious truths are beyond their recognition or admission.

I'm just focusing on what has not been said or reasoned
And are always unwilling to entertain ideas as if they were true and explore where that leads.
people stilling their cravings seem to have ended up pushing little to advance the world
"Advance" is completely relative.
Anything what is seen or intuited is already language; there's already a conversation.
It's as far from a conversation as it gets tho. It can be a flash of insight or sense of things.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Return to body, substance & meaning

Post by Pam Seeback » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:03 am

John to Diebert: All form is impermanent, that to me, is undeniable. However, the ‘qualities’ of what is are permanent and then there is the momentum of cause and effect, which is not permanent, but is an impermanent stream with direction/continuation, so to speak.
Even if there were permanent qualities of a direction of ‘what is’, you as consciousness cannot know what they are. This is revealed via the insight of dependent origination and emptiness. Clinging to belief that one will know or does know what this direction of absoluteness is causes unnecessary suffering.
Hence, assuming this understanding of life after life is true, absolutely nothing is worthy of caring about save for perpetuating these habits. And nothing in the world can help you with that save free time for reading, listening, discussion, contemplation, meditation, introspection, and certain experiences perhaps, tho it may be difficult to say which ones.
You acknowledge that understanding of life after life is an assumption yet continue to seek it as if it is not. Again, you are burdening yourself with intense, unnecessary suffering. Which, as it turns out, is of great value.
And if death were actually the end of existence, or it was not possible for even karma to follow one, then were would be no benefit in any of it. Logically only worldliness, pleasure and happiness would be worth anything, and perhaps seeking after longevity. There would be no use for wasting one’s time on philosophy.
From where you sit now, hanging onto the thread of belief that 'what is' will be revealed to you, it is understandable why you believe that if 'what is' is not revealed that philosophy is a waste of time. Perhaps, just perhaps, the 'waste of time' of philosophy shall turn out to be its reason d'etre. :-)
This is not some idea I want to be true Diebert, it is something I reason and attempt to follow despite desires and temptations which one can easily go chasing for their whole life.
Since you have already acknowledged that life after life is an assumption, not a truth, then perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that reasoning is the way of conscious life? Which can translate into acceptance of subjective reasonableness (moving forward on collective uncertainty while resting on faith of reasoning) as the highest ideal by which to live. As I see it, not only does reasonableness cover the masculine ideal of living a truthful life, but the feminine ideal of caring and finding pleasure (in living a truthful [reasonable] life). It would seem to me that when the Buddha spoke of the middle way, he was speaking of living in the world wisely as to do so via reasoning the truth.
I think anyone who denies the great and near constant suffering of existence is just that, living in denial.
I agree that there is suffering, but it is the doing of philosophy that puts an end to the ‘near constant’ aspect by revealing how consciousness actually works, not how we think it should work.

Post Reply