Jupiviv v QSR
Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:51 pm
In another context Jupiviv expressed some views that are worth exploring - maybe:
I'm being pedantic here but I think it's appropriate. I hate the use of the term 'organic' but truthfully the process of being less delusional is actually quite organic. There's effort and suffering, initially, but as specific understandings accumulate and take hold there is a diminution of both suffering and any sense of 'acquirement'. It's more like a process of 'becoming', to express it in somewhat New Agey parlance. Wisdom is a lot more accidental and karma-reliant than I'm sometimes prepared to admit.
You are correct in observing that this dynamic is not how people normally [statistically] work, but that observation seems like an excuse rather than an argument as to why it can't be that way for you, or, potentially, for any person that is otherwise not clinically incapable of being a soul of greater reason. If you have an argument for how EGO is hard-wired, by all means make it. We 'know' from experiments with DMT that it is not. I'm not suggesting that 'enlightenment' is some kind of self-induced DMT trip, only that our conventional sense of 'self' is not hard-wired. Your apparent scepticism that a transcendence of said EGO is possible through mere contemplation alone is totally fair enough, but it is also not an argument against the possibility.
I'll have to break this down to specific ideas hopefully without losing the overall theme (yes I know 'themes' are really dangerous things):So the reason I think your employment of QRS phraseology is vague and pointless because you substitute the process of gaining wisdom (i.e. willingness to be honest about everything no matter the cost) with individual or serial acts of reasoning about various logical constructs (absolute truths) and their applications within different contexts. In other words, the thing which you assert as a necessary condition of wisdom also turns out to be the substance of wisdom itself.
For example, you urge the necessity of understanding "non-existence" because figuring out why various things are non-existent will stop us from attaching ourselves to them. After a while spent doing this, we will also naturally realise that we ourselves are non-existent, and hence become free of our core delusions. This *sounds* logical enough but it's really just a story built around a bunch of assumptions! People just don't function that way, even people obsessed with seeking wisdom.
I'm not sure 'gaining' is the best descriptor you should have in your head regarding the process. I'm sceptical as to how useful words that denote 'acquisition' really are. 'Gaining' connotes 'achievement' and I'm uncomfortable with that psychological paradigm, depending on what is understood by it. Wisdom is more about loss than gain. i.e. the loss of delusion. Sure, there are some things you come to understand, but mostly it's a process of casting off false ideas and the effects/affects that has on the modification of consciousness.I think your employment of QRS phraseology is vague and pointless because you substitute the process of gaining wisdom
I'm being pedantic here but I think it's appropriate. I hate the use of the term 'organic' but truthfully the process of being less delusional is actually quite organic. There's effort and suffering, initially, but as specific understandings accumulate and take hold there is a diminution of both suffering and any sense of 'acquirement'. It's more like a process of 'becoming', to express it in somewhat New Agey parlance. Wisdom is a lot more accidental and karma-reliant than I'm sometimes prepared to admit.
This is surely a prerequisite for a search for Truth, but 'cost' is something one can only calculate a reasonable distance down the path. I may be wrong but I don't recall anyone saying Truth was a requirement for human survival. Pretty sure Nietzsche intimated once or twice that it might even be incompatible with such (so long as human nature stayed the same). It's a matter of values. Truth may not possess us with sufficient force such that we hold it above all other values. That's ok. It's psychologically and statistically normal. Truth is, we are quite mad. I guess in really pragmatic terms the question is: how fucking nuts are you?(i.e. willingness to be honest about everything no matter the cost)
This simply means you have not been imbued with the Holy QSR Spirit. It's ok, it can come at a huge expense, like your 'sanity'. The pivotal point here is how intellectual understanding gets incorporated into the broader consciousness and how that broader consciousness responds to it. I can't tell you how many people I've met who can never accommodate the deeper meaning of A=A. But that does not mean such an accommodation is not possible, or desirable, or that it is literally life and consciousness altering.After a while spent doing this, we will also naturally realise that we ourselves are non-existent, and hence become free of our core delusions. This *sounds* logical enough but it's really just a story built around a bunch of assumptions! People just don't function that way, even people obsessed with seeking wisdom.
You are correct in observing that this dynamic is not how people normally [statistically] work, but that observation seems like an excuse rather than an argument as to why it can't be that way for you, or, potentially, for any person that is otherwise not clinically incapable of being a soul of greater reason. If you have an argument for how EGO is hard-wired, by all means make it. We 'know' from experiments with DMT that it is not. I'm not suggesting that 'enlightenment' is some kind of self-induced DMT trip, only that our conventional sense of 'self' is not hard-wired. Your apparent scepticism that a transcendence of said EGO is possible through mere contemplation alone is totally fair enough, but it is also not an argument against the possibility.
So you have an issue with the fact that red is red? It ought not be surprising that a necessary condition of wisdom is wisdom itself. Non-attachment is wisdom. But one has to understand what non-attachment is and how it manifests. Your words seem to indicate you don't quite get this. Non-attachment is not a position, a posture, an understanding, a piece of knowledge, a metaphysic. It is the natural consequence of the dissolution of ignorance and delusion. It's like an adult casting off the fantasies of childhood.In other words, the thing which you assert as a necessary condition of wisdom also turns out to be the substance of wisdom itself.