movingalways wrote:This forum is about wisdom of the infinite of which you are an intrinsic part as I am an intrinsic part.
Why not stupidity of the infinite? Or wisdom of the finite? Or an extrinsic part of nothing? All of these phrases have the same amount of
meaning. What benefit do we gain by choosing the halves of a few dualities with the most pleasant connotations to describe ourselves?
movingalways wrote:Therefore, it is not belief in a religion or my desire to promote my flavor of moral values and biases that brings me to question you about the plausibility of the passion of compassion as a post enlightenment philosophy, but the logical truth of what enlightenment allows you to realize, the connectivity of all things.
(emphasis added)
I strongly disagree. Enlightenment allows you to realize the illusory nature of
all dualities, including connectivity (another name for the thing-in-itself) vs. dis-connectivity of all things. All things are no more "connected" than they are "disconnected". Both are nonsensical, illogical metaphysical jibberish and hardly the basis for an intelligent morality.
movingalways wrote:I am not saying you are not free to hate or feel malice for the universe of which all things are ontologically bound including 'you', but how is this a logical passion given that you can't actually hurt or kill the eternal universe?
You're right that you can't hurt or kill the "eternal universe" (thing-in-itself), but nor can you love or help it. It's irrational to feel any emotions for it.
I'm not really interested in any
universal emotions. I don't believe in pure love or pure hatred; I think of them just like hot and cold, that you can't experience one without the other.
Every morality of feeling
universal emotions seems to be an idealism of some
other world at the expense and slander of this world. I suppose there's no reason that a post-enlightened being couldn't assume that type of morality, but it doesn't seem very smart, practical, or realistic to me. This is the clash of our biases.
movingalways wrote:Even if one doesn't consider the ontological illogic of the passion of hatred, the passion of hating is illogical from the practical psychological standpoint that it does not promote well being, either for oneself or the world.
I strongly disagree. I suppose it depends how you define well-being. If you think well-being is things like strength, intelligence, passion, motivation, competition, war, and desire, as I do, then the opposite of what you said is true: hatred is required, suffering enhances, etc. If you think well-being is a world without suffering or pain where we'd all happily graze as a herd of cattle, or a giant playpen where we all scurry around as happy babies for our lives, then I suppose you idealize universal love, equality, elimination of suffering, and so on. You are idealizing some
other world, whereas I am idealizing the existing world and only interested in making a subjective impact in it.
movingalways wrote:One can be detached from pleasure and pain and feel compassion for the universe when one understands what detachment is.
The "universe" (thing-in-itself) doesn't need your compassion. ;-)