Diebert wrote:A man gotta do what a man gotta do. Certainly the examples given on the forum of sages and thinkers do not reveal that much outer freedom or well-being on display. Intensity, for sure. Dedication, passion and counter current. And the desire to boil it all down to essence, to strength, to powerful statements wherever possible?
Santiago wrote:Well, what I think is that if this is your definition of enlightenment, I venture to say that it is 100% personal, quite peculiar to your own self, and it also seems to have little connection with the term 'enlightenment' as it is used universally. Yet I do not have many issues with your definition. I venture to say --- please correct me anyone --- that your definition is quite different from that of John (Seeker), very different from that of Pam, and just as distinct from that of Dan and, good heavens, a radically different posture than that of David.
If yours is the definition of 'enlightenment', you have defined it out of existence.
I think you have, and very much, if perhaps inadvertently, revealed quite clearly where you place the axis and center of gravity. In essence, this is an encapsulation of your understanding of 'enlightenment'. It is, of course, the direct result and the product of your philosophical project and it largely explains why you are here, why the webs that have been spun here attract you, and how it has come about that you have made for yourself such a solid home for your philosophy-spinning self. Sorry to play on the arachnoid theme but it is oddly fitting I think. The philosophical mother, the unending web of philosophical spinning, but a spinning that at some point turns strictly on itself, though the woven web is extraordinary, dazzling, alluring.
Factually, there is no point in any of your writing where I can say that I recognize a man who has arrived at a solution for himself. But I notice, constantly, a man who goes on spinning & spinning. Now, this does not bother me per se. Except that you, Diebert, 'occur' within this particular GF web. You come forward, is it were, in a context and you also 'explain' that context to a significant degree. Or perhaps you don't? How can one assess this?
Yes, it is certainly true that, essentially, I am more interested in the overarching, the complete, the unified and the unifying religious vision which is created by man in man's imagination. But these terms, which imply 'unreality' (imagination is not understood to be 'real'), have to be plumbed. Just as I said a while back --- before the 'techincal difficulties' which resulted in my hiatus --- you are a product, a direct product, in facrt moreso than I am, or more directly so, of a specific religious heritage. I think that you share this with David. Yet, and it is obvious, *that which has informed you* is quite recognizably Protestant whereas David shows, at every turn, his formation within Catholicism. These things, I surmise, occur at foundational levels. But I do not mention this as a means to insult or demean you (or anyone) but only to point out that we all come out of a specific European tradition, and out of a Medieval worlldview, which is being dismantled, or has been dismantled, or has fallen down, or has partially fallen down, and is in any case going through endless permutations in its process of descent.
And out of this people attempt to recover, protect, restructure, rebuild, some 'personal edifice' around which they can enjoy some protection, and live, and thrive or at least carry on ... or hobble on as the case may be.
Thus, I find it interesting to make enquiries --- to probe --- the recesses of your web-spinning self. My question is Do you see this as fairgame? Or, do you see this as 'invasion of one's sacred and priivate space'?
Finally, and yes, I think that philosophy, as you speak about it, and as the monument that you have established for your self with it, is decidely not enough for a man. That is just my opinion. But I notice that you attempt to make more of a home (and hence the references, hurmous I hope, to webs and spinners and endless silvery labyrinths) within these volatile musings than the structure of them allows. And how could you argue differently? Mental constructs are just that.
So, the question --- and it seems to me the core question of GF --- is how does a man discover the bedrock that undergirds this Reality. David has an answer. John really does seem to have an answer-of-sorts (or his certainties will eventuate in some level of declaration). Russell seems to desire to find it, to establish is, to have it.
This is not a philosophy forum, Diebert, it is in its essence a religion forum. That has always been my take on it. And I do not think you could successfully prove it otherwise. Man seeks, and man requires, a complete and a 'religious' view. He needs it, I suppose, just as he needs and cannot do without the physical structure of his body. These correlate one with the other.