Sue,
Cory: Well, personally I do think that I know the truth, and I do feel I am attached to this sense of truth.
Sue: I can't recall what your “truth†is. Could you in a sentence or two tell me about it?
There are what appear to be fragmented ‘truths’ and there is ‘truth’.
I think it’s difficult for people to understand how all of the apparent truths can be rolled into one whole and thus be regarded as a singular truth rather than a pluralism of different fragmented truths.
For instance, despite the dictionary definition of elitism does not mention anything about attachment, and despite the dictionary definition or even the Buddhist explanation of attachment says nothing about elitism – I see them both – elitism and attachment - as one whole dynamic.
One cannot truly understand elitism without understanding attachment and vice versa.
However, those two factors as one whole cannot be truly understood unless you see this one whole (being comprised of attachment and elitism) as a constituent, a mere part of a myriad of other factors.
So the ultimate truth is that no particular thing inherently exists.
There is only a causal relationship that, if faced up to honestly, can only be regarded as an abyss.
To elaborate:
Acknowledging facts such as the fact of belief, thought, fear, anxiety, the pain of inferiority, the security one derives via a sense of superiority, the sense of superiority one derives off of dominating via ones beliefs combined with the passion, efficiency and health of ones organism, the sense of malicious glee that arises in reaction to acknowledging that which we prefer to be worse than who we think we are – all of these facts are truths – however, none can be made sense of unless you see the relationship each has with the other.
Therefore, truths indeed can be regarded as one whole truth.
However, the one whole truth is infinitely complicated and to honestly acknowledge this unfathamoble abyss of causality, one is required to passionately investigate.
I say that if the investigation is passionate enough (in otherwords if ones love of truth is passionate enough) we are brought up against the abyss, and it is turning our gaze away from this abyss that gives us character.
To have character is to be attached, and to be attached is to be elitist.
And upon considering the fact of the abyss, I am compelled to point out how humans tend to become overwhelmed and frightened by acknowledging
too much complexity.
In regards to the overwhelming level of complexity that we acknowledge when we face the abyss, I say that having ‘Character’ is often a defense against the threat of helplessness and madness.
Humans establish character, via the all-too human tendency to take from complexity (often unconsciously) what they feel is relevant and critical (as opposed to trivial or just too impractical) and thus they make untrue the truth of the situation in order to defend themselves from the abyss, but sometimes they take from the abyss and express themselves in a way that helps humanity acknowledge this abyss.
Anyways Sue – there’s a few sentences for you.
Based on what you read, do you think I love truth?
Cory: This explains my elitist behavior.
Sue: What sort of “elitist behaviour†do you indulge in?
If someone writes a post that I think is shallow, pretentious, irrational, foolish – even just plain rotten – I tell them so.
I think this is elitist because 1) I am judging my self as superior to the self of the person I am rebuking, and 2) I don’t think ‘friendly, affectionate, warm and supportive’ are words that could be appropriately used for describing my criticism (or often even worse; my sheer indifference) for someone who I judge as ‘presently if not irredeemably rotten’.
Those who I perceive as sufficiently superior (not necessarily superior ‘compared’ to me, or not necessarily ‘more’ superior ‘than’ me) I give more supportive and friendly treatment to - - however - - this favorable treatment I do give is not idyll, frivolous, and unproductive.
I feel that, despite the tone of my response is a friendly one, the exchange should always retain a certain tension. One must never give too much slack. I equate giving slack mostly with being too jokey, jokey – bordering on just plain flirtatiousness and silliness, and I also equate giving slack with giving praise and flattery.
Maybe a bit of encouragement is good, but often one can encourage without congratulating, praising, and flattering.
The progress of someone showing promise often quickly steers off course once you congratulate them too excessively or prematurely for whatever qualities that you seemed to think were positive in that person at that time.
Cory: However, I can't count the number of times my sensibiltiy of truth has gotten undermined throughout my life. Nor can I count the times I've witnessed someone who thought they knew the truth, become undermined by greater truth.
Sue: Do you think the “truth†you have now can be “undermined�
I would say that I do have a foundation that cannot be undermined.
In my opening sentences I illustrated my understanding of relationship/causality, how each thing is inherently non-existent, and how facing the abyss is facing up to the fact of how ones conceptions of causality are always false.
I dont see how this truth can be undermined.
Above and beyond this foundation, I find the only thing that can be undermined and destroyed within me is the conceptions of causality that I think are relevant to talk about.
Despite I understand the limitations of my conceptions, I feel they are relevant in regards to my present concerns.
The hezbolah and Israel thread is an illustration of ‘character’ dynamics.
It is very obvious that character is born via conceptions of causality.
Each person is going to have slightly to greatly different conceptions and thus characters and thus we have slight and sometimes great clashes.
I think the hezbolah and Israel thread is also a great example of how important an open mind is in regards to honestly discerning the truth of the sociological interactions and exchanges going on in distant lands and how they relate to us.
I find it particularly peculiar, enlightening and humorous watching self-professed lovers of truth (namely Rowden and Solway, but others as well) disagree over the truth.
Cory: In my case, it is almost always me who undermines myself.
Sue: I’d say that that is the only way a thought can be undermined. Whether or not you read something, hear something, or think something that alters your understanding in some way, it is at base always you who accepts or rejects this new information. Your ‘acceptance’ means that the new information fits well into your world view. ‘Rejection’ means that it doesn’t. So no one else really has any control over what we think, since our thoughts arise from our own unique set of circumstances: such as, our genetics, our sex, our attachments and our environment. This means that ten people can hear or read the same words, and yet all ten will have a slightly different interpretation of those words.
I agree with this. And sue, this is a good example of how a persons ‘character’(character being the result of how one has organized ones conception of causality) becomes undermined with the help of someone else who has a more simplified and effective conception of causality.
In this case sue, you are ‘in part’ doing my thinking for me -
even though, in order to be undermined by you, I do have to 'let' you undermine me and thus undermine myself.
Despite I agree with you, I still want to stress the distinction between being pushed by ones own discontent with oneself and being pulled by the discontent another person has with you.
Often, people become discontented with their own character only after they come face to face with greater logic and courage being displayed by another or others.
Without being prodded by the initiative of others, perhaps one would have continued chewing their cud contentedly.
Sometimes I am prodded awake by the initiative and superior sharpness and passion of another person in a particular moment.
In other words, people are doing a great deal of my thinking for me - despite that, yes, I do have to think on my own initiative in order to understand how the person who is prodding me is thinking, however, perhaps I never would have gotten to his level on my own if it wasn’t for his thinking?
Other times (and I feel more often) I undermine my character simply because there is a gnawing discontent with how I have explained things to myself.
It is this discontent with myself that compels me to think, investigate and research.
Often this self-initiated thinking produces a better way of looking at things, and this better way of looking things undermines/displaces the old character, giving birth to a slightly or severely modified persona.
But you are correct to say - one can only undermine oneself.
However, sometimes the rebuke of another can be so effectively and clearly conveyed, that all you can do grin/shake your head, undergo a pang of shame and submit to the truth of what you formally preffered to be untrue.
