It’s different for different people, i think; an engineer needs a more formal, articulated knowledge; the fabricator needs a more proceedural knowledge. The philosopher needs to understand that understanding is contextual but; i think it’s more of an obstacle to get around than it is an absolute limitation.
Mine neither but, hey, it’s never stopped me before. Interesting take; thinking about it… to me, spiritually, Truth doesn’t look like information. Maybe it has to do with wisdom, the nature of wisdom. The proton has no delusion of ego; its nature presents its wisdom without the need for understanding. We have two cats; one looks at you in the mirror, meows, and turns her head to see your response; the other is a female that pees to mark territory, and the mirror is just another part of the wall. The one that pees wreaks of wisdom and feels no pain, the other is angry most of the time. Mine is the one that’s angry (surprise surprise.)
Hence our division of labor, and the responsibility of philosophers and spiritualists.
Absolutely; it’s the relevance of perspective to understanding, yes?
As i see it, this is a perspective from ego; in the absence of ego, wisdom is immediate and inate.
It is for us to elucidate the mechanisms of delusion in order that we might think more clearly.
“Let it be” seems to respect inate wisdom when applied externally. Before it can be applied internally the delusion of ego must be considered; and the fact that one exists in community complicates this matter, respecting the division of labor previously mentioned.
“Let it be” as a general rule seems fine except when it comes to the compromise of the Sadducees.
I’m thinking maybe the sadducees would have to have been ‘cynical,’ and when you couple that with the eclipse of the cynic in greek culture you get a dangerous situation when it comes to an application of the doctine of ‘let it be.’ Christ could not let the moneychangers in the temple be (a moneychange in the temple might, in a more general sense, be a catgegory mistake.) I’m thinking the jewish community of the time did achieve communal consciousness, and that scared the shit out of the romans. The sadducees of that community could not let it be, they insisted on a strict interpretation of the torah (does that make sense? They had to let the torah be.) The cynic has to let their role be, and speak up.
The cynic can’t let it be. I’ve chosen to cast my net as wide as possible; in a fundamental sense i view self as a global structure, and try to feel my brotherhood with all of humanity; hence my need to vocalize.
Were you at a BBQ or something or did some jackass just barge in on your conversation at Denny’s? Regardless of ones opinion on religion, it’s a shame to see good manners and common courtesy go out the window.
It seems to me that all of the whys must be answered within ourselves first. Given that, all experience offers the opportunity to bring a bit more benifience to the world than malignancy. There is no such thing as perfectly benign action. Whatever we bring that is positive carries with it it’s opposite. But we can tip the scales in favor of positive actions. Historically, religious fervor waxes and wains, but those who find their spiritual connections appears to be a constant: the tiny minority, here and there… There are no allies in the sense of acting out. There is only sharing as each pursues their own vision. Still, the lamp has never gone out, and while there is no way for me to ‘know’ why, it seems purposeful. As I think on it, if genuine spirituality were easy to find, then it would quickly become the mundane and dismissable. Our constant thirst for wanting to know what is on the other side of the mountain is our stumbling block. Few are capable of seeing that there is here and it is in acting in each moment that we are given both insight and right action.
But that is too simple. There must be a hidden trick. We must keep looking…
You have no idea what I understand. That you presume so much knowing is precisely what has alienated you from practically every serious person in ILP. You’re blind to yourself pretending to see. Take your judgemental attitude, your “objective” metaphysical knowing, your collection of quotes from all of your experts, and disappear. Knowing isn’t understanding, but that is a difference that seems to not be part of your capabilities.
I know that you don’t understand what you are talking about because of how you act. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to see that. I alienate because I am honest and faithful to the idea central to the core of all the great teachings that Man is asleep, including allof us, and as such cannot conceive of his nothingness or as Paul put it: the Wretched Man. Those that suggest such a thing are always outcasts. Yes, some like to imagine awakening and sometimes have momentary experiences that quickly become lost through the expression of “wonderful” thoughts
Of course the expert intellects over here are insulted but it is what it is so my function now is to, as Simone most pointedly expressed, to “Annoy the Great Beast.”
Anyone can be Mr.Wonderful and express lovely thoughts. So I’ll keep congratulating you and others on your lovely thoughts.
Who knows, on occasion I may run into some here willing to wipe the New Age mayonnaise out of their eyes and become open to the reality of the human condition, the collective mess we are in, and what if anything can be done as a conscious human response. Such rare individuals are good to know.
So just keep expressing “Wonderful Thoughts” while imagining you understand something, and I will sigh.
Your words are so pathetic. You have no idea how I act, and that is the point. You are so caught up in your tiny little point of view that some of us only imagine we’re awake? That is an utterly foolish statement. That would include almost everyone in this website. I do understand one thing: Your willingness to continue attempting to sidetrack every thread you enter is definitely going to receive an appropriate response. “Annoying the great beast” may be your function, but you may be given the opportunity to practice your “art” some place else.
The fact of imagining we are awake is essential to Plato’s Cave analogy. It is not just some of us but the great majority, including the experts on this site, that are asleep in Plato’s cave. In the old days before the official takeover by NewAge nonsense, this used to be meaningful philosophy prompting a spiritual question within one beginning to open to reality.
Sighing and expressing the splendor of reading such “Wonderful thoughts” doesn’t sidetrack a thread. It contributres to the wonderfulness.
If I am kicked our for defending Plato and Simone and their relationship to Christianity that emphsizes the fallen human condition Man is largely unaware of, then, of course it will be different.
The human condition referred to by the ancients in one form or another as “Man Asleep” is either true or it is not. Granted there are degrees of consciouosness so"sleep"is a relative term but the basic question of man’s overestimation of his presence, will, consciousness, sense of self, or other such beliefs are open to question and must be questioned if religious philosophy is to have any meaning.
It is not something that can be compromised through imagination. The situation either exists or it doesn’t. The fact that I believe and have verified it within my own presence is true for me. I cannot change it nor would I want to change it for the sake of political correctness and some sort of group feel good philosophy. I’ve seen the results of too many of those ventures. I believe it more ethical to be honest at the cost of insulting those foolish enough to allow themselves to be insulted. There is too much at stake in the real world to blindly cater to this cutsey pooh approach.
The fact that you find it annoying is irrelevent. That is how I believe it is and an intelligent minority in the real world will agree with me. I know since I steal ideas from them.
Amazing! Supporting the importance of the knowledge of the Platonic idea of man asleep is considered “militant??” I can see war in the streets breaking out over which army considers itself more asleep.
How many militants are defending honourable ideas? How many people are willing to die and take others with them, because of the “truth”? Militants are assured that the only way to react to oppression is to “rage against the machine” or “annoy the beast”! This isn’t about what it seems to be about. It is about the Armenian Holocaust, how your family suffered loss and now the lonely Nick has to fight until he falls, even if it is only on the internet in an unimportant Discussion Forum.
You are taking a militant stance and seem to be begging to be a martyr. I can’t see what you mean to achieve, but I’m sure that it is less than you think. But it must have something to do with your psychological state. How can this issue be so important to you? How can these people be important?
I believe that they are not important, but the fight you imagine yourself to be fighting is important to your ego. It isn’t as it seems - true words. But have you applied them to yourself? Let it be Nick, please!
Bob, after reading all of this i have come to the conclusion you are a good man (i’m assuming male with the name and picture) i would hope there are more of you not only on ilp, but in the world, thank you
It is not right to equate the attitudes of militancy with those of concerned people. Jesus was willing to die for the purpose of nullifying the truths of the results of collective karma. In the secular sense, Rosa Parks finally got fed up and refused to be bullied. If you are against their efforts, it is natural to call them militants. If you are in favor, you would call them leaders inspiring human development.
One doesn’t annoy the Great Beast by militancy. the Great Beast is annoyed by intelligence "The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic, represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil.
Militancy verifies the nature of the Beast. To the contrary, it is reason that annoys it:
The reasoning required to voluntarily acquire the courage to verify the human condition Plato referred to both in the world and within oneself is the most offensive of them all as exemplified on this board.
Don’t forget my Russian side killed in the Russian Revolution on there way out of a Church.
This is why I can respect the Jewish position that seeks to continually clarify human nature and these patterns of cyclical abuse. They’ve lost theirs in a similar way as those like me have lost ours. So we understand each other and aware of the nature of the Great Beast.
The fight is about the right of expression of the great philosophical ideas that existed in the time of Plato and are carried on in the esoteric Christian tradition. One of these assertions is man’s nothingness. It is very offensive for those whose lives are verified by cave life but if philosophy is to have a freeing effect for mankind, such ideas have to be seriously considered. When censored is the time to become more militant because a sensitive minority are being deprived of ideas necessary to make their lives meaningful. So yes, I will fight for the sake of those that have died due to our collective stupidity and worship of the ways of the Great Beast.
I’ve seen its effects and the horrors it has done to people in real life. I know what this bully mentality does. Some must be willing to stand against its militancy through intelligence if philosophy is to have any meaning other than as an excuse to argue.
If I get kicked out for defending the value of ideas introduced by Plato and Simone because they are annoying, that will be a beginning…
I truly wish you could step back and look at what you imply in your pov.
You call others here supporters of "the great beast’.
And so in one post you declare anyone who fails to agree with you as unintelligent and incapable of reasoning, and set yourself up as ‘someone through intelligence’ as a defender of the ideas ‘introduced by Plato and Simone.’ Either you don’t understand your insulting inferences or you are lost in arrogance.
That there are other viewpoints, equally valid, requiring both intelligence and reasoning ability, is lost on you. There is only one POV, and it is yours and yours alone. Sometimes Nick, over-estimating our intelligence can lead us into blind alleys. Please wake up.
I don’t know if you misunderstand intentionally or what your motive is but by definition the cave is filled with many of a particular kind of associative intelligence and its associated empirical forms of knowledge. Doctors, lawyers, engineers and so on can be very intelligent in this form but completely ignorant of the human perspective asserted by Plato as the greater real intelligence making the empirical forms we value shadows of Great knowledge of human purpose and potential.
If Plato is right, what does it say about those on the board that seeks to defend empirical knowledge as the standard of intelligence and the glorification of imagination that denies people the opportunity to experience the human condition?
When the lower form becomes dominant, it becomes the property of the Great Beast and its emotional expression that lead both to objective societal good and War depending upon which way the wind is blowing.
It is what it is and some people must have the guts not to deny and avoid it by temporarily covering it over in globs of spiritual mayonnaise until the Great Beast is in the mood for destruction.
I agree with Plato. I know this is a great insult on a philosophy site.
And what if Plato got it wrong? What if he got it only partly right? And how does Plato’s observations invalidate the other great thinkers of the same epoch? And just who is demanding ‘empirical knowledge as the standard of intelligence’? Your attempt to funnel all understanding through the writings of Plato may fit your needs, but there are other points of view equally valid in the appraisal of the human condition. You seem to deny and dismiss this.
I find it amusing that I spend the majority of my posting in religion talking about our inability to ‘know’ the metaphysical, or pointing out the inadequacy of language, and yet you call that ‘wonderfulness’? That you deny the validity of any viewpoint other than your own is what brings the resistance and resentment. It has nothing to do with the writings of Plato or Weil.
I find it strange that others can discuss Plato without the polarization you seem to need to bolster your martyrdom. You can’t insult a philosophy site, but you can alienate all around you in your dismissal of any POV but your own.
Again, and I say this with no animosity, please wake up.
