The Eagle and the Chicken

Hi All

Jerry wrote on another thread from which I was asked to go away but is important enough to consider non the less:

But what happens when a lion believes itself a mouse or an eagle is conditioned to believing itself a chicken? It may survive but at what cost? The cost has become the human condition.

The whole purpose of religion initially was to free man of conditioning and its resultant preconceptions. It requires becoming open to reality at the expense of egotism established on imagination. What the cultural side has become is another matter. But how many are willing to have the courage to sacrifice the joys and validations of defensive imagination in order to become open to accept the human condition as the essential beginning?

I’m not sure we’re saying different things, Nick. That quote (I don’t know who said it originally…Martin Landau said it in Woody Allen’s “Crimes and Misdemeanors”) is about finding your true self, your true being, as opposed to the ego self, the conditioned self.

(Or, as Bagger Vance said, your authentic swing. “You lost your swing. We got to go find it…”)

I’m quoting movies, everyone. Sue me. I’m out of original thoughts.

“The whole purpose of religion initially was to free man of conditioning and its resultant preconceptions.”

This seems completely backwards. Having to worship a deity, or anything, creates conditioning. Having to adhere to certain behavioral standards creates conditioning as well. Religion was created to condition people towards certain behaviors and away from others.

“It requires becoming open to reality at the expense of egotism established on imagination.”

This sentence makes little sense. Certainly the concept of reality is subjective and maybe that is what one becomes open to, I’m not sure. Also, is egoism the thing that is based on imagination? If so, you again have it backwards. The “I” is real as the thoughts and perceptions of a person are happening. However, the religious “letting go” that you speak of is not as “real” as you think. Rather, it is the case that the imagination has simply fooled itself into thinking that it is and that is a function of the ego.

“What the cultural side has become is another matter.”

If you think about it everything is a continuum. Religion has not stopped since it began, thus whatever it has become today is directly linked to yesterday. It’s evolution. So, your nostalgic thoughts are just that. The “fine old” ideas made what is today. They grew into it.

“But how many are willing to have the courage to sacrifice the joys and validations of defensive imagination in order to become open to accept the human condition as the essential beginning?”

This is babble. The term “defense imagination” is a flip-flop on the truth and the “accept the human condition” part is bamboozlement.

You should sit down and clean up your thought process.

Adlerian

Well, that's a bit of a jump there. Everything repetitive creates conditioning, that doensn't mean that's what it's for. Tennis is a reptitive sport, I'm sure it generates certain conditioned responses very quickly if you want to be good at it- that doesn't mean that tennis was created to condition people towards certain behaviors. It's a game, with all that entails. 
 Religion conditions people, certainly. But why suppose that's what it's for? That calls up a conspiracy. I think it's more likely that the founders of the first religions sincerely believed the things they were teaching (with exceptions here and there), and were trying to achieve the spiritual goals they openly claimed to be after. 
Well, coming from a perspective of atheism, of course that's what religion is. What else [i]could[/i] it be? Now, I happen to disagree with Nick here- I think the "I" is as real as God, as real as rocks and dirt. I wouldn't call any of those things subjective because they are things [i]in themselves[/i].  But you do contradict yourself here- If I am to think that the "I" is real, and my thoughts and perceptions are really happening, how am I to know that a religious experience is merely 'the imagination fooling itself'?  Again, unless I am just stubbornly atheistic, it seems to me that my personal experiences would [i]outweigh[/i] things like the claims of psychologists or scientists, with the emphasis you place on the "I" as real and reality as subjective.

I felt a little guilty posting that, because who wants to be mean to Nick? Frankly, I have read few of his posts because the topics being covered, rather than anything having to do with him.

All of that aside, the ideas being presented sound twisted and in my opinion potentially harmful to the mind. The idea of everything being backward in that the self is not real and so on seems like a great way to set up enough inner conflict, though lack of trust in and possibly getting disgusted with the self, that one could become locked in a battle with who they are. That would be like disliking one’s self for be black.

You have a self and it is real.

The conditioning part is odd as well. I will engage in heavy conditioning and pretend that it is the complete opposite of conditioning.

I think that this calls out two things. The first is that I do not like myself and seek to maybe vanish. The second is that I am out of control and need to be managed through rigid conditioning. All of this is wrapped in a package that denies the reality of the wishes and that is driven by a fear of being out of control. Then, it gets worse, because the high unreachable standard makes one feel even more out of control and the cycle continues.

I agree. I wouldn’t say you have a self, I’d say you are the self. But yeah, I know what you mean.

Yes, I agree with you here too. Some experiences may be (il)legitimate in all sorts of ways, but to say these experiences over here condition us, and those ones over there don't, seems wrong to me. 

Both of these are easy to fall into in Christianity, some may even say they are proper Christian ideas. I think it was the Psalmist that said ‘Within my flesh dwells no good thing’, and lamenting the human condition as having fallen short of some goal is pretty central. As far as needing to be managed through rigid conditioning…I wouldn’t put it that way, but I think to some extent that’s true- in order to be good humans, we have to do many things that do not come naturally to us without discipline.

I try not to examine the personal consquences of a belief so much as whether they are true or not. I think one comes before the other- Nick's ideas can only be called 'dangerous' or 'destructive' if we have first convinced ourselves they are [i]false[/i], right?

Firstly, I’m paid to try to understand what beliefs will do what, when, and to whom. That’s a major part of what I tend to think about.

Also, some beliefs can’t wait until they are proven or disproven because the are so unusual and harmful. You just have to go with it on “faith” if i may be so bold.

Ad

First remember that I distinguish between the conscious religious teachings which are inner and esoteric and the habitual automatic conditioned side of religion that functions on the same level as normal culture and I’ve learned to call exoteric.

The purpose of the esoteric or inner side of religion concerns itself with human “being” The difference between man and higher mammals is our potential for consciousness that allows man to evolve from the domain of animal life or the earth.

The conditioned side of esoteric practice consists of whatever helps for self awareness and the qualitative mental and emotional states that can create inner balance and invite the conscious experience. Here is where the charlatans come in because they invite imagination serving ego justification to take the place of consciousness.

The idea of a specific deity just gets in the way. Man strives for consciousness and freedom to grow in the analogy as an eagle and not as a chicken but all life around him is in the chicken coup. If man’s higher nature originates from above it is common sense to try to receive help from above. This is basically the purpose of prayer. Its purpose is to become open, vulnerable, so as to get out of our own preconceptions. Preconceptions,including those of deities, are biased and consciousness is based on affirmation. So striving towards consciousness requires an affirmation free of preconception. This is very difficult and requires time and sincerity.

I don’t believe we have an “I”. Instead we have many i’s consisting of continually changing emotional states each calling itself “I” This is why we are the “wretched man” as described by St.Paul. These changing emotional states comprise our ego.

Escapism is often the letting go you refer to. An attempted conscious experience is only temporarily trying to be free of preconditioning.

For example, we have programmed ourselves to eat in a certain way. We just do it. However the conscious experience of eating food is different from the habitual and offers additional nutrients.

The purpose of letting go of preconception is not escapism and inviting imagination but to become present to the experience, to consciously experience the impressions life offers.

Religion doesn’t evolve but rather offers help for evolution. It originated from higher being that man can evolve towards. It devolves into culture and becomes divided into its esoteric and exoteric aspects.

If you know anything about alcoholism you can see its role in the intensification of denial. This is defensive imagination. It can be cured through hitting bottom when denial no longer means anything and a different quality of awareness can take its place.

I can see why you may think that the idea of “sleep” as expressed in Plato’s cave allegory appears strange. But denial of our inner needs if genuine, may be equally foolish.

should be the other way around
god’s a chicken
we are a eagle of a nation
what does 500000/1 that’s like trusting one
LIAR to go between two parts of one country
only to cause war only for their souls sounds
psychotic to me