sub-parts communicate the efficacy of their experience to each other.
The whole in increasing degrees ‘understands’ its state through the consequence of sub-part behavior.
Evil is the necessary ‘negative’ comment of produced experience, reflected upon the multiplicity of kinds of comprehension.
4a. Its comment is an expression of both the nature of the part, and the nature of its experience.
Rationality consists in the digestion and integration of this feedback, through the production of reflective and communicative parts.
I’m supposed to read this with clear eyes after a long night?
Ah, but what the hey. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
First, as I understand it, evil only exists in relation to aim. There isn’t an objective evil. We experience it as subjective in relation to aims of life on earth. But since we are normally unaware of the context of evolution, objective evil doesn’t exist on earth but instead only different conceptions of good. Evolution and involution are complimentary flows in the span of being necessary for sustaining creation. Objectively speaking for man then as a whole, the objective good is evolution. What denies and turns it into the direction of human involution is evil in relation to the aim of evolution.
I see this as deep personal self awareness of the wretched man in oneself. It is the higher level awareness of relative unity of the chaotic state of plurality (sub part) below. Consonance is denied by this efficacy, self importance, of the parts.
I disagree with this in part. Actually in the pure state, this is recognition of man’s nothingness. the recognition of nothingness, (this is not “I”), is not negative. Actually it is a positive summation of the whole of oneself in relation to higher qualities of being
.
But we don’t experience from the whole of ourselves but instead, existing as a plurality, our “negative comments” are expressions from parts. When taken to an extreme, one becomes an “expert” incapable of human perspective since the part or parts reflecting this “expertise” have become too dominant, not allowing the natural tendency for perspective to enter. Since human evolution as I understand it, requires the evolution of both human consciousness and will, the experts striving to retain its authority while oblivious of its limitations denies it.
When the process of this rationality in the quest to acquire human perspective is guided by the dictates of the “expert” then in the context of the good of evolution, it is the classic evil of imbalance that denies the awareness of evolution. If the process of this rationality as it concerns objective good and evil proceeds from impartial contemplation and abandoning the “experts” preconceptions as suggested by Simone Weil, then rationality can reveal meaning.
I wish though you would refrain from your use of the term “expert”, in quotes. I know that this is one of the mainstays of your vocabulary and ideology, but due to your expert-like expression of truths (lack of doubt, didactic tone), it comes off as the most hypocritical, nearly satirical, move of all. And makes serious reading the rest of your account unlikely. Just one opinion.
As you know, Plato’s cave analogy suggests that our lives are lived in and sustained through attachment to habitual preconception acquired from the past and anticipation of the future. The analogy suggests that the adverse effects of this is to be oblivious of the quality of now in relation to what lies above this attachment.
If the essential goal of religion is freedom from the cave, even though intelligence might be attractive and useful for cave life, the obsession with it keeps one attached to both the past and anticipation of the future. This quality of intelligence that has as its purpose to influence others in regard quality of life, I call the “expert.” Their effect, if any, is to create a larger cell
So you tell me, what is the politically correct way to refer to the person whose egotism and intelligence is such that they become charismatic enough to influence people concerned with the meaning of life. However, since they are oblivious of the spiritual dimension or its value, all they succeed in doing is keeping people attached to the fetters.
Tell me how you would define and describe these people and this phenomenon in the more practical sense than as “experts?”
I’m sorry, I have no desire to run around in your vocabulary of spiritual expertise. You are convinced of it, I would say imprisioned by it. For me it sheds little light.
