Our current malaise and its causes

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

Spinoza’s ‘‘rational egotism’’ which is the best way to describe it,
neglects an important aspect of human existence…
that it misses what is arguably the most important
aspect of what makes life worth living… the emotional
aspects… of love, of esteem, of a sense of belonging…
the psychological aspects of being human…

for example, love… love is messy, chaotic, full of ups and
downs… love cannot be described in any way, shape,
or form, as being rational… and those who proclaim
to love god… is their love of god, also messy and chaotic and
wildly random…if not, I would suggest that that is not
love of god but love of something else… more an
avoidance of the ills of not fulfilling the laws of god…
fear of hell is not the same as love of god…to engage
in something based on the rewards and/or punishments
is not love… nor is fear of hell the same as the love of god…

a ‘‘rational’’ love of god is mild, balanced, rational… nothing
like the love of one person toward another…
I question the premise of a rational, logical love of god…
because that doesn’t sound like love to me…
but that leaves us with a problem…
a philosophical problem, but nevertheless a problem…
that Spinoza calls for a rational love of god…
as does Plato and even Aristotle… but what are
the benefits of a logical, rational love of god?

love, true love is passionate, emotional, wild and
unstable… and how does the love of inanimate
objects such as money, fame, power, material goods
and titles, become true love? for those inanimate
objects cannot offer us anything in return…we project
our own passions and feelings into the inanimate object,
but the inanimate object itself has no output…
thus, if one says, they are in love with an inanimate
object, like money, they are really in love with their
own projection of what money is/does…
for money itself gives us nothing at all…
it is just a green piece of paper, nothing more…
and if it is invested with anything more, that comes
from our own projection to money…

and I hold that much of the malaise of America comes
from this projection into objects, inanimate objects that
we project will give us something that we lack…
something that we need… but in truth, we only
need the basic needs of body and mind…
food, water, shelter, health care, education
and the psychological needs of love, esteem,
a sense of belonging, of safety/security…
and what does the rational love of god, fit into this
necessary needs of human beings?

what satisfaction can come from meeting needs that
are not basic or primary to the human condition?
and trying to gain needs from inanimate objects
is the path to failure…inanimate objects cannot
meet our bodily or psychological needs because
they are inanimate objects, with no ability to give us what
we need because its being inanimate…
we respond to other life forms because they can
meet our needs on some level… a dog can meet
many of our primary psychological needs, but
can money or a new car, inanimate objects
do anything but be reflections of our own projections
onto those inanimate objects…

Kropotkin

22

Wilson’s ‘‘Outsiders’’ are really just witnesses to
to the modern age being about the trinkets of
existence… and "Outsiders’’ have, by and large,
rejected the modern age obsession to the plain
materialism of the world…we are what we can buy…

Wilson argues that the ‘‘Outsiders’’ he describes are
engaged in some form of religious thinking…
after the bottom line thinking that we can find happiness
in the ‘‘ad hoc’’ solutions of money, fame, material goods,
titles and power…so, what is after, next to, beyond
the seeking of the trinkets of existence?

As for me, I seek out knowledge… that is the, ‘‘what is next’’
solution for me… so outside or past the material goods, or the
seeking of fame or titles or power or wealth, what is next?
I say, seeking out knowledge… but what is the value
of having knowledge?

I have covered this before, but I think the value of knowledge
is to work out the ‘‘way of life’’ we should pursue…
we have two parts to the human equation, the human
condition… the knowledge, the information we need
as human beings in order to work or function well within
our state/society/even ourselves… and the second aspect
is the applying the knowledge we have, to a ‘‘way of life’’
the theoretical application to the practical aspect of life…
knowledge, information being applied to how we are
living our lives… theory applied to a ‘‘way of life’’'…

So, we are striving for knowledge, information to guide
us in how we are going to live our lives…and the
information we have about the ism of capitalism is that
capitalism is, to its very core, nihilistic… and the putting
of money before people, is that nihilism…

so, what knowledge, information are you seeking and why
that information/knowledge? What are going to do with that
knowledge? Are you going to actually put that information
to use by bringing it into being applied into our lives?

What other use for information do we have?

Kropotkin

23

the ‘‘Outsider’’ is looking for a moral purpose within
our Kantian question, ''What am I/we to do?"…

and what is that answer? What is our moral purpose
given the question ''What am I/we to do?"
is our modern age one that is even wondering about
our moral purpose and what is our moral purpose
is, given the Kantian questions?

Kropotkin

24

self=other

25

Peter Kropotkin:
the ‘‘Outsider’’ is looking for a moral purpose within
our Kantian question, ''What am I/we to do?"…

and what is that answer? What is our moral purpose
given the question ''What am I/we to do?"
is our modern age one that is even wondering about
our moral purpose and what is our moral purpose
is, given the Kantian questions?

K: and given that the question of ‘‘moral purpose’’
is usually defined in terms of religions and being
religious… but for a ‘‘Outsider’’ the question of
a moral purpose can also, and it should be,
defined in terms of the secular world, not
the religious world… in other words, we define
morals and a moral purpose as Nietzsche did,
how do we find moral purpose without a religious
context? Can morals and ethics be given with no
religious context? Within human standards, not
religious standards…

And therein lies the entire Nietzsche project…
to work out a secular morality without reference
to a religion or god… on what secular grounds do
we base morals and ethics on?

this has been the entire philosophical question of
the modern age… From Nietzsche onto Wittenstein
to Heidegger to Sartre to today…on what secular grounds
can we base morals on?

that is the "Outsider’’ question… not to have morality
or ethics based on the answers of the majority, but
based on what is right or wrong… and what is right or
wrong based on what secular notions or ideas?
and what does a moral purpose mean to us today?

Kropotkin

26

What’s the difference between being and Being? If by Being you mean the Absolute then that’s all there is.One without a second. That is what you and I are ultimately. There is no “outside” relative to Being itself.

27

We have a beginning in Being that subsumes all change. If we think we are the Being in whom we have our beginning, are we not diverging from reality (Being)?

28

Yes. The Vedantists call it Maya–the veil of illusion that results in Samsara–the cycle of birth and death. It is the result of avidya --ignorance of who and what we really are. We go through many lives this way as a consequence of the law of karma. Now that is truly results in “malaise” or a mood of despair.

Nondual Christianity is possible to conceive. In deed, early Christians conceived it and were labeled "gnostics “ by their detractors who became the dominant creedal church. The result was “Pie in the sky when you die Christianity”. That isn’t what Jesus or Paul preached. Nor is it what what Vedantism or Buddha or Spinoza taught. Self = Other in deed is the basis for the ethics of love that is the basis of the great religions. It is the basis for ‘ahimsa’ the principle of nonviolence that Gandhi and Martin Luther King used to bring about social justice. If that’s what they mean by “woke”, count me in.

The ideal of hospitality to the stranger was held high by many ancient religions because you never know when you may be entertaining a god or an angel. It is a trope pointing to the divinity in all. Self = Other. In Vedanta the Self --Atman = Brahman–the Divine–Being Itself. The Absolute Other. That is what you are.

Neuroscience confirms this at least from the negative side by showing us how perception is illusion. What we perceive is “all in our heads.”

Sure. All thought is a divergence. That’s why the yogis still the mind.

29

This radical peace of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (via Jesus) is definitely not “non-dual” in that it makes distinctions. Good is not an illusion. Is there something I have misunderstood?

30

The principle of nonviolence that King got from Gandhi cuts through various metaphysical worldviews. There are multiple metaphysical systems in Hinduism alone. It was effective in those instances. Being is synonymous with the Good per Platonic and Augustinian metaphysics.

31

I would say they both got it from the Good, Beautiful, and True.

Granted… that’s non-dual.

Well how about that.

32

Yes. The church appropriated Platonic trinitarian symbolism. The Vedantic trinity is Satchitananda. Sat =Being, Chit=Consciousness and Ananda=Bliss. That is the unlimited One without a second. Bliss is the answer to malaise.

33

The structure Socrates articulated is in the Shema & Proverbs & etc etc etc. Just saying.

34

IMG_0292
IMG_0292640×792 103 KB

A connection not soon to be forgotten.

35

Those are hypotheses requiring proof and explanation.Even that the Torah came before Socrates is questionable. There is a church in India that claims its lineage goes back to Thomas. What if anything Thomas has to do with the composition of the Upanishads or vice versa is an interesting question for historical research.

36

.

Felix: “The saints keep their minds set on the figure eight mantra.”
.
I didn’t know that, but makes sense, in not breaking the continuum of the constant-consciousness… though I do do such eye <–> mind synergistically-strengthening exercises as that, as well as the body, of course.

37

It seems to me that you only like syncretism if it craps all over true Christianity, rather than being influenced by true Christianity.

Do you use the same standards of measure when you assess the evidence in both cases?

You don’t need to answer that because I don’t have time to really explore this right now.

38

I was speaking figuratively, alluding to your word “lemniscatic”. The mystic sages do contemplate eternity. They discern the permanent from the impermanent. Whatever is impermanent is unreal. All things must pass away. What does that leave?

39

What is true Christianity?

Sure. It’s a historical question.

I’ll look into it. I’m familiar with the Isha Upanishad. I’ll comment on my enquiry elsewhere so as not to intrude further on Kropotkin.

40

“My Word(s)”