Not at all. Like all idealistic notions, the ideal is never met in a social sense. Some will argue that dominate will is the criteria for establishing ‘morals’, and I would agree that 99.9% of the time they are right. I don’t know that I would claim “better” but the differences have downstream effects that may be better. If I refuse to coerce or be coerced, then I must act deferentially and seek to have the best interests of all around me in mind. From this POV, cooperation and accomodation replaces argumentation and force of will as the social structure. Golden Rule can now be a reality intead of a platitude. Again, as an ideal it is very difficult to obtain, but it seems to me that allowing those intrinsic capacities of empathy to guide us creates a ground for peaceful cooperation and compromise. That is a far different picture than what we see at work in our world today.
I think my take on it is that moral progress in the individual requires education, and that education always involves an element of authority through the relationship between Experience/inexperience. Because of that, I would say that in any controversial matter, education is almost impossible to distinguish from dominance, especially from the perspective of one who disagrees with what is being taught.
I agree with you that morals are something intrisic in a sense- I believe that we have intrinsic rationality, balance, memory and many other faculties too- but I also believe that they can be improved through discipline and instruction. Like you are saying, it’s a hard thing to put into words, but to put it in terms of martial arts, perhaps, we are born intrinsically with arms and legs, which is in a sense all we need, but in another sense just the beginning, or hardly anything at all.
Of course there are many points of view. However as anyone knows that has read anything on esoteric thought, there is a basic difference between empirical and self knowledge. Where empirical knowledge and its interpretations is new for us, esoteric or inner knowledge is already our property. This is the basis of the old expressions that the way does not teach you anything new but allows you to remember what has been forgotten. The fascinations of Modern times make it easier to forget and harder to remember. This is why many go back to the ancient ideas. They have a clarity and depth that we can no longer produce from having forgotten. Where you see evolution, I see devolution. This is why morality cannot be internal for us. we’ve lost the perspective.
The ideas do not annoy because of right and wrong but because they question our ability to discern making right and wrong meaningless from a higher perspective. I have not suggested to do this, that, or anything else. Everything I’ve spoken of suggests Man, including ourselves, “asleep.” This is what is insulting. It questions our self importance.
It is easy to turn it around and suggest hubris with the implication that I believe I am writing from an awakened position. This is not the case. It is a big difference. I am only writing from the perspective of knowing I am in the cave, aware of its restrictions, and having a glimpse of the source of Man’s transcendent possibilitiess outside the cave.
For the benefit of others reading this thinking what the hell is he talking about with these transcendent possibilities, I will post a thread on “The Transcendent unity of Religions” which will give the reader an explanation as to how I believe the exoteric differences of religions have to be respected as indications of a unity and quality beyond fallen Man but his rightful potential.
Then those that want to accuse me of arrogance and hubris will at least see how naive it is for anyone to be arrogant in the face of our collective limitations.
I know it is insulting when someone like myself speaks of man’s nothingness. Who do I think I am to say such a thing? And then to bring in Simone as a source is highly annoying. The only way these ideas will never be annoying is if they are written from such a “wonderful” perspective so as to become meaningless.
But perhaps from the point of view of the possible transcendent unity of religions, the natural morality associated with, it and how far we are from comprehending it, some may see that perhaps the conception of our nothingness is far more truthful than annoying.
Martial arts… I may be slightly askew here, but I was taught the absolute minimum force possible, and only as the last resort. As I recall, the mastered defense is to never have to defend…
At the risk of posting unwanted quotations…
[i]It is when grand way-making is abandoned
That authoritative conduct and appropriateness appear.
It is when wisdom and erudition arise
That great duplicity appears.
It is when the six family relationships are disharmonious
That filiality and parental affection appear.
It is when the state has fallen into troubled times
That upright ministers appear.
Cut off sagacity and get rid of wisdom
And the benefit to the common people will be a hundredfold.
Cut off authoritative conduct and get rid of appropriateness
And the common people will return to filiality and parental
affection.
Cut off cleverness and get rid of personal profit
and there will be no more brigands and thieves.
But these three says as they stand are still lacking
And need to be supplemented by the following:
Display a genuineness like raw silk and embrace a simplicity
like inworked wood.
Lessen you concern for yourself and reduce your desires.
Chapters 18 & 19 Dao Te Ching[/i]
What is important here is the repeated observation that morality is bottom up and not top down. Is is a constant reiterated theme of Tao that coercion is to be avoided.
Post away. I’m the exception since I enjoy those pearls of wisdom in quotes
But if you consider when it was written, it has gotten still worse. The point is that regardless of our personal resolve from a societal perspective, PC thought contradicts Simone’s brilliant insight:
This is the whole point of the thread which is to demonstrate that PC thought enables us to say one thing and do another totally unaware while feeling completely justified.
Your statement and the Weil quote do not match up. All she said was public institutions reflect the principle that the needs of humans are given equal attention. She expresses an ideal that isn’t met by any society. I see nothing to suggest that anyone is totally unaware or completely justified. That is your saying, not hers.
Perhaps I’m wrong but “public recognition” to me means what people believe. This in turn is expressed through institutions.
Of course it isn’t met which is why she continually fought for equality to be a voice in favor of the ideal
PC thought contends that certain groups are worthy of special treatment such as in the definition of “hate crimes.” But for her and those that believe in equality, a crime is the same for all.
I believe we find it so easy to legitimize ideas such as “hate crimes” because of the prestige we receive as “compassionate people” Is it truly compassionate to force selection of one over another? I don’ t believe so but many justify it as morally acceptable and I see it as selective morality.
Perhaps a point is being made, but my reaction is, so what? PC simply becomes a blanket term without meaning. ALL social morality is selective. ALL groups with similar points of view are worthy of ‘special treatment’ in that force of will dictates the outcome. “When in Rome…”
Social compassion by it’s very nature, forces selection. Justification of social morality is mob rule - period.
I see nothing profound or special in any of this, just a lot of words about a most obvious and mundane social structure. Any distinction worthy of discussion is the shortfall between personal morality and social necessity. Even here the discussion of etic and metic performance is very close to, so what? I find nothing earth-shattering in saying there is a difference between ideals and performance. The pervasive environment needs little discussion. Air is air…
OK, I agree. This is why I consider all this talk about world peace and the like as futile. Since we are as we are, life will continue as it is.
What then are social possibilities? Perhaps what is possible for a community that appreciates its need “to be” from a point of view of humility is different then a larger society that will always collectively and unconsciously defend its belief that it already is as it should be and all faults lie with the other guy.
I would suggest that the moment a community comes into being, regardless it’s ideals, it simply adopts all of the failures of the larger society. A communitiy based in humility? What the hell is that? They would ‘defend’ their precious humility to the last person, and they would blame their need to defend on the other guy. There are no social possibilities.
All changes, to have any impact, occur within, and there is no ‘method’ that won’t ultimately fail in a social setting. All one has to do is look at the perversion of the insights of all the major religion’s founders. Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha would be ashamed and disgusted at the garbage piled on their message.
Insight or enlightenment is a personal happening that can be shared in limited ways, but no movement or community will ever be less than part of the problem. The epistemic community of those who have found understanding is always small and limited, and rightly so. What is understanding is forever beyond words. The finger pointing is not the object…
For me it depends on why the community comes into being. If it does unconsciously then it will automatically degenerate as you suggest but suppose a community comes into being of individuals having experienced the human condition and precisely this tendency you describe? Here is an old aphorism that serves as an example for a functioning esoteric community:
It begins with the realization of the human condition and the mutual willingness to sacrifice imaginary self importance for the mutual goal of becoming real: “to be.” This is humility.
From this persepctive obligations are more important than rights since all have the obligation to help one another in the goal of becoming real, through honesty rather than lies, which transcends some imaginary concept of “rights.”
PC thought would be nonsense in such a community because the idea isn’t for bolstering imaginary self esteem but of allowing the realities of life, the situation we find ourselves in, and the gradual appreciation of our habitual reactions to it serve as a teacher of self knowledge. From this perspective life is neither better nor worse, and when consciously perceived, allows something similar to what is described in Christianity as carrying ones cross and the inner freedoms that can result from this difficult effort and are its purpose.
So people in such communities function well in life because they are not attached to societal rights and wrongs but are only concerned with remaining present to it at the level where these rights and wrongs become as “one” and just aspects of a given level of collective human unconscious expression.
Such a community can remain on that level since its goal isn’t to adapt but to consciously experience the normal unconscious degenerating effects and remain present to them. This allows one to stay on course.
Of course such communities are rare but where people are willing and able, they have existed.
It doesn’t sound as though they are any different at all to the communities I have spoken about. I have still to find the difference between your idea of community and mine - only that my communities are in your eyes inferior.
I have to disagree. Self importance is key. To the extent that we fail to care for ourselves physically and mentally, we are unable to be of any use to anyone else.
Mutual goal? And where is that coming from? Humility does not produce mutual goals. That’s a construct without any foundation.
Obligations? What are you talking about? I nor anyone else has any inborn “obligation” to anyone but ourselves. Becoming real through who’s honesty? Yours or mine? Perhaps lofty ideals here, but a construct without foundation - again.
I listened to similar pitches in the late 60’s from the commune people. Rare communities? You bet. Sustainable communities? not in the least.
Again,Enlightenment is personal and can only be shared in the most limited ways. We can construct any form of community we wish, but the “shared” vision would be ephemeral at best, and we live with worst daily.
As for the rest of your statement, good luck. This is the third time I’ve made this statement, the first two were quite personal, but I offer this in the best spirit I can muster.
There is a qualitative difference between giving up and giving in. Wisdom lies in understanding and acting on the difference.
I was referring to imaginary self importance. This is different from the importance of self in which a healthy body can be an asset. Self pride is in the imaginary while pride of self is in our potential. It is not so easy to distinguish between the two but I believe them to be different.
We have an obligation to what we believe is valuable and necessary for ourselves and others. If we believe it be beneficial to sustain such an environment, we have the obligation through our efforts to maintain its potential to provide the good it is capable of.
You think it nonsense because you have not experienced it.
There will always be more charlatans and misguided people then sincere balanced people seeking to be. The communities you speak of take advantage of acquired human weakness and are based on imagination so only lead to imaginary results and fall apart.
Enlightenment is a long way off but people can share the gradual revelation of their own delusions and what it means to each just to be present to life regardless of how politically incorrect or insulting it may appear in usual life. It is a preparation for functional enlightenment
It is not a matter of superiority or inferiority but only one of “goal.” The kind of community I refer to begins with man’s nothingness and lack of self knowledge but with the desire for the higher experience of meaning and awareness of human purpose within the context of meaning. From this perspective it is impossible to build anything real on it without first coming to experience the human condition. otherwise it is just fantasy. So its aim or intent is first to allow a person to experience the reality of our inner life as Paul did.
Only then can various inner exercises and the like not be swallowed up by egotism often resulting in a condition worse than before.
This is the great harm of so many modern teachings. They have no conception of the human organism and how various types of exercises can effect them in damaging ways without the right preparation. More than one ambitious fool has found himself in an institution through ignorance.
Your goal seems to be a world change from encouraging what we should do. But for me what we do is a reflection of what we are which is why my interest is in those paths that deal realistically with what we are first without focusing on the world. Otherwise we do one thing one day and the opposite on the next. First things first.
necessary for ourselves and others. You may have that obligation, but I don’t. I may feel obliged to act on those things of value to me, but I in no way assume that “obligation” for others. Most of the worlds problems come from that obligation to help others ‘see it MY way’.
I’m not here to be anything but the best of what I can be at that moment. To the extent that others find anything positive in their perception of me, well, that’s wonderful. BUT that is the extent of any sort of ‘obligation’ on my part.
I don’t think it’s nonsense because I haven’t experienced it. Who are you to say that to me? I say it is nonsense BECAUSE I have experienced it. The world is full of people pimping their version of truth. All for my own good, of course. The way is to see to your own heart, your own understanding, your own actions. My environment is me. What come of interaction with others is deferential to what is beneficial in that moment.
Giving up is to go to sleep. Giving in is to render unto Caesar that which is Ceasars… Know which is which.
Of course a spiritual community only refers to those that are a voluntary part of it. What I may have an obligation to is no concern for you nor should it be.
The idea of this kind of spiritual community is that we are unable to be the best of what we can in the moment. We don’t even know what we are. It is asserted that when people work together to come to grips with these questions, they can learn from each other from their differences provided of course people remain open to the expererience rather than sinking into the condemnation of these differences.
Of course but as Rumi suggests, all this pimping suggests a reality behind it:
I am suggesting that the source of this seeing you describe is normally just a corrupt ego.
What in you determines the benefit? It has to be related to your goal. A person can participate in an experience that is very beneficial for ones self esteem. If this is their goal, all well and good. But what is the benefit of this self esteem if their goal is experience irrelevant of their self esteem?
I find this to be irrelevent. At some point, one has to accept where they are, and go from there. The very first step toward understanding our spiritual nature is the acceptance of our limitations. Life is a process, and we ARE the best we can be at any particular moment. That we fail to meet our own ideals, that we allow ego-driven notions of limitless knowing to cripple us, is the beginning. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” That little biblical quote is perhaps the most important statement in the bible. No matter how enlightened, no matter how wise, erudite, that single statement will always apply. One does not escape duality, one accepts it as it’s own limitation and being aware of that is wisdom. A quote I have used before:
[i]Knowing that one does not know is knowing at its best,
But not knowing that one knows is suffering from a disease.
Thus, the reason the sages are free of disease
Is because they recognize the disease as a disease.
This is why they are not afflicted.
Chp 71 - Tao Te Ching[/i]
It is completely different language, but is saying exactly the same thing: Knowing the limitations is critical. We may not be as God, but in understanding that, we may proceed to be a part of God by being the experiencing learning creature that is sentience.
This is the core of Way-making. It is in our most mundane and ordinary existence that we express the totality of our place in the universe. Are we perfect? Of course not. Will we ever be perfect? No. But we can remain awake, aware, sensitive to understanding our experiences, and in that, experience the totality of oneness, both in our humanity and our spiritual being. The Way is Way. It needs no description or modifiers, no operators manual. This is repeated over and over throughout the Tao Te Ching. Let knowing go and live within heart/mind understanding to the best of your ability, accepting the human limitations. The words, the ingenious constructs, are but ego denying process.
It certainly can be, but every individual tred’s their own path, and it is not for me to decide for anyone but myself that which is right or wrong. Each interaction with another is an opportunity to learn, and to be deferential to another’s path is to help them in their growth, as well as mine.
Self esteem? I find no need for that in myself, but if that is the need of another, then help them find it. That another may be pursueing a path you would not choose is their path, their (hate this word) karma.
Again, it is the simplicity of the complexity one attends to.
We seem to be approaching the question from different premises.
I agree that we have to accept where we are. If not, it is like sitting in a chair, grabbing the legs, and trying to pull yourself up making your body push you down. It is important not to imagine yourself but to “know yourself” by becoming part of the experience.
But it would be foolish IMO to believe that seeing what we are is the best that we can be. On a simple level a person may see that he cannot play piano. His hands do not do what the mind suggests and he gets tangled up in himself. This is not to say that it is the best he could be.
We know how to learn to play piano but not how to learn to be ourselves. How could we if we don’t know what it means? This is the whole idea of Plato’s cave or the Chicken and Eagle story. Our conceptions of ourselves are created by external life such as societal, peer, and familiar influences. This is what happened to the eaglet.
It is through the impressions of conscious influences that exist in sacred art, sacred text, or even fables etc., that a person inwardly feeling that there is something more, becomes convinced there is and there are people aware of these things. The idea of “the best that we can be,” takes on a new significance. The best we can be in accordance with cave life or life as the chicken may not be the same as the best we can be from the point of view outside the cave or that of the eagle.
But is this and end or a beginning? Suppose “not knowing” refers to self knowledge that must be remembered? Then it refers to the necessity once again to “Know Thyself” or “remember.”
The esoteric traditions assert that we cannot do this. It is why Paul called himself the wretched man. We exist as a plurality in opposition to ourselves and make it psychologically tolerable for ourselves by indulging in imagination. It is something a person must verify for themselves.
I would agree that for most the way of the Good Householder suggested in Ecclesiastes and the Tao is best in that a person if a person remains sincere and not distort or take advantage of their teachings, they will not make their karma worse and will follow the very slow for us evolutionary tempo of the earth itself. In Christianity it is called being asleep in the body of Christ. The Paths of conscious Awakening are accelerated paths leading to greater results but are far more dangerous. Yet for those like Simone Weil, who insisted on consciously, through attention, experiencing life in the raw, they need an accelerated way. Someone with her clarity of perception as to the human condition, could not psychologically survive going with the flow.
No, we are the best that we can be, at any given moment, We aren’t a ‘thing’, we are a process. We’re a learning creature with the capacity to imagine, to conceptualize, to reflect on our experiences.
Chp 71 addresses the issue succinctly. The wise person is aware of duality and doesn’t try to avoid it, but controls it. It is the statement of the difference of being awake and aware or simply being asleep.
The esoteric traditions asserts that we cannot find our awakeness? I find that to be a bold knowing. I disagree with that conclusion. I’ve hammered repeatedly on the knowing of not knowing, but that is only a partial view. We may know for ourselves through our experiencing, but we may not know for others. What I ‘know’ spiritually is mine and mine only. No matter how many words I throw at it, you will never know my spiritual understanding, because that understanding doesn’t exist in words.
Your saying that being in Way implies not taking advantage of their teachings (learnings?) is a gross misunderstanding. Actionless action is anything but passive. I have no idea what this accelerated vs slow ‘paths’ concept refers to. Awakened is awakened, and if one is truly awakened then there is no ‘path’, there is only the The.
One should consider the possibility that this so-called accelerated path is nothing more than projecting a construct - a reification of the very state of being one has supposedly left behind. I’ve made a statement several times in different posts that there is only being, not being as. It was politely ignored, but it is the difference that makes a difference. Being is. It is neither fast nor slow, above or below, or any other construct. Duality is a clever and demanding tyrant if one fails to understand and hold to this.