Wholeness

Suffering propels all life forward. We wouldn’t do anything if we didn’t suppose that it would make better the unbearable present. Eschatology extends that principle to the macrocosm.

Yes, I suppose you are right. It sometimes moves people to compassion. It’s just strange how people tend to jump on people who have shown themselves to have some weakness, rather than move them to compassion though. Í find that compassion is really the universal mover in our world. Where it appears we make a move forward. It just seems to require suffering to inspire compassion.

Pain is ok. But when there is too much, it overloads and screws over the psyche.

Truth is what propels life into a good, realistic future.

Without truth, everything is rendered powerless.
Truth is a form of power, too.

Without truth, you could not come to a conclusion or even make a reply to my post.

I used to joke that I had a life simplification plan. And the plan went like this: when you think of doing something… don’t! Of course if you follow that plan for long you’ll die. So what shall you do? Until you are able to love and take care of yourself you can’t be much help to others. I learned this from Thich Nhat Hanh. Jordan Peterson teaches the same thing when he says treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping.

Goodness, Beauty and Truth are the three of the highest values of Western Civilization. A trinity. Jesus added a fourth --Love–making a quaternity–a symbol of wholeness.

Yes, pain is ok, but: Would you please tell the other mods to unlock my posts?

Thank you very much, Dan~.

[tab]My PM function doesn’t work.[/tab]

Right now im the only mod around and carleas is admin.

I often come across the subject of wholeness when I am pursuing other things as with here while reading phenomenology. Why it is that we perceive what science tells us are bundles of atoms as wholes in the first place is a phenomenon worthy of reflection. Moving on from there:

“Significant images render insights beyond speech, beyond the kinds of meaning speech defines. And if they do not speak to you, that is because you are not ready for them, and words will only serve to make you think you have understood, thus cutting you off altogether. You don’t ask what a dance means, you enjoy it. You don’t ask what the world means, you enjoy it. You don’t ask what you mean, you enjoy yourself; or at least, so you do when you are up to snuff.”

Myths to Live By
Joseph Campbell

The circle of wholeness is ultimately infinite. All that we understand is embedded in that which we don’t understand. We have an abilities that we can’t explain. Articulate knowledge is embedded in inarticulate knowledge.

We are called to wholeness. The Self draws us toward authenticity. The authentic life is to live according to our true self. This is the life pointed to by the myth of the hero. The epitome of that myth is the story of Jesus as the Christ. The true self is Christ. As Saint Paul said “I’ve been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

Descartes said: " if an idea is in the field of the mental vision of Reason, who can know, and if the idea is sufficiently illuminated by the light of Reason and no other idea hides or obscures the idea, then Reason will know the idea as it really is, with all its detail, and we’ll be able to distinguish it from other ideas."

Now Lakoff and Johnson state that there is no literal way to translate into the mental realm the notion of "illumination by “the light of reason”. Descartes’ first person phenomenology is framed in the metaphoric language of a symbolic world which is unfamiliar to the modern mind. And whether my analysis will serve to uncover or further obscure Descartes point of view for you will depend on your own.

What is light and what is Reason in the traditional symbolic cosmology in which Descartes lived and moved and had his being? The fourth gospel begins with the words “in the beginning was the logos… All things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it… The true light that enlightens every human being…” What was capital R reason to Descartes if not the logos-- the incarnate structure of reality? And it is this structure of reality that is the light by which we see the world in terms of unities or wholes. Otherwise all would be chaos. And what is this light that enlightens every human being if not consciousness, the very consciousness by which Descartes was able to see his “clear and distinct ideas” and conclude “I think therefore I am”?

The moral imperative is the demand to become what one is essentially and therefore potentially. An immoral act is one that contradicts one’s self-realization as a person and therefore drives towards disintegration.

Doesn’t that imply that * an even higher moral imperative is to discover - with careful certainty - exactly what one is essentially?

  • And if that is true then isn’t it also implied that finding out how to discover what one is essentially is an even still higher moral imperative?

  • And then also to go even higher - it seems that it is implied to being as alert as possible would be morally imperative so as to accomplish to prior imperatives?

  • Then there is the implied imperative to discover how to become more alert - how to become more aware and conscious of your situation - “raising personal consciousness”.

  • And then since learning how to become more conscious of your situation requires knowing what information (and its sources) is trustworthy.

  • And that in turn requires that it be a moral imperative to learn how to ascertain trustworthiness.

All of those imply to me that becoming self-realized, although a high imperative is considerably below many others.

Which spiritual or religious organization concentrates on how to ascertain trustworthiness?

– just rhetorical - I don’t really know anything about all of these issues (not sure I want to - why should I trust what You say?). :smiley:

So, to rephrase, I’m saying that the moral imperative is to become one’s authentic self. That’s what individuation which is the path toward wholeness, the theme of this thread, is all about. And you’re saying that to find out, to be as alert as possible to, to become more aware of and be more conscious of and to learn how to ascertain the trustworthiness of the actualization of one’s true self are all higher than the path of becoming itself. Rather I would see all those tasks as part of the path not higher than it. If one learns all those things and yet doesn’t actualize one’s authentic self all those skills and abilities have failed to achieve the moral imperative.

Perhaps I made it too complicated -
If I don’t know who or what to trust

  • how do I know that what you say is my moral imperative
  • real is?

:smiley:

I’m advising you to trust your true self. If you can’t do that, you’re basically going to be someone else’s slave. Your choice.

:laughing:

Last comment on this - all of that explanation I tried to relay is that a person cannot start from there - it presumes to have already accomplished the goal in order to get to the goal.

But I’ll leave it at that. I don’t challenge faith in people’s religion or bubble of belief (unless the annoy me O:) ).

I start from the experience of being in the world. Where do you start from?

The Self itself is never experienced as a totality. It is known only through the experience of its manifold aspects in perception, memories, dreams, anticipations and reflections.

Before I asked - why should I trust what you say about this topic.
But then why should you trust what I say about this topic?
And now -

Why should You trust what You say/think about this topic?

It is easy for a person to mislead even themselves isn’t it (just look around on this board)?
So I am still back at my earlier suggestion -

Infants just make an instinctive guess - “trust mommy” - sometimes wrongly. Adults find it far more complicated so many instinctively default to “just trust Big Mommy (government)”. I think just assuming that your instincts are all the guide you need is a bit – infantile-ish. :smiley: