File spoon-archives/bataille.archive/bataille_1999/bataille.9908, message 219


Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:26:24
From: Dan Rowden <drowden-AT-bytesite.com.au>
Subject: Re: Tao, paradox, heraclitus


John wrote:

>Dan:
>>Enlightenment is simply the fulfillment of the courageous and complete
>>application of reason to the problems of existence.  The path of
>>Enlightenment is the path of the renunciation of delusions (false ideas
>>about Reality) and the understanding of one's delusions comes through the
>>application of reason.  There may be other cognitive functions involved, by
>>way of sources of data (e.g. intuition), but it is reason that sorts out
>>the true from the false; this is, of course, because reason is the faculty
>>of intellectual discrimination.
>
>Well Dan you have courage. 

Well, no, I *had* courage.  I no longer require such a thing since I am no
longer egotistically motivated to pursue my purpose.  Courage is something
one requires in the quest for enlightenment, and, indeed, the more that
quest becomes one's nature, rather than something one has to put a
conscious effort into, the less one requires courage.  And why does one
require courage in the first place?  Because the path to truth involves
staring into the abyss of one's attachments and delusions and into the
illusory nature of the self.  The path to enlightenment, if pursued
*authentically*, is, at various times, a terrifying thing.

>So after reading this I was wondering then if
>reason is simply knowledge derived from the five senses? 

Reason is not limited by the data of the senses.  Such data is always
uncertain; reason can establish for us what is certain and what is not.

>It was Blake who criticized the concept that man is "the ratio of the 
>five senses" 

If by "Blake" you're referring to the romantic poet, well, he was a
notorious irrationalist who valued his imagination above everything else.
I for one, would not put much stock in the opinion (regarding reason) of
one who made an aesthetic choice, as opposed to a genuine intellectual
choice, and did so early in life, against reason.

>by saying that reason creates "mind forged manacles" 

He said that because reason limited his imagination.  He wanted to have
absolute feedom in that regard.  Of course reason creates manacles; it
locks the mind into what is real and limits its ability to invent nonsense.

>that "oppress" and dominate nature in the "satanic mills" where people slave 
>away at reasoning, classifying, manufacturing, etc. 

Reasoning and science, the latter having apparently repulsed Blake
somewhat, are not the same thing. 

>What role does emotion play in enlightment, 

None, other than as a barrier to it.  Emotion, such that it arises from
false ideas about Reality is something to be transcended.

>and what role does faith have in life generally? 

Faith in anything other than reason is folly; blind faith, even, in reason,
is also folly.

>If reason is the sole organizing principle in life, then what value is there
>in laughter or comedy for that matter? 

Laughter and comedy are either expressions of ego and ignorance or they are
expressions of wisdom (much like art or poetry).  Nietzsche described
laughter as "maliciousness with a good conscience" - he was right.  Wise
comedy is something very unfunny to the ignorant, just as irony escapes the
mind that lacks an ironical nature.

>The absurd based on your ideas is categorically excluded from a principled
life? 
>is it not? 

No it isn't.  I find a great many things absurd, but my experience of
absurdity is of a logical nature, not an emotional, egotistical nature.
It all depends on what one means by the concept of "absurdity".  


Dan Rowden


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005