Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:48:52 -0700 From: "J. Foster" <borealis-AT-mail.wellsgray.net> Subject: Re: Tao, paradox, heraclitus At 10:26 AM 08/30/1999, you wrote: >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? What is with this "one" does "one does not" form of rhetoric? I am beginning to feel as though I am talking to a single person droning out the same phrases over and over again. You are right. You don't courage in your situation. I need courage to continue doing what I must to do, what I am obligated to because of my conscience. The courage to be myself, to care about what I love the most. That takes courage because there are risks involved in my actions, especially in the public domain. It takes courage to stand up in public and speak about the abuse of power and privilege, to fight against pollution, to demand better environmental protection, and to fight depletion and dependency. 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. What on earth are you trying to tell me? What is authentic about authentic in the context you have provided. Attachments to what? And what delusions are talking about? What is illusory about having a sense of self? God man are you mixed up or what? What are these generic phrases supposed to indicate? I can't tell head from tail what the heck you are talking about. You have started a completely independent train of thought in the first sentence which is also a sentence fragment and then jumped to another completely different thought. Is someone trying to divest you of your property and mind by promising you 'enlightenment'? What kind of attachments are you referring to family, friends, loved ones, or just property? If someone can convince you that the your self-certainty is an illusion nor different that a reflection on the surface of the water, you better ask them what is in it for them by getting you to believe this? You have certain inalienable rights that cannot be infringed apon. My God ...someone is after your soul? The path to enlightenment is never terrifying I can assure you that. There is nothing more precious in life than this one thing, and that is to have control of your own will. The stoics of the Roman times were adamant about this. In fact the stoics said that there are two things in this world we can have absolute control over, and they are: 1. Our own bodies; and 2. Our own will. If someone or group is attempting to take control of your body and your will, then run as fast as you can away from them in the opposite direction, and don't stop until you have to take a rest. >>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. Reason is also operative at the highest level of cognition which is where the deeper more fulfilling articles of faith are found. One principle act of reasoning is moral reasoning. This is the reasoning that determines which decision or thinking pattern, or even attitude is good, better and best. There is an area of experience when you get close to it where you feel certain. That is okay. But if the feeling is not comfortable, then there is a question mark placed beside that issue or possible decision for the time being. I would not simply trust reason in a purely abstract sense. Machines are much more capable at cold logic than men. You need to trust your 'higher judegement' which is where feeling and reason combine, but you can trust you feelings. If you are not comfortable with something that is impacting on your ability to empower your ability to have power over your will and body, then question it and scrutinize it. Yell at it and see if it bars it's teeth or bites you. That is the best test. Maybe it will run away. Or it may lie down and want to be petted. > >>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. I am convinced that I have read this writing style in several writers on this list. This is giving the me the shivers. May be there are multiple instances of the same person on this list using different email address. Either that or there are a whole pile of zombies on this list, or clones. > >>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. The imagination is the saviour. Christ is the imagination. If you don't have an imagination, then you cannot be saved. An imagination allows you to imagine a 'new heaven' and a 'new earth' a place where there is trust, and there is divine love that is unconditional. Besides if you were to imagine something as sweet and comfortable in the future, or even eternally beginning now, and all you had to do was have the right attitude, you probably would think that I am crazy, right? Well that is all it takes. > >>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. Scientific rationality is much more complex and intricate. However as far as the basic steps, or logical steps, are concerned there is essentially very little difference. Scientific method is nearly identical to common place inference. Scientific knowledge on the other hand is a vast body of collected facts, information and methodologies that is assembled into a storehouse of currency that is changing all the time. It is never static, and there are various current theories being circulated around the storehouse that alternatively rejected and accepted. It is the most dynamic and fascinating product of human cognition besides art. Science did not repulse Blake at all. He was repulsed by technology, especially the philosophies that promoted the domination of nature by man for the sake of profits and power. This is so obviously the whole point contained in much of Blakes poetry that it should be obvious to you. I would recommend that you read Katheleen Raines "Blake and Tradition". There are two volumes and they are profusely illustrated with paintings and other fascinating information. > >>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. Well I would agree with you on the surface but it is not that simple nor quaint. > >>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". I don't know Dan. I am sure I have read this before in someone else's post. Are you on that genius-1 list? It seems to me that I am talking to three people who have identical personalities. I sense that I am discussing issues with a computer. Computers don't have a self either. That is what an ego is. The word ego is latin for 'self' and it should not be evaluated as the source of selfishness, but rather as the center of consciousness. It need not be equated with selfishness either, it can be equated with selflessness. TO deny the existence of the ego, it to deny the existence of having a will and a body to own and control for the good of all. Thanks for replying to my message noted with concern for your happiness. john . Are you sure > > >Dan Rowden > > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005