It is my first, but I couldn't help rating this post 5 - star ! Thank you, Justin.
On Feb 12, 10:01 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I guess ultimately what I mean by viable is "is true". I am concerned > about some issues that have to due with questioning and answers and > the effect of answers on questioning. Often "the alternative to > fundamentalism" is expressed as an answer. I think that its not so > simple. Why is it that one who experiences real enlightenment does not > stay in that blessed state, or stay aware of it in the same way > (because in fact we are always "in" it in a sense), even though the > memory of it remains and determines ones world view? Yes I know that > only recognition separates me from the truth... perhaps the answer is > the foundation of ethics and what is needed most is courage. But > intellectually I have trouble reconciling the notion of a truth that > takes more than just knowing in a purely intellectual sense to > realize. I have questions about the meaning of knowing in relation to > these matters and more importantly I am afraid that I see that the > process of asking and answering questions which is the foundation of > philosophy itself, may be inadequate to the task. I am concerned that > "Just In Truth" may be a distortion... that the "Just" is an unwelcome > limitation or rather a limitation that prevents the "In Truth". > Perhaps I need to change my name to "Hello" or something like that. > The debates of Greece lack something. > > I recently attempted to set up a kind of secular monastery. A place > for Being. I had visions of those around me working together and being > able to be alone when they felt the need to withdraw. Not a somber > place but one full of art and culture. I envisioned beautiful private > spaces where you could withdraw to be completely alone and public > communal spaces that you could go to to be with those you love. Lots > of gardens. I even bought a sizable piece of land to begin on. It was > not a public thing. I wanted my friends to all be able to live > together. What happened was the whole thing became a kind of clash of > limitations. The finite aspects of everyone ... it was as if when > confronted with each other we find we can't stand each other. Love is > not transitive nor is it reflexive. Each wants to determine the other > in order to determine his or her own self and their ideas conflict. I > could not communicate well enough or maybe the whole thing was just my > idea and not what others wanted. Why is it that we separate everyone > into those with whom we wish to associate and those with whom we will > refuse to have anything to do with? Why is this pecking order thing so > big? Our finite beings can be either "pretty" or "pretty ugly" and > when we get into a room there is such an arranging of everyone into > those that are "in" and those that are "out". I have been so attracted > lately to the ugly, old and infirm and so turned off by the beautiful > lately. Where does that come from? God I sound like a whining > teenager! Communal living can be successful but only certain forms > have worked and even those, even in the monasteries there is trouble. > Some day maybe we will understand better. I actually think that > neurology may in the end help us understand although the path is so > dangerous. > > It seems that one of the things we do a lot of here is to "exchange > opinions" - not just in this news group but in our whole culture. I > wish I had a culture in which I could do more that that with people. > We are all such porcupines but this pursuit of the truth in the > philosophical sense ultimately needs to be.... augmented? is that the > word? I read my own words and have a problem with them: "We have so > little of the truth out now. How can you ask for less?" > > The problem is that being and meaning and action and knowing all are > beginning to loose their boundaries for me. I am tired of being > Justintruth. I guess for me I see a kind of limitation to pure > knowing. A lack of finitude and too much infinitude as Kierkegaard > calls it. I bet I could find my form of despair in his book! > > Oh well! As the Brits say... "Chin up!"... and as Galileo is reported > to have said: "Yes!...but the world still whirls!" Form me the cure > will almost certainly be agriculture. > > Anyway...that's roughly what I meant by viability. > > I am glad that you "... see no problem whatsoever with throwing out > all fundamentalist interpretations with a healthy exhalation, and > living (your) life completely free of them." It seems like the right > thing to me. > > Good Luck, > > Justintruth > > On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Wow! > > Nice to see you again, Justin. > > > This is a particularly interesting point: > > > "The real issue is not which fundamentalist interpretation is correct > > but whether the alternative to them is viable." > > > What do you mean by viable? I'm wondering, because I see no problem > > whatsoever with throwing out all fundamentalist interpretations with a > > healthy exhalation, and living my life completely free of them. This seems > > perfectly viable to me. > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > One of the things I hear is that we are infinite in the sense that the > > > universe is physically infinite. Whether it is infinite or finite and > > > unbounded is a valid question but I think the infinity that > > > Shakespeare is referring to is not infinite in that sense of the word. > > > It's not infinite in the sense of "big without bound". > > > > The term infinite is a negation but it is a negation of boundaries. > > > The "finis" in the second part of the word is roughly "boundaries". > > > Infinite then becomes without boundaries with the usual meaning a > > > special case. In mathematics the concept of infinity has been > > > separated from the concept of "without boundary" and there are finite > > > and unbounded sets. But here we are speaking in the traditional - pre- > > > topological - sense. > > > > One then learns that the process of establishing boundaries is > > > critical in the experience of experience as a space in which there are > > > things. In fact "raising the object from the background" requires that > > > we establish that part of experience that "is" or at least "is > > > something" from that which "is nothing". The boundary is that surface > > > where being ends and nothing begins (or at least another being). That > > > which is not is space - a complete vacuum. This occurs when one > > > interjects nothingness into ones experience. This is why the vacuum is > > > - exactly - nothing. Even though modern physics has moved beyond these > > > concepts superficially it still maintains them albeit in modified > > > form. After all when we proclaim the presence of the so-called vacuum > > > energy we are distinguishing it from a "true" vacuum in the pre- > > > quantum sense. > > > > The cessation of that interpretation, and the transcendence beyond > > > space (and time) found fleetingly in mystical experience is the > > > foundation of our immortality, our infinity, and our likeness to god. > > > When space and time cease one experiences the truth that the universe > > > is not distinct from us and in fact, in a sense we include it in us as > > > much as it includes us in it, and one experiences god. > > > > Kierkegaard's reference is particularly fascinating. His cataloging of > > > the various modes of despair associated with the various possible > > > relationships of infinity to the finite in us presumes a kind of > > > identity that unifies the infinite and the finite in a sense. As the > > > proverb says: "At first I saw a tree and it was a tree, then I saw a > > > tree and it was the Tao, then I saw the tree and it was a tree." > > > Ultimately, we are who we are with all of the finite limitations of > > > our biology. We are a particular person with particular talents and > > > capabilities. Yet we have this capacity to interpret our life in a > > > sacred and not profane way. Kierkegaard's analysis of despair as sin, > > > especially his analysis of what he calls demonic despair, the despair > > > that is lucid and deliberate is most interesting. It would have been > > > interesting to be a fly on the wall of Hitler's mind to see if his > > > "banality" was superficial and to find out whether in fact he was not > > > completely aware but so totally in despair that he deliberately caused > > > such suffering. Perhaps it was not a coincidence that he choose the > > > Jews as the object of his hatred. Perhaps, at root it was hatred of > > > god. Perhaps he wanted to be chosen and felt he was not. His relative > > > asceticism, as compared to the orgy of indulgence in some of his > > > supporters, seems to indicate that his soul was aware at some level. > > > Ultimately it is not for us to judge but it would be interesting to > > > know. It would have been equally interesting to be in Martin Luther > > > King's mind when he went through his own motel-room Gethsemane. I > > > wonder how he overcame his own despair and went on living the life he > > > did when he could have just quit and had fun with the women around him > > > instead of accepting the bullet. > > > > So I think this issue is at heart the issue of an interpretation of > > > our experience and when the ratio of those who have been enlightened > > > to those who have not becomes high enough (if it ever does) perhaps we > > > will then be able to face the real questions and not waste time > > > quibbling over fundamentalist interpretations. > > > > The real issue is not which fundamentalist interpretation is correct > > > but whether the alternative to them is viable. > > > > n Feb 10, 6:33 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "Give me my robe, put on my crown; I have Immortal longings in me," > > > > Shakespeare instructs us. But do we? Is there a part of us that is > > > > infinite, or is immortality just a longing? There are at least parts > > > > of our beings that are infinite, according to Shakespeare: "What a > > > > piece of work is a man, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
