Too much knowledge is a burden. We're all still paying for Eve's sin(what a wonderful allegory original sin is).
I have experienced many of the social problems you mention. As you say, most could be due to lack of communication but probably more because they just don't feel like you do. Which makes you unique; just like the rest of us. You are not alone. Dude, you think too much. Take a night sail if weather permits and if not; get a massage and shut your cranium off for an hour. Your starting to sound like one of those people in Hellraiser searching for........whatever. Stay away from Chinese puzzle boxes. dj On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:01 AM, 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, how noble in reason, how infinite in >> > > faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how >> > > like an angel, in apprehension how like a god." >> >> > > Our infinite nature is not just fodder for the poets. Einstein came >> > > to the conclusion that "the infinite nature of man includes the >> > > universe." Kierkegaard explained our existence in this way: "Man is a >> > > synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the >> > > eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short a synthesis. A synthesis >> > > is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a >> > > self." >> >> > > What do YOU think? > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
