People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. ~Soren Kierkegaard
On Feb 13, 1:01 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
