Sorry, Chris, typo! LOSE is what I meant to write :-) On 8 Mai, 18:08, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Loose or lose? The semantical difference is important...the active letting go > of the past if often necessary. > > > > [ Angehängte Nachricht ]Von:frantheman > <[email protected]>In:"\"Minds Eye\"" > <[email protected]>Datum:Fri, 8 May 2009 08:44:18 -0700 > (PDT)Lokal:Fr. 8 Mai 2009 17:44Betreff:[Mind's Eye] Re: Is the Dream Dead? > > Great post, Justin! > > Personally. I think we loose a great deal if we try to cut ourselves > off from the past - both from our personal histories and the history > of our societies in general. Our existence, individual and communal is > a vector, coming from somewhere and going ... well, that's what we'll > find out on the ongoing journey. Still, the direction and force are > determined by what we do now, every continuously becoming now. > > This is one of those paradoxical truths: All that is real is NOW, the > past is over, the future yet to be. At the same time, that NOW is the > product of the past and sets the course for the future, in turn being > (to some extent) determined by our hopes and expectations. To give a > banal example, it's the cup of coffee I want to drink in five minutes > time which results in me truning on the coffee machine ... now. > > It's about living out of the balance, the centre, that point in which > all that has been meets all that is yet to be ... now ... something > completely simple, yet wonderfully dynamic, a continuing instant of > absolute stillness which is simultaneously a turbo-kick into the > continually becoming. > > Traditionally, this kind of realisation has been expressed in > "religious" language. I believe we are moving beyond this, growing out > of our need for magical, "God"-founded explanations of and > expressions for what life is about. There is a certain temptation to > kick the ladder away once one has reached the top, but it's not > necessary. We can leave it behind us, but it remains a part of the > journey we have taken, a journey we are continuing on. Maybe, > hopefully, others will find and use it (although it is sad when some > remain stuck on it). > > This is no guarantee, as you point out, that things will automatically > get better and better, simply - speaking metaphorically - we have, as > growing children always do , let go of the divine hand we felt we > needed to hold us. This doesn't mean we can't fall, but it's also a > realisation that we were falling all the time in the past too, that > the divine hand wasn't, in fact, the surety we thought it was. > > The dream is still there. Now we have the chance to determine it for > ourselves. > > Francis > > On 8 Mai, 09:55, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So, who’s right? Is it one out of the jumbled clusterfuck of spiritual > > > beliefs? Or is it the Fact, that Life IS here and now. > > > The ‘Dream of Utopia’ points at Life, not some spiritual other shit. > > > That’s why I ask if it’s dead. > > > Well Ok, but you are setting up a false dilemma. Above you have > > capitalized the following words "Fact", "Life" and a double capital of > > "IS". > > > Basically, if you consider what something is, like "its red" or "its > > round" you are considering its nature, or its essence. It is possible > > however to cease to consider what is and turn your consideration to > > the fact that it is. When you do you transcend what life is and > > consider the fact that it is, or to use your writing, the Fact, that > > Life IS. Now, it turns out that you can experience the fact that life > > is in some very, what are called, "profound" ways. You can either > > appreciate its meaning fully or not. When you no longer are > > considering what is but the fact that it is you are going beyond the > > physical to the metaphysical, or going beyond the natural to the > > supernatural or going beyond the sensory to the extrasensory. That is > > the "some spiritual other shit" because it is not what is, but rather > > is the fact that it is. That is why it is "other" or transcendent. It > > is also Immanent meaning roughly "here and now." That is why "the > > Fact, that Life IS here and now" IS "some spiritual other shit"... it > > just happens to be YOUR "some spiritual other shit". > > > It turns out that the appreciation of the meaning of the fact that > > life is in its fullest sense is the experience underlying all of the > > religions. The meaning of that experience is expressed, indirectly > > through the books and stories that constitute the religious texts and > > genuine religious activity and mythology is about the problem of > > knowing what it means to be and is part of the intellectual history of > > mankind. > > > You might think it is easy to know what it means. It is not. > > > Now many activities and beliefs interpret these texts literally. For > > them God is basically like any other thing capable of either being or > > not being and they believe he "happens" to be. They interpret religion > > not existentially but essentially. They think it is about what is not > > the fact that it is. These people are fundamentalists. Their > > interpretation is truly not even religious. It is just bad science. > > > However, when the religions are not interpreted essentially then we > > can see their value. Their value is in their appreciation of the > > meaning of "the Fact, that Life IS here and now." So you raise a false > > dilemma between religion and what you are saying. > > > With respect to Utopia I recommend that you read Kierkeguard on > > despair "The Sickness Unto Death". He analyzes what despair really is > > and how one falls into its clutches. It is truly a very big problem. > > Utopia is not being realized because of something that is called Maya > > or illusion in the hindu literature. It is called original sin in the > > christian literature. In the Hindu litterature it is noted that all > > suffering comes from a failure to realize the true nature of life. > > > To put as close to your terminology as I can: When "the fact, that > > life that life is here and now" fails to become "the Fact, that Life > > IS here and now" then there is suffering. > > > You should be careful about prematurely cutting out the meaning of the > > religions because you correctly realize that their literal > > interpretation is false and even distracting. > > > Now to the most important question: Is the dream dead. I think the > > answer is no. Not even in the most evil would I say dead... or at > > least not completely incapable of being resurrected. We know basically > > that there is this problem, the problem of Maya or original sin and > > there is this clouding of our vision but religious experience still > > happens. The real question can be posed in terms of the myth of Lot > > and his fleeing of his city. The dream is alive. We are like in a game > > with the stakes doubling. The technical capabilities we have for > > communication now are making possible a major reawakening. They also > > make possible our destruction and these capabilities, the ones we > > currently have are nothing compared to what is in the biological > > design / neurology synergy. We are about to become very capable. Are > > we responding to it is the question. > > > Good luck. > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
