“…one sure sign of unity may well be that we share a 'lust' for it
that goes beyond any
personal disagreements …” – Archy
Thanks for the grok Neil. This is the innate part ('lust') of this
aspect of being human beings I point towards on occasion. It seems to
just ‘be’…not something that is easily cognized.
“…Imagine we meet and 'brainstorm' our ideas out…At least two things
might happen from there. We might plan action on the basis of an
accepted draft, or we might spend the next year writing all Francis'
edits back in! The latter has been typical of much I've seen…” –
Arcyh
Yes, this is quite possible when it comes to the manifesto sort of
activity. As you later say,
“…this is not the process we are ultimately interested in…”.
And, a third option is that by the very process of contemplating the
issue in a dedicated way, along with the resultant internal changes
that occur, actual change for all of ‘us’ (humanity) indeed has
occurred. This is a demonstrated unity and its associated process. In
this way, we are at once being scientific and metaphysical. It is as
all actual change has occurred over the ages, a sort of theurgy by the
innate bootstraps.
“… I don't mean to be dispiriting here …” – Archy
Not at all Neil, such observations about one’s own experience and
observations about current models of science are quite appropriate and
necessary. They are the sort of negative theology/science that points
towards the gold. And, without such culling, no actual clarity and
unity are possible.
“…Orn - I'm just returning to the beginning in questioning what it is
sensible to be up to. I sense a key problem in asking rationality to
do something it can't - something I have long suspected you understand
and which is difficult to articulate…” – Archy
Yet, you do it quite well here!
“…I think the problem is this - we are looking to people to make their
own decisions fairly and on an informed basis. This seems fine, yet
is riddled with the real problem that most people just don't do this.
Rationality would have us be rational in constructing the core, yet
this is the problem - perhaps one of pearls before swine? How do we
find a 'theosophy' that does not simply usurp this rationality as
another not-internalised authority?...” Archy
So very cogent Neil…at once skeptical and cautiously hopeful. A wise
mix indeed! And, as in such alchemy, often analogy must suffice. In
particular, only fully embracing the axiomatic truth of the basis or
foundation of such a vision of unity and forging ahead with full
determination can overcome the all too common torpor, disillusionment
and delusions associated with such endeavors, knowing along the way
that fanaticism is but another passion of distortion too.
“…My sense of this argument is that 'perfection' won't do….” – Archy
The purified ‘form’ of perfection is essential as I see it. Here we
are not talking about either a dictionary, a naïve subjective notion
nor even a revealed belief. What is needed to recognize is the more
Gnostic and Platonic internal recognition itself, no? Rather than a
‘new utopia’, furthering the ancient academies works quite well. Call
such practices of emanationism what you will.
A quick aside includes a bit of synchronicity and a quick
clarification of what I am pointing towards for those with less
esoteric backgrounds. The following just arrived from a Theosophy
group and, while a little more sectarian than I wish, the text and
especially the videos may provide some painless insights for the
uninitiated.:
http://theosophywatch.com/2009/10/20/holy-heretics/
“…We may well be limited to writing the dream…” – Archy
If on paper alone, yes, would be folly. However, if written on more
permanent stuff, derision nor the lack of text readers matter.
Another aside, one of the times I chatted with Amy Goodman when she
came to town, I asked her who would replace Chomsky when he died…I was
saddened that she had no answer nor even appeared to care. (Her site
for those who don't know her. http://tour.democracynow.org/ )
“…We are asking people to be grown up in a world kept in perpetual
childhood. Can we establish a path to unity (or the paths that create
it) in some form of awareness of new forms of argumentation?... yet in
our own cause and what others might make of it the unity cannot be
such as to leave out the idiot, put others in the cold for our own
glow…” – Archy
Again, a very astute and accurate analysis Niel! And, I know of no
argumentation more potent than living examples, none. While there do
exist those who are less inclined or able to read the text of such
possible dogma, I would not want them to have to. Again, the
scientific proof is in the living and direct transmission of such
light.
“…At bottom, my guess is that we need a minimal materialism (granting
matter a role in thought), itself recognised as spiritual, to bring
about a contentment of new ideal possibilities and creation.
Contentment, not soma. Otherwise we are thinking martyrs of a world
at war, or writing, licking our wounds in hiding, for those who may
one day be able to take on the Undead…” – Archy
While not being sure what brand of contentment you are discussing
here, when it comes to soma and martyrdom, such things are not on the
horizon for me. Since there is in fact nothing new under the sun, we
are part of a large body who have gone before us and who will follow
too…all as one.
“…In those experiments (occasions of experience) we conduct in which
we sweep such as the above away, perhaps to commune, to feel
fellowship or even in the existential moment under fire, there is
something else. This is only part of the story for me…” – Archy
As is it for me Neil. And, such omnipresent interaction is part and
parcel of soul. Yet again, I turn to the words from a different age.
"When Men of the Word, companions, worship, in their hearts refining
flashes of insight, then some become fully conscious of knowledge,
while others go their way mouthing empty words." Rig-Veda
“All companions are given both eyes and ears, But each man differs in
his quickness of mind. There are some who are like deep refreshing
lakes, and yet others like shallow pools of water.” Rig-Veda
On Oct 20, 7:43 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 'We want' personal commitment in all kinds of areas - one might
> include here 'honour amongst thieves'. Some of our prison governors
> are in trouble at the moment for moving prisoners just before
> inspections (this is actually a common incident in quality schemes
> where managers shift inventory to show efficiency in their areas,
> resulting in great charts until the overall is seen). There are many
> old schemes of virtue and whilst one wants this to be internalised
> (preferably a world of virtuous individuals), it seems we need
> external checks. Capitalism claimed to do this through the
> disciplines of markets and the bottom-line. Blair is very happy to
> make his peace with god on the basis of his integrity.
>
> In Hobbes, one can see a claim to accept regal authority as a least
> worst evil. We need something else, something in which virtue is its
> own reward, yet not the Blair-like excuse for not demonstrating what
> is right whilst posturing 'virtue'. I would not see this as a block
> to progress. Currently little taught (though one can do a whole
> undergrad course in the US on same) are the ideas of 'public choice
> theory' which aim to cope with the selfish individual decision-maker
> by encouraging a match between the individual and public interest.
> The theories or many and I'm sure I could establish some as mutually
> incompatible.
>
> You have said a great deal that is interesting Orn - one sure sign of
> unity may well be that we share a 'lust' for it that goes beyond any
> personal disagreements (themselves a plus I would say, rather than
> squalid jockeying). Let me put up a quick thought experiment we won't
> do.
>
> Imagine we meet and 'brainstorm' our ideas out. A day would produce
> reams. Francis could then use his brilliant skills to reduce this
> output to a couple of A4s (we Brits always put the hard work out to
> the Irish!). This would probably constitute the first meeting of the
> Manifesto Group! At least two things might happen from there. We
> might plan action on the basis of an accepted draft, or we might spend
> the next year writing all Francis' edits back in! The latter has been
> typical of much I've seen. Wittering forever on what Witters meant by
> 'a place of safety' in his ethics lecture.
>
> My point here is that I think there is much to be drawn up, yet this
> is not the process we are ultimately interested in. Given my
> background, I'm inclined towards the notion of a research programme -
> establishing a core that accepts evidence and can change on the
> evidence. Science has pretty good ways of doing this, but I think
> you know I'm not advocating science. It is a failure beyond those
> with its skills and most scientists are not much more than of the
> 'tropical fish' variety (there is no deep metaphysics we follow as
> scientists we pay much attention to - though plenty of commentary on
> such). Most people seem ineducable in science - the OECD-PISA studies
> have found most 15 year-olds struggle to use it in regarding life-
> problems - only 1.3% manage 'difficult' problems (if you look at this
> study and what it considers 'difficult' it's scary - we are not
> talking rocket science, but what should be simple common sense
> problems).
> I assume we don't want to create a 'new manifesto in Latin' for a few
> priests to go missionary with? I don't mean to be dispiriting here
> Orn - I'm just returning to the beginning in questioning what it is
> sensible to be up to. I sense a key problem in asking rationality to
> do something it can't - something I have long suspected you understand
> and which is difficult to articulate. I think the problem is this -
> we are looking to people to make their own decisions fairly and on an
> informed basis. This seems fine, yet is riddled with the real problem
> that most people just don't do this. Rationality would have us be
> rational in constructing the core, yet this is the problem - perhaps
> one of pearls before swine? How do we find a 'theosophy' that does
> not simply usurp this rationality as another not-internalised
> authority? My sense of this argument is that 'perfection' won't do.
> At the same time, we need a 'new utopia' as a frame for action with a
> purpose.
>
> Corporal punishment is now illegal in the EU. Yet we use it all over
> the place. Kids are told they need education to get good jobs and not
> become underclass slackers, our women forced to wear the veil, our
> streets bombed, if we don't stop the demons abroad, you are so ugly
> you need to use our cosmetics to be 'worth it', you will be treated to
> pain and derision if you blow the whistle ... all this is meted out by
> the silent brotherhood. Plenty want to run from this.
>
> We may well be limited to writing the dream. Plenty would simply
> deride this - they have been taught to do so. Moore's Utopia was less
> a dream than plagiarism (once one has scanned a classic or two) -
> though the word itself is interesting with a connotation of 'nowhere
> that can exist'. Writing might spread, but now there are not simply
> readers. In a way, Chomsky has said it all (and very well) - we are
> not seeing his ilk much in the new generation.
>
> It is not so much the problems I write here, but a 'concern' that
> concerns me. We are asking people to be grown up in a world kept in
> perpetual childhood. Can we establish a path to unity (or the paths
> that create it) in some form of awareness of new forms of
> argumentation? I'm very appreciative of what you are writing, pretty
> sure it is what we should be trying, yet in our own cause and what
> others might make of it the unity cannot be such as to leave out the
> idiot, put others in the cold for our own glow. This is precisely
> what politicians do as they urge more school on those it cannot
> benefit as schooling exists now. They are merely urging voters,
> establishing the focus-group-led holy cause and themselves as its
> priests. Dawkins is no different. At bottom, my guess is that we
> need a minimal materialism (granting matter a role in thought), itself
> recognised as spiritual, to bring about a contentment of new ideal
> possibilities and creation. Contentment, not soma. Otherwise we are
> thinking martyrs of a world at war, or writing, licking our wounds in
> hiding, for those who may one day be able to take on the Undead.
>
> In those experiments (occasions of experience) we conduct in which we
> sweep such as the above away, perhaps to commune, to feel fellowship
> or even in the existential moment under fire, there is something
> else. This is only part of the story for me.
>
> On 20 Oct, 01:41, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'd guess it will be important to recognise how fresh the start may
> > have to be. I have read Habermas and Rawls - though I'm not a patient
> > reader of such stuff. I wonder more on why I feel so let down. Part
> > of this is that managerialism is not confronted in a language of human
> > action I recognise. We have sunk into a deep pit of this, almost to a
> > point of 'no exit'. Strangely, perhaps, some game theory analysis
> > seems to give some pointers. The main one is that it becomes clear
> > that no one is taking responsibility and we seem to have all kinds of
> > existing politics that encourages this. I can't remember the actual
> > numbers, but on climate change typically 90% sign up to do nothing and
> > the 10% who agreed to do anything quickly enter a renegotiation to
> > change what they did sign up to.
>
> > On 19 Oct, 23:47, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > “I think I'd do go back in terms of 'beginning'. If we want unity,
> > > then we have to accept some painful messages…” – Neil
>
> > > Agreed.
>
> > > “…The first is that we live in fear of creating enemies. This means
> > > that we 'beggar our neighbours'. Soon we have foreign policies that
> > > do just this and also require us to stay ahead in the race. There is
> > > no point in proceeding without recognising that we can't just accept
> > > reaching a point where this kind of 'dirty world' argument wins
> > > because we haven't dealt with it…” – Neil
>
> > > I agree that humans deal with relations as well as security. And, I
> > > agree that not dealing with unexamined associated fears and phobias
> > > maintains the status quo.
>
> > > “…Religion becomes a 'handy' means of social control along with myths
> > > of origination, superiority and the rest…” - Neil
>
> > > Religion, at its core, deals with unity as I see it. Neighboring
> > > domains include morality/laws and perfection. Most of the current
> > > trappings thereof far exceed even the term dross. Yet, as a species,
> > > we do contain the set of beliefs associated with society supporting
> > > our views and needs as well as a more complex set of unexamined
> > > beliefs. And, yes we all have an area of the psyche that deals with
> > > beliefs about origin as well as one about hierarchies etc. It would
> > > seem that these need to all be examined and clarified as much as
> > > possible...as an omnipresent methodology, epistemology, theology and
> > > perhaps ontological clarification too. Overall, I suspect little to no
> > > ‘personal’ ability to impose beliefs thereupon has any place in
> > > reality. Some more global sense of the One seems preferable to direct
> > > subjective thoughts.
>
> > > “…This means we can assume no boundaries - we can't leave some
> > > crackpots alone to work on doomsday weapons and so on - there has to
> > > be international policing. I'd also say, that because a small number
> > > of idiots with guns can dominate very large territory, we have to
> > > accept a role for armed services and policing…” – Neil
>
> > > I miss the meaning of ‘no boundaries’ here and sense it is important.
> > > Of course for our security, that which would threaten life would have
> > > to be addressed. And, how many would be involved in such an
> > > international force? Would it be possible to assign
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
