some of my truth for you ham. the truth is truth is different for everybody. truth is existential; it is lived; it is a resonance. only you can know what is true for you. you can learn truth from no-one; neither can you give truth to anyone else (though you can point them toward it).
do you work out who you love by logical deduction? or does this truth present itself immediately? meaning? meaning is beheld as a resonance twixt the individual's past and projected future (self) and his experience of the present. that is the meaning of some event will be adduced through its contextualisation within a person's field of memories and ideas. furthermore the salient memories or ideas will step forth of themselves and present the connexion in which the meaning of the current event is apparent. purpose? for what purpose are we here? what purpose does life embody? neo-darwinians will say there is no purpose - the god 'chance' is all. they are even right in a way - they just don't understand chance. what is your 'purpose'? what is 'mine'? again only you can work out your purpose, your individual purpose. generally i feel we are here to get better - to bring forth more quality into the world, more love. belief. belief needs to be examined in opposition to faith. a belief is an opinion, a partial thing, a partisan thing usually. a belief is based on other beliefs and so on ad infinitum. it is all maya. faith is different. faith is ineffable. faith begins as a quiet whisper in your heart, so it is usually drowned out by the clamour of innumerable heady beliefs. faith has nothing to do with believing what you know to be false, as one wit quipped. no; faith and belief have nothing to do with each other. to differentiate faith from belief the individual must be at peace. peace....ah blessed peace. people think peace is an ideal...and it is. but peace is a simple ideal... it is no utopia. it just means absence of conflict, of stress. it is repose, satiety, contentment, quiet. it is bliss. we have war and conflict not because of george w, god bless him, but because nearly all of us are not at peace. how can there be peace among nations when there is not peace between or within individuals? do we not all want a peaceful life? is this not an example of a general truth. is this not as general as truth gets? then why do we not have it? why do we have the opposite? why? because we live in a kafka-esque world. we live in a heller world; we live the catch-22 daily. Pirsig's Giant holds us down with his fingertips. And this is why literature and art are inseparable from philosophy: the truth is borne of fiction and all truths are fictive, everything is! the artist is one who lies to show us the truth! our world *is* a trap. the older you get the more you find yourself stuck. you are tied down by mortgages, possessions, relationships, career; you are not happy but how can you change things when you have so many responsibilities. so you sacrifice a little bit more of yourself each day...and we drink and we smoke and we invite forgetfulness, numbness and occasionally a mortar blast of euphoric destruction. we have stress in abundance. it is ridiculous; it really is funny when you can step back and look at it: all this toiling, thinking, planning, worrying, comparing, competing, scheming.....all of it futile, all of it man-made, all of it obscuring that which is simple, eternal, joyful: the soul of the world that we are the conscious manifestation of. so.....we need to weaken our beliefs not strengthen them; we need to attentuate our beliefs not amplify them. we need to exercise discrimination towards that which resonates and that which does not. the source is irrelevant: "Some people don't dance, if they don't know who's singing, why ask your head, it's your hips that are swinging life's for us to enjoy woman, man, girl and boy, feel the pain, feel the joy aside set the little bits of history repeating" shirley bassey --- Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Ron -- > > > Your suggested link is a wealth of information on > Nietzsche by a brilliant > writer. So far I have only scanned this essay, but > I intend to scour it > when I have some free time. > > It's interesting that you refer me to the one > classical philosopher who best > exemplifies the "mad poet" approach to exposition. > If the author's opening > quotation from Dionysus, "The poet who can willingly > and knowingly lie, can > alone tell the truth" is true, it would suggest that > all dialectical > analysis is false, and the aspiring philosopher is > best advised to major in > English and write poetry for a living! > > A while back I chastised someone for considering > Philosophy as an "art > form". The semioticists in this forum are forever > telling us that reality > is no more than symbols and words. The logical > positivists claim that > spirituality and transcendence are inventions of the > imagination. It's no > coincidence that Nietzsche foreshadowed this drift > toward nihilism by simply > proclaiming that "god is dead". > > Your essayist Luchte seems to relish this trend, as > it gives him food for > thought: > > "Carnap contends that Nietzsche self-consciously > wrote this work of poetry > explicitly as something outside of philosophy. He > even commends Thus Spoke > Zarathustra, framed in his own light, juxtaposing it > to the bad poetry and > music of Heidegger's "metaphysics" of Nothing. > Carnap declares that the > 'philosophy' of Heidegger is meaningless, just as is > Thus Spoke Zarathustra. > Yet, from his criteria, Nietzsche could be at least > be absolved, excused, as > his work was meant to be so." > > Since no one has access to absolute truth, does it > make any difference > whether a philosopher's aim is to wax poetic or to > articulate a new > perspective of reality? (Perhaps he should do a > little of both if he wants > to entertain as well as inform.) But as one who > loves art and music as much > as philosophy, I take exception to the practice of > honoring "hallucinogenic > philosophy"-- fictional or poetic works designed to > entertain, provoke, or > sway their audience in the name of Philosophy > without a logical > philosophical foundation. > > I don't think we can stand divided on what passes > for philosophy; we need to > discover meaning and purpose, not disparage them. > We need to strengthen our > beliefs, not weaken them. I would say it behooves > the intelligent reader to > exercise some discrimination when "considering the > source." > > Thanks for intervening with this provocative > article, Ron. > > Best regards, > Ham > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get the World's number 1 free email service. http://mail.yahoo.com.au Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
