Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 12th, 2019, 7:32 pm 

Nick -

The Buddhist Kalpa is just common sense for me.


I've looked it up. They, predictably, can't agree on the length of a kalpa. Let's just call it quite a long time :-)

For example Hitler would call it good to kill Jews and the Turks would call it good to kill Armenians.


Which is absurd, of course, and nothing to do with goodness at all. Does that need explaining?

There is a difference between the desire to become something defined by society and something defined by objective human meaning and purpose: a higher quality of being. In other words can a human being living in opposition to themselves become a conscious being expressing inner unity?


Ah, no. Becoming something is still becoming something. It may be mundane or spiritual (it isn't) but it's still becoming something.

We're talking about the human and we're talking psychologically. We're not talking about a baby becoming an adult. We're talking about this 'I', the result of many identifications, becoming something other than it is, usually better, more refined, more just, and so on.

Now, can it? Isn't it, whatever it becomes, still the self? The self is a conglomeration of experiences, memories. Can that become other than it is? Or more refined or noble?

The fact is that this is all the work of the self, the ego. It says 'I am this, not so good, but I'm becoming better every day'. At the end it's still the ego, right? This is factual.

We've done this collectively too, as we discussed before when we talked about conscious evolution. Can that consciousness become a better consciousness? It may improve a bit, become more educated, refined, but at the end it's still the same consciousness.

That may sound all right but that consciousness is still what it is, a limited collection of memories and experiences. There's no better or improved consciousness in that sense. The collective self, the sum of all experiences, is still just that, an amalgamation of memories.

I know it sounds wonderful to think we're evolving psychologically and spiritually but it's a delusion. History shows us that. Psychologically we're the same human beings we always were - warlike, petty, mean, and all the rest of it. This is true, it's in any document of the past.

So real change is never gradual, taking either a year or many aeons, but instant. The self, the ego, is either operating or it's not. There's no better ego. It's there or it's not there.

I know this is a hard thing to see but it's true. As long as we think humanity will be all loveliness given enough time, or that I myself will be, in another thousand kalpa's we're going to mightily disappointed. That's why change is now or never.

Is there anything be gained by the struggle for truth at the expense of our normal attraction to pleasure?


What do you say? I would say no because one can't pursue truth. We can, and do, pursue any amount of pleasure, but is truth pursuable?

That's another thing, we think we must give up pleasure if we are to conquer truth. I'm afraid not. That's another one of our many delusions, that truth is gained through self-denial, self-torture. It's nonsense. Life is quite meaningless without some pleasure and truth can't be bargained with or bought by self-sacrifice. It comes, as I said before, to the innocent mind and an innocent mind is not one that tortures itself in denial hoping to achieve truth. Quite the contrary.

Yet if imagination controls so much of our lives


But you're overlooking something. It doesn't have to. Once you've seen through it, it's finished.

We seem to have this idea that we're doomed prisoners stuck like this forever. Of course we're not. If we were there'd be no point to life at all.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 12th, 2019, 7:48 pm 

Nick -

I can't help wondering something. I hope you don't mind. Here I am, writing all these long posts out... Do you understand them? Have they any meaning for you or am I blowing in the wind?

I can't help asking myself :-)
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 13th, 2019, 12:36 pm 

Charon


Which is absurd, of course, and nothing to do with goodness at all. Does that need explaining?


Do we really distinguish beween good and evil? I discovered that I didn’t after reading this excerpt from Simone Weil. She is right so what does that say about me? Living in accordance with habitual imagination enables me to accept the imaginary as real.

Literature and morality: Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvellous, intoxicating. Therefore "imaginative literature" is either boring or immoral (or a mixture of both). It only escapes from this alternative if in some way it passes over to the side of reality through the power of art— and only genius can do that.


Ah, no. Becoming something is still becoming something. It may be mundane or spiritual (it isn't) but it's still becoming something.

We're talking about the human and we're talking psychologically. We're not talking about a baby becoming an adult. We're talking about this 'I', the result of many identifications, becoming something other than it is, usually better, more refined, more just, and so on.

Now, can it? Isn't it, whatever it becomes, still the self? The self is a conglomeration of experiences, memories. Can that become other than it is? Or more refined or noble?

The fact is that this is all the work of the self, the ego. It says 'I am this, not so good, but I'm becoming better every day'. At the end it's still the ego, right? This is factual.


You seem to be writing about how Man or “I” will eventually adapt in the direction of goodness. This “I” you write of is really our potential. In reality we are a plurality of many small Is and during the day each has its time. We lack inner unity. The creation of the self is the work of adaptation while the creation and change of what we ARE is the work of our ‘being.” Jacob Needleman explains the difference in his description of Acornology in his book “Lost Christianity.


I began my lecture that morning from just this point. There is an innate element in human nature, I argued that can grow and develop only through impressions of truth received in the organism like a special nourishing energy. To this innate element I gave a name - perhaps not a very good name - the "higher unconscious." My aim was to draw an extremely sharp distinction between the unconscious that Freud had identified and the unconscious referred to (though not by that name) in the Christian tradition.

Imagine, I said, that you are a scientist and you have before you the object known as the acorn. Let us further imagine that you have never before seen such an object and that you certainly do not know that it can grow into an oak. You carefully observe these acorns day after day and soon you notice that after a while they crack open and die. Pity! How to improve the acorn? So that it will live longer. You make careful, exquisitely precise chemical analyses of the material inside the acorn and, after much effort, you succeed in isolating the substance that controls the condition of the shell. Lo and behold, you are now in the position to produce acorns which will last far longer than the others, acorns whose shells will perhaps never crack. Beautiful!

The question before us, therefore, is whether or not modern psychology is only a version of acornology.


The value of philosophy for me rests in its ability to awaken the inner man, the kernel of human life within the personality or the husk of the acorn. We simply don’t know what the being of the kernel of life within a human can evolve to. We know an acorn can become n oak but what can the inner Man become? The modern emphasis on creating indoctrinated personalities at the expense of the kernel of life within assures nothing will change.

Even if the being of Man evolves only in a small degree everything would change but we struggle against it and prefer wretched contentment and argue if it is better to do this or that while remaining ignorant of the reality of the fallen quality of the being of Man.

What do you say? I would say no because one can't pursue truth. We can, and do, pursue any amount of pleasure, but is truth pursuable?


Truth is sought not because it is truth but because it is good. Simone Weil ...

I do believe that there is a quality at the depth of human being which is drawn to the good. For that reason we are also drawn to truth. When the need is sincere it is worth some sacrifices.

We know that for a person to become a concert pianist it requires practice at the expense of other more pleasurable activities. Yet it seems strange that a person with the need to become themselves to experience the good would sacrifice devotion to pleasure. But it is how we are.

That's another thing, we think we must give up pleasure if we are to conquer truth. I'm afraid not. That's another one of our many delusions, that truth is gained through self-denial, self-torture. It's nonsense. Life is quite meaningless without some pleasure and truth can't be bargained with or bought by self-sacrifice. It comes, as I said before, to the innocent mind and an innocent mind is not one that tortures itself in denial hoping to achieve truth. Quite the contrary.


What makes you think that the innocent mind exposed to cultural influences will not automatically adopt the same attitudes and just become another atom of the Great Beast or society itself with the same faults?

If a person wants to lose twenty pounds they must become detached from the power of that demonic box of cookies. This is torture and self denial but is it worth it? It depends upon how important it is to lose twenty pounds. The innocent mind can experience value but pursuing it is another matter. Our personalities will gladly supply many reasons why you re entitled to that box of cookies. The innocent mind has potential. Society does what it can to destroy it and indoctrinate it for its own purposes.

We seem to have this idea that we're doomed prisoners stuck like this forever. Of course we're not. If we were there'd be no point to life at all.


The collective being of society or the Great Beast serves a purpose for nature so cannot change. However individuals within society are capable of inner change into becoming capable of conscious action as opposed to just reacting things normal for animal life.

I can't help wondering something. I hope you don't mind. Here I am, writing all these long posts out... Do you understand them? Have they any meaning for you or am I blowing in the wind?


I understand them but just don’t agree. You do help me have gratitude to philosophy for making me aware of the third dimension of thought and the essence of religion which connects dianoia to noesis offering the direction which reveals human meaning.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 13th, 2019, 6:58 pm 

Nick -

Do we really distinguish between good and evil? I discovered that I didn’t after reading this excerpt from Simone Weil.


I'm desperately sorry you need someone else to tell you the difference between good and evil!

You seem to be writing about how Man or “I” will eventually adapt in the direction of goodness.


No, I'm saying quite categorically that he can never adapt in the direction of goodness. He doesn't know what goodness is. He may have various ideas and formulas but he doesn't know. And if he did know he still wouldn't know because goodness isn't something one 'knows about', it's something one is. Or is not, of course.

The creation of the self is the work of adaptation while the creation and change of what we ARE is the work of our ‘being'


You're postulating two distinct things. If you were a psychoanalyst you'd be talking about the real self and the false self.

Sorry, no such thing. One is as one thinks, feels and does. And if there's an end to the self and its ways then one is that.

But not at the same time. It's impossible. Try it and see. You don't apply these things to yourself, you just repeat theory. I'm not being rude to you, it's true. It's what you're doing.

Someone once said if one starts with theories one ends with theories. It's like someone discussing theoretically what Paris is like with a Parisian who's lived there all their life. They'd just laugh, and quite rightly.

The value of philosophy for me rests in its ability to awaken the inner man


But it doesn't, it just confuses him. That's perfectly obvious. The real philosopher is not a theorist, he's someone who lives what he says.

We know that for a person to become a concert pianist it requires practice at the expense of other more pleasurable activities. Yet it seems strange that a person with the need to become themselves to experience the good would sacrifice devotion to pleasure.


What do you mean 'a need to become themselves'? You mean someone who's all screwed up and doesn't want to be? Then they have to sort themselves out, don't they? It's not a question of becoming something, it's a question of unbecoming something.

'To experience the good'. Can you experience the good? What do you mean by the good? You'll reply with your ideas but that's not the good. The point is to BE good, not 'experience the good'. It doesn't mean anything.

'Would sacrifice devotion to pleasure'. Why do you think devotion is good? Devotion to what? Some god? Some belief? Some person? Jesus? It's all nonsense.

What makes you think that the innocent mind exposed to cultural influences will not automatically adopt the same attitudes and just become another atom of the Great Beast or society itself with the same faults?


Because it's innocent it won't be touched such things. It'll have no interest in them. You don't know about any of this.

Society does what it can to destroy it and indoctrinate it for its own purposes.


It will fail. If it succeeds such a mind was never innocent to begin with.

However individuals within society are capable of inner change


Of course, but it's a question of what change entails. If they really changed they'd no longer be in society, that's the whole point. You can't stay within society yet say you've changed. The free person may live in society but they're not of it. They are the outsider. They may work and pay their taxes, and so on, but inwardly they are alone. Such people are rare.

I understand them but just don’t agree
.

I know you don't agree but I'm not sure you do understand. You may understand the words but that's not the same thing. To understand you yourself must be free, alone, not indoctrinated. You can no longer be tainted by the world and its horrors. You must be on the outside, not in theory but in fact.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 14th, 2019, 12:55 pm 

Our essential disagreement concerns the elementary philosophical question: “who am I?”


No, I'm saying quite categorically that he can never adapt in the direction of goodness. He doesn't know what goodness is. He may have various ideas and formulas but he doesn't know. And if he did know he still wouldn't know because goodness isn't something one 'knows about', it's something one is. Or is not, of course.

That was the premise of my abortion thread. We don’t know what respect for life as an objective good is. People argue opinions about who should judge but in reality we don’t know what life it is and its relationship to goodness. One of the great failings of secularism is its inability to admit its ignorance.

Sorry, no such thing. One is as one thinks, feels and does. And if there's an end to the self and its ways then one is that…………

……..What do you mean 'a need to become themselves'? You mean someone who's all screwed up and doesn't want to be? Then they have to sort themselves out, don't they? It's not a question of becoming something, it's a question of unbecoming something.


You seem to believe that we have this “I” of inner unity while I believe that before becoming themselves and acquiring inner unity a person must free themselves from their attachment to conditioned responses resulting from imagination. The problem is that we cannot do it and that explains the purpose of Christianity.

Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.


The human condition is hard to admit. We re not ONE but many. “Man’s name is legion.”


But it doesn't, it just confuses him. That's perfectly obvious. The real philosopher is not a theorist, he's someone who lives what he says.


A person worthy of the name human lives their philosophy. A philosopher introduces ideas to open the mind and enable the experience of the human condition.

Why doubt the objective value of philosophy? How could I know the idea of the tripartite soul without Plato and Christianity? The hard part is consciously verifying it through self knowledge and reconciling these opposing natures.

'To experience the good'. Can you experience the good? What do you mean by the good? You'll reply with your ideas but that's not the good. The point is to BE good, not 'experience the good'. It doesn't mean anything.


What does being good mean to you? I’ve read that no one does anything for the sake of evil but from their conceptions of good. If this is true, without objective standards who defines what is good?

'Would sacrifice devotion to pleasure'. Why do you think devotion is good? Devotion to what? Some god? Some belief? Some person? Jesus? It's all nonsense.


Another great philosophical question. Is it better to become able to serve in heaven or rule in hell? We can become devoted to either path.

Because it's innocent it won't be touched such things. It'll have no interest in them. You don't know about any of this.


Innocence by definition is vulnerable and gullible. A three year old child is innocent but unable to withstand the attraction to corruption it experiences in the world around it. That is how personalities are created. They are a combination of essence and acquired values that makes life socially meaningful.

Of course, but it's a question of what change entails. If they really changed they'd no longer be in society, that's the whole point. You can't stay within society yet say you've changed. The free person may live in society but they're not of it. They are the outsider. They may work and pay their taxes, and so on, but inwardly they are alone. Such people are rare.


I agree that they are rare. An evolved human being as opposed to animal man receives from above, from higher consciousness, and gives to below in the form of a quality of energy. The Apostles didn’t drop everything to follow Jesus because of speeches. No, they received a quality of energy which led to a temporary awakening to the reality of the human condition as it existed in them and what it deprived them above. They wanted to become their human potential.

The great question is still “Who am I.”

I know you don't agree but I'm not sure you do understand. You may understand the words but that's not the same thing. To understand you yourself must be free, alone, not indoctrinated. You can no longer be tainted by the world and its horrors. You must be on the outside, not in theory but in fact.


Are you free? Do you have the humility to admit you are not free? Here is an Amazon review of Jacob Needleman’s book: “I am not I” the question persists: Who am I.

Do you need hope? Do you need wisdom? Have you ever wished that when you were younger you knew what you know now? Then I Am Not I is just the book you need to read - and engage with - right now! In this short, but very intense, book Jacob Needleman records a dialogue between his younger self (Jerry) and his 80 year old self (Jacob). Jacob teaches Jerry that his real meaning and purpose can only be discovered through a change and growth of consciousness. Who will help us give birth to a higher quality of consciousness, our True Self? We need a modern Socrates to be our midwife. Where is he? Apparently he lives in Oakland, CA!
Jacob Needleman teaches that when we are alone with our thoughts we are in real trouble! But together with others there is hope. Why is this? Because: real dialogue requires people to listen to one another. To truly listen one must step aside from one’s habitual state of mind, opinions, thoughts, and emotional reactions. And in stepping aside we experience our first taste of freedom, of another way of being in the world. When we step back from our normal, everyday self, what one might call our egotistical mind, the mind centered on itself, another mind appears, another intelligence.
This struggle for awakening is possible when two people support each other in their search to remain open. I Am Not I demonstrates the power of this support as the “two Needlemans,” discuss the possibilities of another birth, the birth of one’s True Self, one’s own recognition of “I Amness.” Perhaps real truth and wisdom, Needleman suggests, can only be recognized when we are in a specific state of consciousness that is open, and can receive the wisdom that is always here, even when we are unaware of it.
This awareness and growth of consciousness and attention is paradoxically given to those who are willing to pay the price. What is that price? I don’t think I can answer that question. Perhaps it is a question we each have to answer for ourselves. However, Needleman suggests what some of the first payments are, and they are the “payments” of self-study and search. “Hold your mind. Stop your mind. Just for a minute. Let your mind listen. It will move down into your body all by itself, but only if you allow it to. It will find your heart all by itself”.
I Am Not I gave me hope. For that alone it is worth reading and rereading.

Of course this is absurd for modern philosophy with its goal of victory in debate.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 14th, 2019, 3:31 pm 

Nick -

Our essential disagreement concerns the elementary philosophical question: “who am I?”


Maybe, but that may be oversimplifying it a bit. 'Who' you are is your name, etc, but 'what' you are, or rather what we all are, is more to the point.

One of the great failings of secularism is its inability to admit its ignorance.


Oh, and definitely the non-secular also. But they only admit the non-injurious.

You seem to believe that we have this “I” of inner unity while I believe that before becoming themselves and acquiring inner unity a person must free themselves from their attachment to conditioned responses resulting from imagination.


We've misunderstood each other. The 'I' is the one thing that denies inner unity. That's the point. The 'I' has been created by the mind and only exists in its identifications with things. It's a limited phenomenon based on memory and things past. It has no life in the present, it's basically just a reaction. Wholeness is only possible when the 'I', self or ego ends.

But that requires insight and understanding of the whole process of the 'I', how it's created, what it is, and so on. As you say, its very basis is the conditioning of various attachments, that's the whole point. But that doesn't require endless analysis, it requires perception.

A person worthy of the name human lives their philosophy. A philosopher introduces ideas to open the mind and enable the experience of the human condition.


Yes, but do they? Most philosophy is NOT the love of wisdom, it's the love of theories and ideas. That's why I rail against it.

Why doubt the objective value of philosophy? How could I know the idea of the tripartite soul without Plato and Christianity? The hard part is consciously verifying it through self knowledge and reconciling these opposing natures.


Ah, now there you've hit it on the head. The 'tripartite soul without Plato and Christianity' is wholly and totally beside the point. The whole raison d'etre of self-knowledge is to free the mind, not to verify some strange academic idea or other.

Say you were born on a desert island or something and these books and ideas didn't exist. One is still faced with the problems of life, the confusion, suffering, anxiety, loneliness, death, and all the rest of it. Without self-knowledge there's no release from these things.

And, if that were the case, how and where would you start in your inquiry into life? That's the issue. Self-knowing is not only the province of the learned, it's the crux of the matter for all of us, whoever we may be.

What does being good mean to you? I’ve read that no one does anything for the sake of evil but from their conceptions of good. If this is true, without objective standards who defines what is good?


It means, essentially, a life free of self-centredness. Like love, it's one of those things that has to approached negatively. When the bad is not, the good is.

We can become devoted to either path.


We may devote ourselves to a path, but why? It may only be an escape from life and our own emptiness, and the positive act of devotion almost certainly is.

Besides, what is a path? I devote myself to it because I want the reward at the end. That is self-centredness. If devoting myself to a path (invented by some person just like me, naturally) promised nothing at all, why should I bother with it? I wouldn't.

Innocence by definition is vulnerable and gullible.


That isn't innocence. The gullible are ignorant, not innocent. Innocence is to be free of the self.

An evolved human being as opposed to animal man receives from above, from higher consciousness, and gives to below in the form of a quality of energy.


How do you know? Have you done it?

Do you have the humility to admit you are not free?


How do you know I'm not free? Would I be talking like this if I weren't? To know something one must be of it.

The great question is still “Who am I.”


That's simple, you are memory, nothing more, living in the present to become the future.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 14th, 2019, 8:41 pm 

Charon

Maybe, but that may be oversimplifying it a bit. 'Who' you are is your name, etc, but 'what' you are, or rather what we all are, is more to the point.


Not necessarily. Who from a societal perspective is defined by qualities such as name, rank, and serial number but the philosophical question really concerns on where we fit in along the chain of being. Who am I can only be defined by what is above and below.
One of the great failings of secularism is its inability to admit its ignorance.


Oh, and definitely the non-secular also. But they only admit the non-injurious.


Yes but Christianity for example admits we are helpless sinners without help from above while secularism believes in progress through education.

But this is just theory. In reality words like Christianity and art have lost their meaning in society so become used for the purpose of status. In reality there are very few Christians and artists but many advocates of Christendom and expression..

We've misunderstood each other. The 'I' is the one thing that denies inner unity. That's the point. The 'I' has been created by the mind and only exists in its identifications with things. It's a limited phenomenon based on memory and things past. It has no life in the present, it's basically just a reaction. Wholeness is only possible when the 'I', self or ego ends.

But that requires insight and understanding of the whole process of the 'I', how it's created, what it is, and so on. As you say, its very basis is the conditioning of various attachments, that's the whole point. But that doesn't require endless analysis, it requires perception.


Yes and the question becomes what the missing quality which would make perception possible is? What are we missing?

Yes, but do they? Most philosophy is NOT the love of wisdom, it's the love of theories and ideas. That's why I rail against it.


Of course it is not. Like art and Christianity the word philosophy is used to promote status not wisdom

Ah, now there you've hit it on the head. The 'tripartite soul without Plato and Christianity' is wholly and totally beside the point. The whole raison d'etre of self-knowledge is to free the mind, not to verify some strange academic idea or other.


However the reason we live in imagination is because the tripartite soul is out of balance and this imbalance is supported by imagination. We cannot act naturally as long as we remain out of balance but without the influence of philosophy and the desire to awaken we remain ignorant of what we ARE so must remain slaves to imagination and defend it as our source for meaning. This may be the goal of the majority but for the seeker of truth and the person willing to sell all for the pearl of great price, it is insufficient. They are like the salmon swimming against the river serving the need to return to their origin.

You seem to believe as we are we can act in accordance with innocence soul knowledge. IMO the human condition prevents it requiring that we must act consciously rather than react naturally.

And, if that were the case, how and where would you start in your inquiry into life? That's the issue. Self-knowing is not only the province of the learned, it's the crux of the matter for all of us, whoever we may be.

Of course. A person begins by admitting that they have a need for meaning that the earth doesn’t provide. It takes a lot to be capable of this since society insists that it is the source of objective human meaning. I’ve read this as the psychology of idiocy. A person begins to see that they are an idiot. They tell their friends who say this person is an idiot for saying such thing. Now they are a complete idiot and the right place to begin to understand what they need.

It means, essentially, a life free of self-centredness. Like love, it's one of those things that has to approached negatively. When the bad is not, the good is.


"Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

Do you think the desire for inner unity is being self centered or is it essential for a person to become human and connect above and below? We may want to have an ego which consciously connects us to the external world but imagination prevents it. Our potential fo “I” is the source of our greatness.

An evolved human being as opposed to animal man receives from above, from higher consciousness, and gives to below in the form of a quality of energy.


How do you know? Have you done it?


No but I’ve been in the presence of such a person and received it.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 15th, 2019, 2:31 am 

Nick -

the philosophical question really concerns on where we fit in along the chain of being.


But I don't care where I am on the chain of being. I've never heard of the chain of being. Why should I judge myself in that way? What does it profit me?

Christianity for example admits we are helpless sinners


Yes, well, good luck to them. I don't like that sort of thing. We're what we make ourselves, not what we're told we are by some brainwashed neurotics.

secularism believes in progress through education.


That makes far more sense.

But this is just theory.


What, progress through education? Oh, no. Mind you, it depends what you mean by education. Just pumping in knowledge is only a very small part of education. Real education is about life. I'm sure we know all this.

the question becomes what the missing quality which would make perception possible is? What are we missing?


Why do you say perception requires some special quality? Perception is looking, seeing. If one doesn't look one won't see. Therefore look, look at the world, look at the mess we're in, look at oneself, look at what we're thinking and doing. There is your education!

However the reason we live in imagination is because the tripartite soul is out of balance and this imbalance is supported by imagination.


You may be right, I've no idea. I have absolutely no idea at all of what a tripartite soul is and, to be honest, I care even less. If I discovered I lived in my imagination I'd stop it! I mean, really. Children live in their imagination because they haven't matured yet, but we're supposed to be adults.

We cannot act naturally as long as we remain out of balance


That is true, but what is making us out of balance? Is it because we're stuck in our minds all the time? That's one reason. We give such colossal importance to the the intellect, to knowledge. Education as it is encourages that totally.

We're reared on intellectuality. It's considered cultured, intelligent. It's not. It's a wrong value. It's an emphasis on a part rather than the whole, hence the imbalance. To be whole is to be balanced.

You seem to believe as we are we can act in accordance with innocence soul knowledge.


I don't believe anything. I don't know what innocent soul knowledge is. If it's literally some kind of knowledge it won't save us. How can knowledge, facts, data, save us? Again, we're giving emphasis on something of the mind, the intellect. That's not the way, it's so obvious.

A person begins by admitting that they have a need for meaning that the earth doesn’t provide.


The world, not the earth. The poor earth is innocent! It's the world that has next to nothing to offer. All the fame, money, glamour, objects and things, do not fill the heart.

the right place to begin to understand what they need


I'd go with that. After all, this is what those disenchanted with the world do, they join sects or turn to religion in some way. But they don't see that generally those religions won't give them what they need either. Belief is common and belief is dangerous. A person has to run the gamut of a lot of experience before they start looking in the right place, and the right place is near, not far.

Man would like to be an egoist and cannot.


She does talk some nonsense, doesn't she!

Do you think the desire for inner unity is being self centered


It could be if it's just a notion, an idea. If they've heard about 'inner unity' they might decide they want to become it, which is another word for possessing it, acquiring it. That would be egotistical and delude them.

However, if they realise there's a gap, an emptiness in them then they might really want to find out what it's all about. As I say, it often takes a long time before people find the right place to look and the right way to approach all this sort of thing.

I’ve been in the presence of such a person and received it.


I understand that, but there it has come from the outside so to speak.

May I be a little personal to you? Your heart's in the right place but the many ideas you've acquired are muddying the waters. Go to the very source of your feeling, it's quicker.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 16th, 2019, 12:01 am 

Charon

What, progress through education? Oh, no. Mind you, it depends what you mean by education. Just pumping in knowledge is only a very small part of education. Real education is about life. I'm sure we know all this.


Education has become another one of these words like art and Christianity which has lost its objective meaning in society and used to imply status. Indoctrination is only valued because people associate it with this magical word education which has only positive implications. Would an educated man by definition be Nietzsche’s Overman with the ability to dominate by his will to power?

Why do you say perception requires some special quality? Perception is looking, seeing. If one doesn't look one won't see. Therefore look, look at the world, look at the mess we're in, look at oneself, look at what we're thinking and doing. There is your education!


But we don’t know how to look. The East is ahead of the West in recognizing both the effects of attachment and detachment. We interpret in accordance with our attachments. To see requires detachment. Once again the lady hits the nail on the head.

'Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be obtained only by someone who is detached.” ~ Simone Weil

"There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too." - Simone Weil


What would allow a person to develop the ability to see with detachment as opposed to being a habitual slave to interpretations based on preconceptions? If Simone is right it isn’t easy. It would be practicing conscious attention. But how many in this day and age even know what this means much less how to become capable of seeing with detachment.

You may be right, I've no idea. I have absolutely no idea at all of what a tripartite soul is and, to be honest, I care even less. If I discovered I lived in my imagination I'd stop it! I mean, really. Children live in their imagination because they haven't matured yet, but we're supposed to be adults.


But we don’t notice because we lack the quality of consciousness to notice. I can see you don’t care about the concept of the Tripartite soul but for reference sake I’ll post a link which will show how the concept is used even now in the modern triune brain concept

http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/p ... e_soul.htm

The three basic parts of the human essence are out of balance and can only be reconciled by imagination. If all we experience is the result of imbalance, we can only get an indication of what conscious life is from the impressions on our psych from the depths of philosophy and the essence of religion. Without the conscious influence all collective Man or what Plato called the Beast does is follow the cycles described in Ecclesiastes 3 including war and peace.

That is true, but what is making us out of balance? Is it because we're stuck in our minds all the time? That's one reason. We give such colossal importance to the the intellect, to knowledge. Education as it is encourages that totally.

We're reared on intellectuality. It's considered cultured, intelligent. It's not. It's a wrong value. It's an emphasis on a part rather than the whole, hence the imbalance. To be whole is to be balanced.


True, but how do we educate the body and also achieve emotional quality when we don’t know what it is and refuse the help from above necessary to experience objective values? Simone Weil explains this in the opening of the book “The Need for Roots” written when she had TB as her contribution as to what would be necessary to rebuild France after Hitler’s devastation.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.

That reality is the unique source of all the good that can exist in this world: that is to say, all beauty, all truth, all justice, all legitimacy, all order, and all human behaviour that is mindful of obligations.

Those minds whose attention and love are turned towards that reality are the sole intermediary through which good can descend from there and come among men………………………..


The intellect is valuable to use facts but cannot define objective values. Of course the dominance of the belief in the intellect denies the help from above which would enable our conscience to “feel” objective values.
We agree as to the limitations of the intellect but disagree on what it will take for humanity to acquire values which correspond with advances in technology

She does talk some nonsense, doesn't she!


You say this because you haven’t experienced that you don’t see but instead interpret. The healthy ego sees, the fallen ego interprets. Interpretation is the way of the world. How many see that the emperor has no clothes?

It could be if it's just a notion, an idea. If they've heard about 'inner unity' they might decide they want to become it, which is another word for possessing it, acquiring it. That would be egotistical and delude them.


Inner unity is acquiring the conscious quality which reconciles our disharmony. As we are our thoughts, emotions, and sensations are out of balance. Understanding is only truly possible for one who consciously thinks, feels, and senses the outside world as a whole. When a person comes to experience the human condition, what is so odd about trying to heal it in themselves? The reality is that only a minority want this freedom to acquire understanding so are content with the struggle for pleasure

However, if they realise there's a gap, an emptiness in them then they might really want to find out what it's all about. As I say, it often takes a long time before people find the right place to look and the right way to approach all this sort of thing.

Agreed

May I be a little personal to you? Your heart's in the right place but the many ideas you've acquired are muddying the waters. Go to the very source of your feeling, it's quicker.

This sounds like New Age philosophy. IMO it is very dangerous. It is far more advantageous to become capable of a quality of conscious attention necessary to “know thyself” – have the experience of oneself which awakens conscience as opposed to being attracted to the source of imagination which feels like essential feeling.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 16th, 2019, 11:13 am 

Nick -

Re. education, I saw this on the BBC today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47936211

But we don’t know how to look.


You're looking at the screen now. A bird goes across the sky, we follow it. There's no special method of looking, you just look. Everybody does that.

But one may confuse looking with interpreting, judging, comparing, condemning, justifying, and so on, but I wouldn't call that looking. If I see something and condemn it I'm not really looking at it at all.

But I can see that I'm doing that. That is, to be aware of my own reactions to things. So there's the thing or person outside, one's response to it, and the awareness of both.

We can apply that to ourselves too. Instead of something outside it may be something inside. I feel, say, angry, see it, and immediately justify or condemn it. If one's aware of all that happening then the question arises whether one can look without the habitual responses.

If I don't interfere with simple awareness then one sees very clearly and in that there's understanding. Say I'm angry. I can immediately tell myself that I'm stupid or bad to get angry. But if I don't do that then I can begin to see that I'm just irritable because I'm overtired, for example. And what's wrong with that?

That's probably what you mean by detachment.

What would allow a person to develop the ability to see with detachment as opposed to being a habitual slave to interpretations based on preconceptions?


By starting with things as they are. See the anger, see the usual, conditioned response (bad, stupid), and realise what's happening. That has its own effect.

But how many in this day and age even know what this means much less how to become capable of seeing with detachment.


Well, quite. This is why these things should be talked about till they become commonplace. Of course, people who enjoy getting angry won't be interested, but that's up to them.

But we don’t notice because we lack the quality of consciousness to notice.


It's the same thing, we're unaware of ourselves. No one has told us about it. Or, if they have, it's floated as a racket. You pay money to go to some class to find out how to be attentive.

Tripartite soul


You'll have to tolerate me, Nick. That's someone's little idea. It's got nothing to do with real life. Someone invented it. I refuse to taint my mind with it. Really. Far too clever for me.

Honestly, we shouldn't get into these things, they don't help at all. Let's be simple, clear, and deal with facts, things we can see, things which are real.

You see, here's a strange thing. You yourself constantly, and rightly, stress the need to be free from indoctrination. Absolutely, me too. I see all this stuff and instantly reject it. Voila, no indoctrination.

I've been like that all my life. I was sent to a Christian school, church every day, twice on Sundays, classes and all the rest of it, and it went in one ear and out the other. It had zero effect. I didn't need to rebel because it never entered in the first place. So I was never indoctrinated by anything. It's a fact.

Indoctrination is largely voluntary. The gullible mind, eager to please, swallows and repeats these things and they take root in the mind, especially when young. it seems very few avoid these pitfalls.

how do we educate the body and also achieve emotional quality when we don’t know what it is and refuse the help from above necessary to experience objective values?


We educate the body by our thinking, obviously. What we eat, how we exercise, if we do, what work we do, how well we sleep, all affects the body. But it begins inwardly so we need to look after that first, then the rest follows.

Why do we want to 'experience objective values'? What does that mean? In fact, why do we want to experience anything?

Please ask yourself this. Why do we want experience at all? Every day is an experience. Life is an experience. Reading and responding to this is an experience. What happens in our relationships is a vast experience. But we don't think of it that way, do we? We move off from that and want some other, strange, esoteric experience. Why?

Well, you answer it!

We agree as to the limitations of the intellect


I'm glad we agree on the limitations of the intellect. It is, absolutely, limited. It's province is knowledge, analysis, idea and theory, and all that, all completely conditioned by the environment. If we lived somewhere else we'd have a different, equally conditioned content. And man is divided by the different contents, wars are fought over them.

but disagree on what it will take for humanity to acquire values which correspond with advances in technology


Those values will show themselves as technology progresses. We can't jump the gun. But technology isn't going to change us radically. We'll still be what we are, which is what we have been for millenia. There's no way out of that and we'll still have the same problems of freedom and bondage as we have now. So we may as well tackle that now.

How many see that the emperor has no clothes?


Not many. She said 'Man would like to be an egoist and cannot'. That is evidently nonsense because he's already an egoist and it's causing havoc.

Please don't say 'Oh, but she has her own special invented interpretation for those words. You need to read it, study it, get involved in it, before you can understand'.

Why should I? I'm not interested in other peoples' weird ideas and invented language. Life's far too short for that. Life is real, it needs looking at - directly, not through the words of somebody else. They may be completely twisted, and usually are.

You can't play with reality, Nick. We can read all sorts of books, juggle with the concepts, compare them with what we know, but that's not understanding life, that's understanding the books.

Inner unity is acquiring the conscious quality which reconciles our disharmony.


No, inner unity or wholeness comes in seeing the causes of disharmony and putting an end to them. When there's an end to disharmony there's harmony. It's very simple.

It is far more advantageous to become capable of a quality of conscious attention necessary to “know thyself”


Absolutely, it's the whole crux of our discussion.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 17th, 2019, 12:52 am 

I agree that education has lost its purpose as your article points out. Here are two obvious reasons. If they interest you they could be discussed on an “Education” thread. The first concerns the effect of technology on our collective attention spans. The result is a mass of facts with no understanding.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/tech-huma ... ntion-span

A new study published in Nature Communications on Monday found that humanity’s collective attention span is getting shorter — a remarkable side effect likely attributable to technology.
“The world has become increasingly well connected in the past decades,” researcher Philipp Lorenz-Spreen said in a press release. “This means that content is increasing in volume, which exhausts our attention and our urge for ‘newness’ causes us to collectively switch between topics more rapidly.”………


The second is the loss of our ability for conscious attention which is a natural result of the loss of attention span. Here is an article concerning the loss of conscious attention including the inability to love. We are losing the ability to see the forest by becoming enchanted with the trees. The awareness of wholeness is sacrificed for our obsession with fragments

https://philpapers.org/rec/YODSWO

The concern of this study is the loss of the meaning or purpose of education and the instrumental view of education as its corollary. Today, education is largely conceived of as a means to gain social and economic privilege. The overemphasis on school children's test scores and the accountability of teachers and schools is evidence that education has lost its proper meaning. In such a climate, we observe general unhappiness among teachers, school children, and their parents. Society as a whole seems to have given up on education, not only school education but also the very idea of educated human beings. There is an urgent need to reconsider what education is and what its purpose is. However, these questions—once being the primary concerns of philosophers of education—are barely discussed today. I intend to energize the discourse of the aims of education by examining Simone Weil's thesis that the sole purpose of education is to nurture attention…………………………..


We can apply that to ourselves too. Instead of something outside it may be something inside. I feel, say, angry, see it, and immediately justify or condemn it. If one's aware of all that happening then the question arises whether one can look without the habitual responses.

If I don't interfere with simple awareness then one sees very clearly and in that there's understanding. Say I'm angry. I can immediately tell myself that I'm stupid or bad to get angry. But if I don't do that then I can begin to see that I'm just irritable because I'm overtired, for example. And what's wrong with that?

That's probably what you mean by detachment.


Once you think “I am angry” the ability to see is lost since you’ve become anger. However if over time a person becomes able to experience that “anger is within me,” they are more than anger. But people don’t do this. We keep saying that I am this or that which only increases our attachment to it.

The deeper esoteric meaning of the phrase “turn the other cheek” is based on this idea. A person is hit and just automatically reacts. The person desiring to remain conscious during such experiences invites the person to strike him again so that they can consciously witness that their reactions are not I but taking place within I.

By starting with things as they are. See the anger, see the usual, conditioned response (bad, stupid), and realise what's happening. That has its own effect.


IMO it is more important to just become able to consciously see. If Simone is right it is far more difficult and important than we think

."Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil


A very deep observation. We don’t notice existence. We take if for granted and react to it as we’ve been conditioned to do. If we are capable of conscious attention we can put ourselves into the position of another by giving our attention. Of course that would change everything but we are creatures of reaction largely incapable of conscious action.

You'll have to tolerate me, Nick. That's someone's little idea. It's got nothing to do with real life. Someone invented it. I refuse to taint my mind with it. Really. Far too clever for me.


Is it really a bad thing to contemplate the meaning and purpose of life as philosophy invites us to do? I don’t mean arguing these ideas but impartially contemplating them.

Do you believe that mathematics is an objective reality? Will mathematical relationships still exist in the universe even after man becomes extinct? Did we discover math or did we invent it?

If it is natural for our species to experience objective meaning and purpose, part of the experience is understanding the great laws sustaining our universe that make objective purpose possible. You can say why bother but I believe it is a normal human need. The problem is how they are interpreted

As I understand it, the two basic laws sustaining universal processes are first the law of octaves as known by Pythagoras and second the law of three forces which is expressed in the tripartite soul. It wasn’t remembered but rather remembered since this law of the interaction of three forces always was.

Why consider knowledge as necessarily damaging. It is only damaging when we lack a human perspective making the struggle for prestige king..

Should technology serve Man or should Man serve machines? Now, with the loss of conscious attention and the obsession with details society is serving machines. But this is the fault of the human condition, not ideas.

Indoctrination is largely voluntary. The gullible mind, eager to please, swallows and repeats these things and they take root in the mind, especially when young. it seems very few avoid these pitfalls.


Very true. Incoctrination offers prestige. I once started a thread on another site called “Secular Intolerance.” Of course intolerance isn’t limited to secularism but secularism gives the impression of the prestige of intelligence justifying the nasty emotions of intolerance which doesn’t do anyone any good.

We educate the body by our thinking, obviously. What we eat, how we exercise, if we do, what work we do, how well we sleep, all affects the body. But it begins inwardly so we need to look after that first, then the rest follows.


But the big problem is that because we live upside down our bodily habits rule our mind. A big part of educating the body is teaching it to obey the mind rather than ruling it.

Why do we want to 'experience objective values'? What does that mean? In fact, why do we want to experience anything?


Because the inner man is attracted to becoming normal and feeling objective values which are universal truths. Our personalities have been conditioned to accept social values including killing and dominate the inner man. It is natural for animal man to have sensory experiences and the more the better. It would defy our animal purpose to just hide in a cave

Please ask yourself this. Why do we want experience at all? Every day is an experience. Life is an experience. Reading and responding to this is an experience. What happens in our relationships is a vast experience. But we don't think of it that way, do we? We move off from that and want some other, strange, esoteric experience. Why?


Because we are dual natured. Animal man needs to experience life mechanically with our senses. However the human organism has the potential for conscious experience connecting above and below to give an additional human meaning to mechanical sensory experience. Mechanical reaction making the transition into conscious action is IMO a normal part of Man’s collective evolution.

Those values will show themselves as technology progresses. We can't jump the gun. But technology isn't going to change us radically. We'll still be what we are, which is what we have been for millenia. There's no way out of that and we'll still have the same problems of freedom and bondage as we have now. So we may as well tackle that now.


Here we have a basic disagreement. I believe as I wrote before that as technological fragmentation increases it will only lead to an increased struggle for prestige denying the necessary awareness of the quality of values necessary to put the results of fragmentation into a more human perspective.

Why should I? I'm not interested in other peoples' weird ideas and invented language. Life's far too short for that. Life is real, it needs looking at - directly, not through the words of somebody else. They may be completely twisted, and usually are.


The purpose of philosophy as I know it isn’t to provide answers but to raise questions. We can experience these question during our daily lives. What should we do when faced with the contradictions we experience? Do we deny them and follow an approved form of indoctrination to answer this question of contradiction, ignore it, or try to consciously experience it?

Simone Weil — 'When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.'


This is what the original Socratic dialogue tries to do. We are invited to consciously contemplate our contradictions. Conscious Contemplation opens us to noesis and higher reconciliation. We verify reconciliation as we live.

Why deny the value of ideas which invite us to verify what we were previously ignorant of?

You can't play with reality, Nick. We can read all sorts of books, juggle with the concepts, compare them with what we know, but that's not understanding life, that's understanding the books.
Very true. The problem is admitting and verifying the human condition as it exists in us. But who knows how?
No, inner unity or wholeness comes in seeing the causes of disharmony and putting an end to them. When there's an end to disharmony there's harmony. It's very simple..


Water seeks its own level. How can you expect to experience the value of inner unity from disunity sufficient to lead to change? It can’t be done. Since we ARE as we ARE, everything is as it is.
Of course I believe that changing what we are requires the help of grace to produce emotional understanding sufficient to deal with hypocrisy justifying the human condition.
Understanding what we ARE requires ideas necessary to realize what we lose by not knowing what we are. But society as a whole and modern education are against authentic self knowledge. Conscious evolution beginning with impartial efforts to “know thyself” can only be for a minority who find it and are open to it. This is not unfair since the world rejects it.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 17th, 2019, 1:32 pm 

Nick -

I think we're agreed on education. The loss of attention is absolutely to the point too.

Once you think “I am angry” the ability to see is lost


Absolutely, that's the start of analysis, judgement, and all that.

The person desiring to remain conscious during such experiences invites the person to strike him again so that they can consciously witness that their reactions are not I but taking place within I.


Er, I don't think I'd be asking them to do it again!

IMO it is more important to just become able to consciously see. If Simone is right it is far more difficult and important than we think


It can be cultivated. Watch quietly, it's all there. But I agree it might need pointing out.

we are creatures of reaction largely incapable of conscious action.


I'd say it's mostly just habit. We react thoughtlessly and get caught in those reactions. But that can change if one's serious about all this kind of thing.

Is it really a bad thing to contemplate the meaning and purpose of life as philosophy invites us to do?


The 'meaning of life' is one of those odd things we think about. I'd rather contemplate the lack of meaning. It's not life which is meaningless, it's the way we live it. Change that and life is full of meaning.

Why consider knowledge as necessarily damaging.


I don't. Knowledge is essential for practical purposes, I couldn't do anything without it. But knowledge is neither wisdom nor understanding, nor is it love. It should be put in its place. A mind stuffed with knowledge in the sense of beliefs, theories, ideas, ideals, ideologies, and all the rest of it, is basically an occupied mind and a material mind. If we want fresh air we have to open the window.

because we live upside down


I quite liked that :-)

Our personalities have been conditioned to accept social values


Precisely, therefore what matters is the freedom from such conditioning. That's the real meaning of freedom. As I said before, one has to be inwardly outside the social values. That is real education.

Because we are dual natured.


That's not why we want more than the daily experience. We want something else because we're bored, because we're not awake to the present. And we'll get more if we look for it but it's not light, it's not the understanding either of life or oneself.

Here we have a basic disagreement.


Goody :-)

I believe as I wrote before that as technological fragmentation increases it will only lead to an increased struggle for prestige denying the necessary awareness of the quality of values necessary to put the results of fragmentation into a more human perspective.


What do you mean by 'technological fragmentation'? It's WE who are fragmented. That has to be cease otherwise there's no wholeness. Fragmentation is sickness, not wholeness, and the world as it is shows that.

The purpose of philosophy as I know it isn’t to provide answers but to raise questions.


Do we need to study philosophy to question things? Doesn't any thoughtful person question the whole way we live and die? Say there were no books, no philosophy, wouldn't we still question? Are we all asleep?

What should we do when faced with the contradictions we experience? Do we deny them and follow an approved form of indoctrination to answer this question of contradiction, ignore it, or try to consciously experience it?


Contradictions in us or in the mad world? There'll always be contradictions in the mad world. But if we ourselves are in contradiction then it needs looking at. We have to find out why and put it right.

The question then is how we do it. Must we rely on a philosopher, analyst, belief, some school of thought? Or just look at it ourselves directly? The simple way is the quickest. Expecting others to do it is ineffective and unreliable. It encourages dependence and that's the very antithesis of self-reliance, standing one one's own feet. Depending on anything from the outside puts one to sleep.

Why deny the value of ideas which invite us to verify what we were previously ignorant of?


It's not ideas I reject, it's the dependence on them and the mistaking of the many words of others for enlightenment. I know a lot of what is written is good, from Weil to Plato and many other thinkers. Nothing wrong with that but it has very, very little to do with having to deal with life. That one must do alone.

Understanding what we ARE requires ideas


Ideas are the product of thought and memory. One can play with ideas, and many do, but ideas aren't action. All ideas are conditioned. Understanding what we are requires watchfulness and direct awareness and a mind distracted by ideas will find that very difficult.

How can you expect to experience the value of inner unity from disunity sufficient to lead to change?


We said when when disunity ends there's unity, or rather when disharmony ends there's harmony. That IS the change, there's none other, globally or individually. That is freedom, that is love, that's the only problem man has.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 17th, 2019, 8:41 pm 

Charon
It's not ideas I reject, it's the dependence on them and the mistaking of the many words of others for enlightenment. I know a lot of what is written is good, from Weil to Plato and many other thinkers. Nothing wrong with that but it has very, very little to do with having to deal with life. That one must do alone.

I think this is where we differ. I appreciate philosophy and its purpose differently than you. You seem to equate philosophy with arguing about ideas of the world and for me the purpose of philosophy is to experience noesis or anamnesis. I agree that all this arguing is useless. The purpose of pure philosophy as opposed to the philosophy of education, politics, or whatever IMO is to remember what has been forgotten. Its ideas serve this purpose of remembering. Jacob Needleman describes it perfectly in his book: “The Heart of Philosophy,”

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead…………...

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

Society can live without arguing but can the essence of Man or the inner Man live and grow without the awakening ideas of philosophy or will it just be consumed by the enchantment of modern technology and become the dead burying their dead?.

The being of Man is fragmented. It has become easy to become enchanted with fragments or details at the experience of the perception of wholeness.

Of course there are men like Dr. Basarab Nicolescu who allow open minded people to experience the problems of the human condition and what can be done? But compared to the masses they are few and far between so only a few can profit from these ideas.

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Reviews/NicolescuReview.htm


……………..Nicolescu’s raison d’être is to help develop people’s consciousness by means of showing them how to approach things in terms of what he calls “transdisciplinarity.” He seeks to address head on the problem of fragmentation that plagues contemporary life. Nicolescu maintains that binary logic, the logic underlying most all of our social, economic, and political institutions, is not sufficient to encompass or address all human situations. His thinking aids in the unification of the scientific culture and the sacred, something which increasing numbers of persons, will find to be an enormous help, among them wholistic health practitioners seeking to promote the understanding of illness as something arising from the interwoven fabric—body, plus mind, plus spirit—that constitutes the whole human being, and academics frustrated by the increasing pressure to produce only so-called “value-free” material.


Transdisciplinarity “concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline,” and its aim is the unity of knowledge together with the unity of our being: “Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge.” (44) Nicolescu points out the danger of self-destruction caused by modernism and increased technologization and offers alternative ways of approaching them, using a transdisciplinary approach that propels us beyond the either/or thinking that gave rise to the antagonisms that produced the problems in the first place. The logic of the included middle permits “this duality [to be] transgressed by the open unity that encompasses both the universe and the human being.” (56). Thus, approaching problems in a transdisciplinary way enables one to move beyond dichotomized thinking, into the space that lies beyond.



Nicolescu calls on us to rethink everything in terms of what quantum physics has shown us about the nature of the universe. Besides offering an alternative to thinking exclusively in terms of binary logic, and showing how the idea of the logic of the included middle can afford hitherto unimagined possibilities, he also introduces us to the idea that Reality is not something that exists on only one level, but on many, and maintains that only transdisciplinarity can deal with the dynamics engendered by the action of several levels of Reality at once. It is for this reason that transdisciplinarity is radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, although it is often confused with both. Moreover, because of the fact that reality has more than a single level, binary logic, the logic that one uses to cross a street and avoid being hit by a truck, cannot possibly be applied to all of the levels. It simply does not work. Nicolescu explains it is only the logic of the included middle that can be adequate for complex situations, like those we must confront in the educational, political, social, religious and cultural arenas. As he writes, “The transdisciplinary viewpoint allows us to consider a multidimensional Reality, structured by multiple levels replacing the single-level, one-dimensional reality of classical thought.” (49)



transdisciplinary viewpoint allows us to consider a multidimensional Reality, structured by multiple levels replacing the single-level, one-dimensional reality of classical thought.”


Of course this will go over like a lead balloon for all those who worship binary thought.

Am I right to assume that you doubt the value of philosophy since you associate it with arguing thoughts? Are you open to the idea that this may be just the abuse of philosophy?

Nietzsche’s Overman can do anything but as a creature of the earth doesn’t seem to know what to do as Man since it is guided by the will to power. Plato’s Philosopher King can also do anything but it was promoted from Guardian to Philosopher King. The Guardian is taught and experiences the awakening secrets of the Good so is no longer guided by the will to power but now is guided by a higher perspective - the value of the need to serve and has acquired the ability to do so.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 17th, 2019, 11:04 pm 

Nick -

for me the purpose of philosophy is to experience noesis or anamnesis


I don't know what those words mean, that's first. Second, you admit that the motive behind your interest in philosophy is to experience something. And you will, obviously. If that's your motive then no doubt you'll have an experience.

The question is whether experience is worth it. I can read, say, the Bible and have an experience. I can see angels and what have you! Is there much difference between that and taking a drug like LSD (I haven't) and having an experience? So philosophy is your drug and that will provide an experience.

But is it worth it? You must answer it.

can the essence of Man or the inner Man live and grow without the awakening ideas of philosophy or will it just be consumed by the enchantment of modern technology and become the dead burying their dead?


Probably technology is more useful, in that respect :-)

The being of Man is fragmented.


Why? You don't ask that. WHY is man fragmented? Why are you fragmented? Aren't you man also?

Man is fragmented because he thinks divisively. Everything he creates is partial, like nations, beliefs, cultures, societies, and so there's division between them and hence in man. There's very little difference between the outer man and the inner man. What he is he creates outwardly, obviously.

So are YOU fragmented? Do you think divisively and become separative? If you do then you're a source of division in the world with all the conflicts that implies.

Am I right to assume that you doubt the value of philosophy since you associate it with arguing thoughts? Are you open to the idea that this may be just the abuse of philosophy?


I've said repeatedly in our posts over and over again that philosophy is the love of wisdom, the love of truth, the love of life, not the worship of ideas and playing around with concepts. That might be called philosophy but it's not, that's just an intellectual amusement.

Nietzsche’s Overman can do anything but as a creature of the earth doesn’t seem to know what to do as Man since it is guided by the will to power. Plato’s Philosopher King can also do anything but it was promoted from Guardian to Philosopher King. The Guardian is taught and experiences the awakening secrets of the Good so is no longer guided by the will to power but now is guided by a higher perspective - the value of the need to serve and has acquired the ability to do so.


I'm glad you understand all that because I don't! I haven't the slightest idea what it means. To me it has no reality at all. Serve what?
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby PaulN on April 18th, 2019, 9:14 am 


I don't know what those words mean, that's first.


Curious as to why you can't look them up? This is a chat forum for literate people, with guidelines that ask you to research a topic a bit before posting.
PaulN
Member
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Location: Albuquerque


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 18th, 2019, 11:37 am 

Charon

I don't know what those words mean, that's first. Second, you admit that the motive behind your interest in philosophy is to experience something. And you will, obviously. If that's your motive then no doubt you'll have an experience.

The question is whether experience is worth it. I can read, say, the Bible and have an experience. I can see angels and what have you! Is there much difference between that and taking a drug like LSD (I haven't) and having an experience? So philosophy is your drug and that will provide an experience.

But is it worth it? You must answer it.


Yes, the value of philosophy worthy of the name philosophy is its ability to intellectually reconcile contradictions normal for the human condition. It is only worth it for people who need reconciliation. Einstein believed it was worth it and I agree. The majority don’t and prefer to argue details at the expense of “understanding.”

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930


I don't know what those words mean, that's first. Second, you admit that the motive behind your interest in philosophy is to experience something. And you will, obviously. If that's your motive then no doubt you'll have an experience.


You seem to equate noesis and intuition with fantasy and those who value it only seek to create their own reality. According to those like Einstein, without intuition we remain slaves to the human condition and are doomed to live in fantasy. I’ll stick with Einstein and believe it is worth it.

So are YOU fragmented? Do you think divisively and become separative? If you do then you're a source of division in the world with all the conflicts that implies.


We are all fragmented. Mind, body, and emotions do not exist as a unified whole but rather as three distinct parts often in opposition.

I've said repeatedly in our posts over and over again that philosophy is the love of wisdom, the love of truth, the love of life, not the worship of ideas and playing around with concepts. That might be called philosophy but it's not, that's just an intellectual amusement.


But people preferring to live in wretched contentment cannot love truth. So what is wisdom? Wisdom by definition requires understanding. Understanding requires sensory, emotional, and intellectual experience. If a person refuses to sense, feel, or think, what can be realistically understood or rise above the power of imagination?

Intellect is tool. Why worship it? Why not use it?. Should we worship a wrench or just use it as intended rather than as a hammer?

I'm glad you understand all that because I don't! I haven't the slightest idea what it means. To me it has no reality at all. Serve what?


Animal life on earth including animal Man lives in accordance with the aim of survival of the fittest. It is nature’s way. It is natural to dominate and the will to power offers the means for domination or the ultimate meaning of the earth.

Rather than dominating, the Philosopher King has respect for the universal meaning and purpose of life. The Philosopher King serves universal meaning and serves the process of life on earth including human interaction rather than striving to dominate it.

Serving the objective meaning and purpose of life is not the same as the belief in striving to dominate it for its own good sometimes called indoctrination.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 18th, 2019, 1:43 pm 

Nick -

Yes, the value of philosophy worthy of the name philosophy is its ability to intellectually reconcile contradictions normal for the human condition


It's a positive answer!

However, when dealing with human contradiction which is better? To intellectually reconcile them or to so understand ourselves that they are eradicated?

It is only worth it for people who need reconciliation. Einstein believed it was worth it and I agree.


I like Einstein but I don't agree a bit. What does reconciliation mean? It's not the ending of contradiction, it's something else. The word means to bring together. Is that actually possible?

Please bear with me a little. Let's say I have a contradiction. I'm the envious type, jealous and possessive - but I'm also a Christian. As a Christian I know I shouldn't be those things, I should be loving, not possessive, and all the rest of it. So there's a massive contradiction in me. What I actually am against what my beliefs tell me I ought to be.

Now how do I reconcile that contradiction? Is it possible? I can tell myself that I'm just human and I should try really, really hard not to be like that. Or I could castigate myself and tell myself what a useless Christian I am. Or, if I was a bit smoother, I could arrive at an intellectual conclusion about such contradictions being inherent in the human condition as we're all fallen angels and sinners, blah, blah. Or I could just say it's God's will that I'm like that... and so on and on.

But I'm still in contradiction. So I'm stuck. I could shrug and carry on because who cares? Or I could just carry on and admit happily that I'm such a hypocrite :-)

But deep down I'm still in contradiction. Contradiction means inner turmoil, conflict, and a miserable life. The fact is, regardless of my belief, that my possessive envy is making me unpleasant, it's affecting my relationships, it's hurting me and, through me, others.

So the fact is that no amount of reconciliation is going to resolve the problem. It's actually not possible to reconcile a fact - the envy - with a belief in the contrary.

So one can either go through all that absurd complication and nonsense or I can do the obvious thing which is throw away the belief and start understanding myself.

I hope you understand this. It's the belief which is creating the contradiction, not the fact. The fact is just there. I'm envious, possessive, miserable, whatever it is. That's all, it's what I am. It's the idea that I should not be which is the contradiction and the idea isn't real, it's invented. Do tell me you see this, it's so simple!

Why am I like this? Why am I holding on to things and people so much? Is it loneliness? Is it an inner sense of complete insecurity? Is it fear? There may be multiple reasons for it and I must find out what they are. It's only when I see the fact clearly and understand it that there's a possibility of change.

You seem to equate noesis and intuition with fantasy and those who value it only seek to create their own reality.


Intuition may be wishful thinking, and generally is. If one takes its original meaning, which is direct perception, then it's not fantasy.

We are all fragmented.


All of us? How do you know?

Mind, body, and emotions do not exist as a unified whole but rather as three distinct parts often in opposition.


Oh, but they ARE a whole and always were. They aren't divided by nature, it's our thinking which has divided them. It's like taking a flower and dividing it into root, stem, leaf, petal, etc etc, but that's not the flower's fault, it just grows. It's a whole, it blooms and dies.

You see, if only you'd apply this to yourself. I keep saying this. You get up, walk around, do things. You're a whole entity, functioning as a unit, as we all are. It's the only the dratted, cursed intellect operating through its theories that tells you otherwise and it's nonsense. The trouble is you believe them!

But people preferring to live in wretched contentment cannot love truth


It's their lookout if they prefer contentment to truth. No one's forcing them.

Intellect is tool. Why worship it? Why not use it?. Should we worship a wrench or just use it as intended rather than as a hammer?


I'm saying that, aren't I? It's a tool, it has its place, it's part of our make-up. But it has dominated us. One part of us has dominated our lives completely. But we've been through that previously here.

Serving the objective meaning and purpose of life is not the same as the belief in striving to dominate it for its own good sometimes called indoctrination.


You said:

The Guardian is taught and experiences the awakening secrets of the Good so is no longer guided by the will to power but now is guided by a higher perspective - the value of the need to serve and has acquired the ability to do so.


I said: Serve what? I assume you're saying the objective meaning and purpose of life.

What is the objective meaning and purpose of life? And who says it is that? Would you answer that? Who has laid down what is the meaning and purpose of life?

I don't mean to be flippant but no one asks what the purpose of a lawnmower is. But when it comes to the purpose of life there's confusion because no one really knows.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 18th, 2019, 8:17 pm 

“The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.” ~ Simone Weil


Charon

You’ve admitted the human condition and the hypocrisy it creates in you. You are not alone. It is how we are including me. We experience two desires at the same time. It is absurd. It is like Sisyphus who was punished by having him push the boulder up a hill and have it fall back as it nears the top for eternity.

You’ve written how you live in contradiction and the futility of trying to believe so rather than believe it is better to understand yourself. But who can do it. Who can avoid all the traps of imagining yourself for the sake of self knowledge which will reveal the dynamics of contradiction?

Can we profit from the suffering caused by living in contradiction. IMO yes we can once we become capable of conscious contemplation in which we experience the contradiction from a higher conscious perspective. I agree that modern Man is dominated by binary thought but must the intellect be defined by binary thought and ignore the capacity to open to a quality of conscious contemplation which brings conscious potential to suffering of contradiction

Imagine a horizontal line on a paper. Yes is in the extreme right and no is on the extreme left. The struggle to reconcile yes and no takes place along the line. Some days the point of reconciliation is more on the left and more on the right on other days.

The Law of Three Forces states that any completed phenomenon is the result of the interaction of three forces: affirmation, denial, and reconciliation. They create a unity.

You’ve experienced the struggle between yes and no which cannot be reconciled. The experience of conscious reconciliation requires a conscious quality not being used. Is it possible to have yes and no experienced at the same time from a higher perspective in which yes and no exist as ONE?

transdisciplinary viewpoint allows us to consider a multidimensional Reality, structured by multiple levels replacing the single-level, one-dimensional reality of classical thought.”

Is it possible to become able to experience the contradiction from a higher level of reality and the source of intuition and noesis?

The idea is that once the contradiction is consciously experienced rather than judged it invites an additional force coming from a higher reality to reconcile it and vivify the potential for conscious evolution. This is a simplified version of a difficult idea. Tell me if it makes sense to you:

Contemplative Consciousness
Monday, January 30, 2017

Nondual or contemplative consciousness is not the same as being churchy, reflective, or introverted. Unfortunately this is the way the word is often used today, even by people who should know better. Contemplation is a panoramic, receptive awareness whereby you take in all that the situation, the moment, the event offers, without judging, eliminating, or labeling anything up or down, good or bad. It is a pure and positive gaze, unattached to outcome or critique. Being present and conscious in this way does not come naturally to modern and postmodern people. You have to work at it and develop practices whereby you can recognize your compulsive and repetitive patterns and allow yourself to be freed from them. Moments of great love and great suffering are often the first experiences of nondual thinking. Practices of prayer largely maintain what many people first experience in deep love and suffering.
It seems we are all addicted to our need to make distinctions and judgments, which we mistake for “thinking.” Most of us think we are our thinking, yet almost all thinking—even among highly educated people—is repetitive and immensely self-referential. That is why all forms of meditation and contemplation are teaching us a way of quieting this self-protective and self-aggrandizing mind. After a while, we see that this repetitive process cannot get us very far, simply because reality is not all about us and our preferences!
Nondual consciousness is about receiving and being present to the moment, to the now,without judgment, analysis, or critique, without your ego deciding whether you like it or not. Reality does not need you to like it in order to be reality. This is a much more holistic knowing, where your mind, heart, soul, and senses are open and receptive to the moment just as it is, which allows you to love things in themselves and as themselves. You learn not to divide the field of the moment or eliminate anything that threatens your ego, but to hold everything—both the attractive and the unpleasant—together in one accepting gaze.
The nondual, contemplative mind is a whole new mind for most people! With it, you can stand back and compassionately observe the self or any event from an appropriately detached viewing platform. This is the most immediate and practical meaning of “dying to self” I can think of. As a general rule, if you cannot detach from something, you are far too attached to it! Eventually, you can laugh or weep over your little self-created dramas without being overly identified with them or needing to hate them. Frankly, few people fully enjoy this emotional freedom.


Can we experience the totality of our being and the hypocrisy which dominates it without taking sides for the sake of understanding ourselves? Just gaze as though watching a movie. “Know Thyself” experience ourselves from a higher conscious perspective. In Plato’s cave allegory it is the quality which allows a person to inwardly turn towards the light

I said: Serve what? I assume you're saying the objective meaning and purpose of life.

What is the objective meaning and purpose of life? And who says it is that? Would you answer that? Who has laid down what is the meaning and purpose of life?

I don't mean to be flippant but no one asks what the purpose of a lawnmower is. But when it comes to the purpose of life there's confusion because no one really knows.


That’s another thread. The purpose of life in the universe cannot be proven as we are. Science IMO will just make purpose more probable. But if you consider life on earth as an enormous living machine which perpetually lives and dies while reproducing and eating itself, it does seem logical that conscious man can support the purpose of the machine rather than destroy it to serve pragmatic desires. Lacking conscious understanding just means that what you see is what you get.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 19th, 2019, 12:00 am 

Nick -

You’ve admitted the human condition and the hypocrisy it creates in you.


Not in me, in the human being. Which does not mean all of them by any means, it's a figure of speech.

You’ve written how you live in contradiction and the futility of trying to believe so rather than believe it is better to understand yourself


Not me. I've never had a belief in my life.

Can we profit from the suffering caused by living in contradiction. IMO yes


There's nothing to be gained by suffering. The only thing it has to teach us is not to suffer.

The struggle to reconcile yes and no takes place along the line. Some days the point of reconciliation is more on the left and more on the right on other days.


You can't have read what I said. Reconciliation, or rather the attempt, is futile. Only the foolish try to reconcile irreconcilables.

You’ve experienced the struggle between yes and no which cannot be reconciled.


I have not. It's too stupid, frankly.

Tell me if it makes sense to you:


Yes, it makes sense, but it's only description, as though it were written by some meditation teacher. Unfortunately I don't see what the point of it is unless they're trying to propagate something. Meditation is not something that can be propagated.

The purpose of life in the universe cannot be proven as we are.


Assuming there is one. It might be nice to think we're all involved in some great 'purpose' but that's nonsense; it's egocentric thinking.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying life has no meaning. It depends how we live whether it has meaning or not; it's what we make of it.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 19th, 2019, 11:11 pm 

Charon

I thought you were including yourself with the rest of humanity.

N. You’ve admitted the human condition and the hypocrisy it creates in you.


C. Not in me, in the human being. Which does not mean all of them by any means, it's a figure of speech. Wee you including yourself in what you previously wrote?


I hope you understand this. It's the belief which is creating the contradiction, not the fact. The fact is just there. I'm envious, possessive, miserable, whatever it is. That's all, it's what I am. It's the idea that I should not be which is the contradiction and the idea isn't real, it's invented. Do tell me you see this, it's so simple!

Why am I like this? Why am I holding on to things and people so much? Is it loneliness? Is it an inner sense of complete insecurity? Is it fear? There may be multiple reasons for it and I must find out what they are. It's only when I see the fact clearly and understand it that there's a possibility of change.


If you believe that it is normal for Man to be “envious, possessive, miserable” rather than the result of the fallen human condition it is your premise. It just isn’t mine. It may have become normal for the mechanized Man animal but not normal for conscious Man. Animal Man follows the cycles of life. As we are we will always create the opposite. It is absurd but has become human nature. You my not want to profit from philosophy but I believe it is essential for us to open to what is necessary to be be more than programmed creatures serving nature’s needs as the rest of organic life on earth does

This is the central issue as it relates to this thread. Nietzsche wrote:

"Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.

"Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God died, and these sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful thing, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth.


Nietzsche believed that the overman who is master of himself and the ultimate meaning of the earth can replace God as the moral authority.

Can the ultimate meaning of the earth replace the calling of the essence of Man to experience its source? That is a real philosophical question easy to ignore for those willing just to want to be good people. Simone Weil wrote.

The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.
Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.
This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also.


Simone introduces divided attention opening the third dimension of thought. The Overman is the ultimate meaning of the earth but its fixation with the earth intensifies the contradiction between Man’s lower and higher parts and its influence must lead to eventual catastrophe.

The ability to open to the impressions and energy from above enables humanity to realize that we are equal as slaves to the human condition and rejecting Man’s evolutionary potential. Of course the world must reject it fo the sake of the struggle for prestige

So here we are. Your rejection of philosophy rejects the quality of contemplation necessary to experience divided attention. Yet I believe this rejection is the primary reason that The world blindly follows natural cycles including the cycle of war and peace. The idea of the simultaneous effort to “know thyself” while giving a part of our attention to the above is absurd for secularism and secular philosophy which is why it is scorned in schools. Yet for the minority who can profit from the ability of philosophy to open their minds they must look for alternative sources of information to feed their need for meaning.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 20th, 2019, 12:04 am 

Nick -

I thought you were including yourself with the rest of humanity.


Of course I am, but it doesn't mean we're all the same.

If you believe that it is normal for Man to be “envious, possessive, miserable”


I didn't say that. I was taking that as an example.

You might not want to profit from philosophy


I didn't say that either. It depends what you mean by philosophy.

I believe it is essential for us to open to what is necessary to be be more than programmed creatures


That's what this is all about. But you don't address the issue, you just talk about it in general terms.

What exactly do you mean by programmed? How are we programmed? What is the way out of this programming?

You don't address these issues, you spin theories about an 'overman' which is someone's invention. Show me an overman in real life. Just one will do.

Quoting Nietzsche, Weil, or some other person is NOT an answer to the questions above. You do realise that, I suppose. The problem has to be addressed in real terms.

Your rejection of philosophy rejects the quality of contemplation necessary to experience divided attention.


I have not rejected philosophy as the love of wisdom, which is the correct meaning of that word. Nor have I rejected contemplation in the least. I said it means 'to gaze upon'. It does not mean to indulge in academic thought. And don't you mean undivided attention?

You're misquoting me too much. In fact, I don't think you're really reading what I'm saying at all. I say something actual and you quote Nietzsche at me!

Answer the questions above about programming. YOU answer them, not go off into escapist philosophies about mysterious overmen. Can you do that?
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 20th, 2019, 2:34 pm 

C. I didn't say that either. It depends what you mean by philosophy.

N. By philosophy I mean how Prof. Needleman defined it as I previously quoted:

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….



That's what this is all about. But you don't address the issue, you just talk about it in general terms.


Philosophical Understanding IMO requires beginning with the big picture. It involves into details by the process of deduction. Anyone who has experiential knowledge of the big picture and experiences its connection with details has acquired universal understanding. They have connected above and below.

You don't address these issues, you spin theories about an 'overman' which is someone's invention. Show me an overman in real life. Just one will do.


You can appreciate a higher quality of skill so why not a higher quality of being?

My U S C F chess rating is 1942. This makes me skilled compared to a 1600 player but nothing compared to a 2600 player. All chess players are not the same.

It is the same with human being. The being of some is greater than the being of others. Our trouble is that we know how we can determine objective quality in chess but not in the objective quality of human being. We can expect that the highest quality can exist and just the thought arouses the feeling of humility. It isn’t a matter of pointing out the Overman but of contemplating if the concept is genuine. Is the quality of human being a relative quality and a logical consequence of the Great Chain of Being? Can we contemplate it from a higher form of intellect than analysis?

I have not rejected philosophy as the love of wisdom, which is the correct meaning of that word. Nor have I rejected contemplation in the least. I said it means 'to gaze upon'. It does not mean to indulge in academic thought. And don't you mean undivided attention?


The problem is that you haven’t defined wisdom. If it is purely a subjective term it means you love your own ideas. What value is that?

Contemplation means to gaze upon but how many are capable of it rather than drifting into judgment?.

Undivided attention is what animal life is limited to. Man has the potential for divided attention as well which connects him to higher consciousness and the experience of higher values.

Answer the questions above about programming. YOU answer them, not go off into escapist philosophies about mysterious overmen. Can you do that?


Will you agree that our lives are primarily run by habits. The way you sit, walk, postures etc are all habitual. At the same time our emotions are habitual reactions to similar situations. They just happen. This is programming. Freedom from habit and opening to the experience of objective reality requires becoming consciously capable of it

Consider how a concert pianist learns his skill. He has the desire to play so learns what a piano is and how to read music. His hands must be taught how to obey the desires of his mind. His emotions feel the value of music and supplies the will to practice. He can become able to compose music t higher level of skill. The mind, body, and emotions work in harmony to enable the person to become a concert pianist.

Human being offers the same problem. A person wants to live in accordance with the desires of their mind but cannot do it. Their emotional and bodily habits reject it. We can admit the value of practice to become a concert pianist but do not know how to practice to become consciously human. How to develop the ability for our being to work as a conscious whole? How can an individual practice and how could a society practice? An individual can learn but a society would rather argue itself to death before admitting what it is and learn what practice means in the goal to become a conscious human being
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 20th, 2019, 6:34 pm 

Nick -

Not bad, I'm beginning to get a feel of the real you coming through. Wonderful... and look how long it's taken :-)
Philosophical Understanding IMO requires beginning with the big picture.


Absolutely, begin with the world and move in. I said that before, if you remember.

It involves into details by the process of deduction
.

Deduction? Why? If we look at the world we can see very clearly what's going on - the wars, divisions, political nonsense, all the rest of it.

Similarly, one can look at oneself - the thoughts, feelings, motives, desires, conflicts, etc etc. No need to deduce a thing.

Anyone who has experiential knowledge of the big picture and experiences its connection with details has acquired universal understanding. They have connected above and below.


I said that too, that what we are inside creates the outside, which is obvious. We might begin outwardly and move in but then we discover that what's happening inwardly is no different from the world.

Understand it, we ARE the world. The consciousness of one is, precisely, the other. They're not two separate things, there's only one. It's only we, with the same thinking that divides everything in life, who like to make a difference - 'me' and 'that'. But there's only one thing, and that is the programming. Voila, there it is.

All chess players are not the same. It is the same with human being.


That's what I'm saying.

Our trouble is that we know how we can determine objective quality in chess but not in the objective quality of human being.


We don't have to judge the human being as a generic or abstract entity, only ourselves who represent the human being. But we don't judge, that's the point; we observe. That's the point.

We can expect


No, we don't expect anything, we observe to see what is there.

of contemplating if the concept is genuine
.

Forget the concept. There's no concept, we are observing ourselves. We are the human being, we are the humanity.

Can we contemplate it from a higher form of intellect than analysis?


Obviously. When we look with the intellect in whatever shape or form it's always a limited perception because the intellect is only a part of our being. Are you getting this?

Therefore we must look without all the things the intellect likes to do, like judge, compare, analyse, and all that. We just look simply, without interpretation, choice, translation.

And that means silence. And that is contemplation, meditation, or anything you like to call it. It's so important to get this terribly simple thing. How can I look if I'm chattering to myself? So to look without the noise of words going on. To look in stillness, just to observe.

Don't make a mystery out of this like the people who sell mediation do. It's not a mystery at all, never was. When something really interests you, you give your attention to it. It's that simple. There's that state of mind immediately and without effort.

And, lo, we're back to attention again. So looking is attention which is contemplation, meditation, anything you like. Totally natural, NOT a technique one pays for (those who push that drivel should be shot) or requiring some ghastly stupid guru, or anything else. You just look, game over.

Sorry, I get a bit passionate about all this when I think of the total rubbish that's propagated about and which has deluded people. Look at the money these people make, the followers, the sects, the camps, the Rolls Royces and helicopters... and the horror stories that always emerge eventually.

So, attention is the highest good. Finito.

The problem is that you haven’t defined wisdom


Why do you want a definition? It's in the dictionary. Is it wise just to define it? Then we're back again to words. We love words, endless words, but we have to go far beyond words.

Who is wise? Is any definition adequate? He who stays away from trouble is wise. The good are wise.

Contd...
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 20th, 2019, 6:34 pm 

(This is the second post. There's one above this)

Right! Now we come to the crunch :-)

Will you agree that our lives are primarily run by habits. The way you sit, walk, postures etc are all habitual. At the same time our emotions are habitual reactions to similar situations. They just happen. This is programming. Freedom from habit and opening to the experience of objective reality requires becoming consciously capable of it


All right. We're reactive and habitual and one needs to realise that. If we're interested we'll look, explore. If not, and apparently not many are, we won't. But everyone has to sooner or later.

A person wants to live in accordance with the desires of their mind but cannot do it.


Careful. What do we mean by 'the desires of the mind'? What desires? If those desires aren't fulfilled there's frustration. Is that the way? Isn't desire one of the things we have to examine also?

We desire many things, desires are changing constantly. What is desire? Are there many desires or only one desire which is constantly there but whose objects vary?

do not know how to practice to become consciously human.


Will any practice achieve that? Think what you're saying. You began this by saying we are creatures of habit, which is the programming. Now we want to practice something... isn't that the same thing?

Practice means repetition, which is habit. But habit is the problem. So practices don't resolve the programming, they're another form of it. If I practice something constantly I'm programming myself in a different way. So practices do not resolve programming.

How to develop the ability for our being to work as a conscious whole?


I don't quite know what you mean by conscious but let's say you mean aware, awake. Would that be all right?

What happens when there's danger? Aren't you immediately very aware and awake? Aren't you awake and aware when you're driving or crossing a busy street?

Life is dangerous, the world is extremely dangerous, there are dangers everywhere. Our reactions are dangerous, other people are dangerous. WE are dangerous!

But we don't really want to be vigilant and aware, we we like to be sleepy, dull, content, and there a thousand ways to do it. Beliefs are a marvellous drug, we can go off to church and repeat rituals. There aren't just the physical ways of contentment but the psychological ones too, much more pernicious. Perhaps we should add philosophy to the list :-)

An individual can learn


And there you have it. You and I can learn.

To learn the mind cannot be drugged. It must be free of pacifying theories and beliefs. It has to be awake, and it will be awake if it wants to learn. You don't have to ask 'how to be awake', that's a very foolish question. If one is interested one is immediately alert. That's all, then one can learn.

But learning has nothing to do with knowledge, it's the wholeness of attention in which there's seeing, perceiving, and hence discovering. Learning is constant discovery, that's why it's so exciting and so essential.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby BadgerJelly on April 21st, 2019, 2:52 am 

Aleister Crowley: “The eternal mistake of mankind is to set up an attainable ideal.”
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5572
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 21st, 2019, 9:38 am 

All ideals are unattainable by definition. If they were attainable they'd be called goals :-)
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 21st, 2019, 3:41 pm 

Charon

I am unable to communicate the concept of the vertical levels of reality

Philosophical Understanding IMO requires beginning with the big picture.


Absolutely, begin with the world and move in. I said that before, if you remember.



The big picture for me is the universe. The reactions of the world take place within it

It involves into details by the process of deduction
.

Deduction? Why? If we look at the world we can see very clearly what's going on - the wars, divisions, political nonsense, all the rest of it.

Similarly, one can look at oneself - the thoughts, feelings, motives, desires, conflicts, etc etc. No need to deduce a thing.


From my POV animal Man is content to use his senses to see what is going on in the world. However his potential for consciousness sometimes makes qualities that do not initiate in the world open to him. Intuition is such a quality. Verifying its accuracy is only possible through deduction. Excerpt from my previous Einstein quote:

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law.

So for those in need of philosophical truths, they must open to intuition and the process of deduction.

Understand it, we ARE the world. The consciousness of one is, precisely, the other. They're not two separate things, there's only one. It's only we, with the same thinking that divides everything in life, who like to make a difference - 'me' and 'that'. But there's only one thing, and that is the programming. Voila, there it is.

As I see it, the essence of Man is a mini universe structured on the same hierarchical levels of reality as the great universe. Our lower parts are in the level of earth while our higher parts are in the level of the sun and beyond Plato’s divided line

And that means silence. And that is contemplation, meditation, or anything you like to call it. It's so important to get this terribly simple thing. How can I look if I'm chattering to myself? So to look without the noise of words going on. To look in stillness, just to observe.


We agree on the importance of being able to still the mind.

Don't make a mystery out of this like the people who sell mediation do. It's not a mystery at all, never was. When something really interests you, you give your attention to it. It's that simple. There's that state of mind immediately and without effort.


You are describing directed attention as a mechanical reaction. It is what a cat does when it spots its prey. Conscious attention is the ability to give your attention on what doesn’t attract you. Mastering it requires practice. A cat is limited to directed attention while a conscious human being is capable of both directed attention and conscious attention.

Sorry, I get a bit passionate about all this when I think of the total rubbish that's propagated about and which has deluded people. Look at the money these people make, the followers, the sects, the camps, the Rolls Royces and helicopters... and the horror stories that always emerge eventually.

But it isn’t all rubbish and the fact that there is so much rubbish means there is something very genuine behind it: “Fool’s gold exists because there is real gold.” –Rumi ...

So, attention is the highest good. Finito.


True. As Simone Weil wrote: "Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. "

Who is wise? Is any definition adequate? He who stays away from trouble is wise. The good are wise.


Before asserting who is wise a person has to decide what wisdom is. Like it or not, it requires words to express.


Careful. What do we mean by 'the desires of the mind'? What desires? If those desires aren't fulfilled there's frustration. Is that the way? Isn't desire one of the things we have to examine also?

We desire many things, desires are changing constantly. What is desire? Are there many desires or only one desire which is constantly there but whose objects vary?


You are describing the qualities of the human condition. Would a conscious human being have to suffer the same egoistic frustrations normal for a conditioned automaton?

Will any practice achieve that? Think what you're saying. You began this by saying we are creatures of habit, which is the programming. Now we want to practice something... isn't that the same thing?


Why not? We can begin with the premise that we cannot play a piano. That doesn’t deny the ability to become able. We can admit that we live in contradiction and hypocrisy. There is no reason why we cannot transcend weakness.

Practice means repetition, which is habit. But habit is the problem. So practices don't resolve the programming, they're another form of it. If I practice something constantly I'm programming myself in a different way. So practices do not resolve programming.


Habits are mechanical. Practice must be conscious. Suppose a person has a smoking problem they want to break. Can a person consciously witness what happens to them as they approach picking up a cigarette and lighting it. Can they consciously see the habit for what it is and how it captures their attention? If they can then they can consciously control the habit and replace it rather than it mechanically controlling you

I don't quite know what you mean by conscious but let's say you mean aware, awake. Would that be all right?


By conscious whole I mean a quality of being in which the mind, emotions, and body work together in harmony for the same goal.

But we don't really want to be vigilant and aware, we we like to be sleepy, dull, content, and there a thousand ways to do it. Beliefs are a marvellous drug, we can go off to church and repeat rituals. There aren't just the physical ways of contentment but the psychological ones too, much more pernicious. Perhaps we should add philosophy to the list :-)


You must read the Buddhist Parable of the Burning House. The children in the house are unaware that the house is burning and the adult has to even use a noble lie to get them out. That is our problem. Man is asleep to the reality of the human condition and what is lost by defending it. Only a rare few are willing and able to awaken sufficiently to smell the coffee.

But learning has nothing to do with knowledge, it's the wholeness of attention in which there's seeing, perceiving, and hence discovering. Learning is constant discovery, that's why it's so exciting and so essential.


That is why Simone Weil must be hated. She suggests bringing conscious attention into schools dedicated to imposing indoctrination. Still her letter is read by some pursuing degrees in education even though it contains Christian connotations as they relate to higher and lower forms of attention. I’ll post it for reference since it is a lot to read.

http://www.hagiasophiaclassical.com/wp/ ... e-Weil.pdf
The Key to a Christian conception of studies is the realisation that prayer consists of attention. It is the orientation of all the attention of which the soul is capable towards God. The quality of attention counts for much in the quality of the prayer. Warmth of heart cannot make up for it. It is the highest part of the attention only which makes contact with God, when prayer is intense and pure enough for such a contact to be established; but the whole attention is turned towards God. Of course school exercises only develop a lower kind of attention. Nevertheless they are extremely effective in increasing the power of attention which will be available at the time of prayer, on condition that they are carried out with a view to this purpose and this purpose alone. Although people seem to be unaware of it to-day, the development of the faculty of attention forms the real object and almost the sole interest of studies. Most school tasks have a certain intrinsic interest as well, but such an interest is secondary. All tasks which really call upon the power of attention are interesting for the same reason and to an almost equal degree……………………………………….
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby charon on April 21st, 2019, 6:14 pm 

Nick -

The universe is the scientists' province. Daily life and the condition of man is ours.

We agree on the importance of being able to still the mind.


You can't still the mind. Who will still the mind? He who is the mind? The mind is only still when it's understood itself and come to an end.

You are describing directed attention as a mechanical reaction


You don't understand. Danger itself compels attention. It's not directed. Directed, willed, attention is not attention.

But it isn’t all rubbish


Yes, it is, all of it. Definitely. Only the foolish and gullible try all this stuff. No one with an ounce of self-knowledge and maturity would go and spend time with this. The mature have no need. The immature's need is bottomless.

Before asserting who is wise a person has to decide what wisdom is.


Decide? Who will decide? How will they decide?

Habits are mechanical. Practice must be conscious. Suppose a person has a smoking problem they want to break. Can a person consciously witness what happens to them as they approach picking up a cigarette and lighting it. Can they consciously see the habit for what it is and how it captures their attention? If they can then they can consciously control the habit and replace it rather than it mechanically controlling you


Who is doing all this? Who is the conscious actor? You don't ask that. Is the conscious actor separate from his habits? And, if he is not, how is he to break them? It means breaking himself.

I see you've gone back to sleep again :-)
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby PaulN on April 21st, 2019, 7:37 pm 

If you gaze at your navel long enough, lint starts to look significant.
PaulN
Member
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Location: Albuquerque


Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

Postby Nick_A on April 21st, 2019, 9:00 pm 

Charon

N. But it isn’t all rubbish


C. Yes, it is, all of it. Definitely. Only the foolish and gullible try all this stuff. No one with an ounce of self-knowledge and maturity would go and spend time with this. The mature have no need. The immature's need is bottomless……………………

…………….Who is doing all this? Who is the conscious actor? You don't ask that. Is the conscious actor separate from his habits? And, if he is not, how is he to break them? It means breaking himself.


Obviously many are closed to the importance of distinguishing between conscious and mechanical attention. Under these circumstances is it really surprising that philosophy worth its name is dying. If God is dead philosophy worth its name is sure to follow.

The conscious observer of course is our conscious parts. A machine cannot observe itself. Does a car observe itself? But the mechanical animal part of Man can be observed by the conscious part. But it requires a quality of attention that is rejected. So only a minority will be more than a creature of reaction responding to nature’s cyclical laws.

Gospel of Thomas

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."


The concept is rejected in modern society. We prefer to imagine ourselves than make the conscious efforts to “know thyself.” Yet for those who do they can be known and helped by higher consciousness to develop their conscious human potential. But they will be few and far between The world does not abandon its hold easily.

My heart goes out to the young who are in closed minded schools. Some may ask “Why am I here? What is my living purpose?” They will be ridiculed and fortunate if they are not kicked out of school. If they are lucky they will meet those who can bring meaning to their questions and show them how to search for meaning. Philosophy will no longer be dead for them.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests