Page 5 of 8

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 21st, 2019, 2:52 am
by BadgerJelly
Aleister Crowley: “The eternal mistake of mankind is to set up an attainable ideal.”

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 21st, 2019, 9:38 am
by charon
All ideals are unattainable by definition. If they were attainable they'd be called goals :-)

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 21st, 2019, 3:41 pm
by Nick_A
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……………………………………….

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 21st, 2019, 6:14 pm
by charon
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 :-)

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 21st, 2019, 7:37 pm
by PaulN
If you gaze at your navel long enough, lint starts to look significant.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 21st, 2019, 9:00 pm
by Nick_A
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.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 21st, 2019, 9:51 pm
by charon
Nick -

Obviously many are closed... 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.


Let's not worry about those who aren't interested. Their time will come, or maybe it won't. It's not our concern.

The conscious observer of course is our conscious parts. A machine cannot observe itself.


Yes, we're not machines and machines aren't conscious. So we can put machines aside. Whatever they say about AI.

But the mechanical animal part of Man can be observed by the conscious part.


You're at it again. Don't call it the animal part. Poor animals! We're human, let's stay there.

So you're saying we can consciously observe ourselves. Of course we can, but that wasn't my point. The point is whether the one who observes is any different from what he sees.

The answer is obviously not, he's observing himself, but that's not how we think. You've already called the observed part the 'animal' bit which assumes the observing entity is something much more refined than that.

Is that true? When I watch myself I'm watching what I think, what I feel, what I do. I'm seeing my reactions, motives, fears, confusion, pride, and all the rest of it. But apparently I'm not all that at all, I'm something much more cultured!

I'm afraid not. What I think, feel, do, is what I am whether I like it or not. If I'm rude and unpleasant then others are not going to say 'Oh, he's really a higher being'.

We're not divided into high and low. We might like to think we are but we've been through that. The fact is that the one who watches, say, aggression IS that. The person who observes loneliness in himself is the one who is lonely. He is that emptiness. He can weave all kinds of comforting ideas round it but they aren't true.

This is why, when these qualities are erased, there's no watcher. Freedom is not a conscious state. The person who says 'I am free' is telling himself a lie. There's only freedom when that entity is absent.

Which is love. Love is not conscious of itself as love, as humility isn't conscious of itself as humility. The person who says 'I'm very humble' is deceiving himself and probably others. He's obviously still very proud.

Don't be fooled by that word 'conscious'. Because the mind is aware of itself doesn't denote any great form of spirituality. It's a sensory awareness, nothing more. The real spiritual things are not in that area, they're outside it.

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.


You may be right, there are few who take an interest in this, but life will do what it will with all of us, for good or ill.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 22nd, 2019, 12:48 am
by Nick_A
Charon

N. But the mechanical animal part of Man can be observed by the conscious part.


C. You're at it again. Don't call it the animal part. Poor animals! We're human, let's stay there.


A lot of Hindus will disagree with you. Consider the analogy of the Two Birds:



Two birds are shown to dwell on the same tree as inseparable companions. One tastes the fruits in the tree while the other merely watches. The former represents the individual self and the latter the Supreme soul. The entire gamut of the bitter-sweet human experience in a jivatma’s life is represented by the bird that is involved in tasting the fruit. The onlooker, the Paramatma, represents the fact that the same jivatma can also view the experience as an outsider and not get affected by the joy and sorrow which are temporary experiences.


You seem to deny levels of reality which for me explain everything

So you're saying we can consciously observe ourselves. Of course we can, but that wasn't my point. The point is whether the one who observes is any different from what he sees.

The answer is obviously not, he's observing himself, but that's not how we think. You've already called the observed part the 'animal' bit which assumes the observing entity is something much more refined than that.

Is that true? When I watch myself I'm watching what I think, what I feel, what I do. I'm seeing my reactions, motives, fears, confusion, pride, and all the rest of it. But apparently I'm not all that at all, I'm something much more cultured!..........

We're not divided into high and low. We might like to think we are but we've been through that. The fact is that the one who watches, say, aggression IS that. The person who observes loneliness in himself is the one who is lonely. He is that emptiness. He can weave all kinds of comforting ideas round it but they aren't true.


The idea of consciously looking down from above as described in the Two birds analogy just seems absurd to you. We have this essential difference. My knowledge of the Great Chain of Being enables me to to accept it as a very reasonable hypothesis. There is nothing cultured about it. It is just consciousness observing mechanical reaction from a higher quality of being

I don’t read you pondering the great questions of the heart which have spawned philosophy from its beginning. Questions pertaining to the objective meaning and purpose of our universe and Man within it just seem to get in the way of going with the flow which for now is considered wisdom in technological society. I just don’t see it.

I support the minority who are attracted to and the value of both the heart of philosophy and the essence of religion..I could explain to you why Nietzsche's overman if he comes into being as the ultimate meaning of the earth is the antichrist which opposes Man's conscious evolution. But such speculation just gets in the way of going with the flow

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 22nd, 2019, 8:45 am
by charon
Nick -

A lot of Hindus will disagree with you


Jesus wouldn't. You just posted it :-)

you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty


The idea of consciously looking down from above as described in the Two birds analogy just seems absurd to you.


No, I said the real spiritual things aren't in the area of that consciousness. When I watch my thoughts the 'me' who is watching is also a thought. When a person sees he is envious he is that envy.

But we can't assume, which the Hindu philosophies do, that we know what is beyond the consciousness which we are. That's the problem and the whole of Asia is hooked on it. They study their books and wax lyrical about the Atman and all the rest of it but they know nothing about it. All they know is what the books say, and which they repeat.

Look, sorry to be long-winded but bear with me. You're sitting there now reading this. The screen is in front of you and you're aware of it. Then there are your reactions, your thoughts, and there's an awareness of all this.

Now, who is aware of it all? The Nick who sees the screen and reacts to what is there is the same Nick who's aware of it all. There aren't two, there's just one.

All that awareness is sensory. The senses pick up what's there and the brain interprets, etc. That same brain reacts to it, analyses, correlates, thinks about it, responds with knowledge, argument, logic, and so on, and posts a reply. It's all in the same area of consciousness, which is the person, which is you.

That same knowledge, just like the Hindus, can say 'Outside of me there are spiritual states and they are called x,y, z.'. But all that is also knowledge. That is in exactly the same area of thought, knowledge, as everything else. It's all the same consciousness which is in the area of the brain and it's all sensory.

There are certainly other states but they are not a reality unless one goes beyond this sensory consciousness. And, if we do go beyond it, who is going to go beyond it? 'I' can't go beyond because the 'I' is this consciousness. It can pretend, imagine, dream, envisage, but that is still the same consciousness.

Do see it, that the sensory can't go beyond the sensory, no matter what it does. All it can do is cease. When all that is quiet, absent, when it has come to an end, then there are other things.

That means the ending, not just of the reactions but also the thinker of them himself. If there are no responses of thought and knowledge, where is the thinker of them? Where is the knower?

The two are part and parcel of each other and it's that whole packet that has to cease. When the entire mind, both seer and seen, knower and known, stops then what is there is there. Therefore there are things which can never be recognised or experienced.

Our trouble is we want to know, we want to experience, we're greedy for it, so we imagine and invent and deceive ourselves. That's the problem.

I don’t read you pondering the great questions of the heart which have spawned philosophy from its beginning.


That's because I don't ponder them. I know you find this frustrating but for me what matters is only the actual living of it. I live in awareness of consciousness and thought. In that awareness there's a cessation and then what is 'other' is revealed. Then those things are a reality, not a word, not a hypothesis, not an explanation.

You see the difference. One thinks about all this, explains, theorises, the mind going round and round, but it's all sensory, all within the same area of sensory consciousness and one never gets out of it. We're seeking answers there, verbally, or we think we've found the answers there, but the answers aren't there, they're beyond it.

Beware the person who knows all about it. No one knows all about it.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 22nd, 2019, 9:47 pm
by Nick_A
Charon

No, I said the real spiritual things aren't in the area of that consciousness. When I watch my thoughts the 'me' who is watching is also a thought. When a person sees he is envious he is that envy.

You are not watching, you are imagining which is why you would become envy.

A person capable of consciously experiencing themselves do not become the experience. In the example you provided, instead of becoming envy a person would experience that envy is within me vivifying the distinction between the mechanical experience and the conscious perception.

Now, who is aware of it all? The Nick who sees the screen and reacts to what is there is the same Nick who's aware of it all. There aren't two, there's just one.


That is not my experience. I have experienced that my mechanical sensory perception is taking place within vertical conscious perception of me. To suggest they are the same just means you have yet to experience the difference. Once a person experiences this they have verified relativity of conscious quality – above and below, raising the questions as to the limits of consciousness.

All that awareness is sensory. The senses pick up what's there and the brain interprets, etc. That same brain reacts to it, analyses, correlates, thinks about it, responds with knowledge, argument, logic, and so on, and posts a reply. It's all in the same area of consciousness, which is the person, which is you.


Do not confuse consciousness with contents of consciousness. Contents of consciousness are interpretations made possible by consciousness. Conscious awareness is not an interpretation but is the higher observing the lower. It isn’t the lower commenting on itself.

There are certainly other states but they are not a reality unless one goes beyond this sensory consciousness. And, if we do go beyond it, who is going to go beyond it? 'I' can't go beyond because the 'I' is this consciousness. It can pretend, imagine, dream, envisage, but that is still the same consciousness.


I agree. As a plurality we have no I expressing inner unity. We are not ONE. We are many. Only a small part of our collective being has an interest in consciousness. However this small part can develop allowing for a person to consciously have the experience of their mechanical nature.

Simone Weil describes her first metaphysical experience which transcended the senses. Must you deny it?

………………..At times the very first words tear my thoughts from my body and transport it to a place outside space where there is neither perspective nor point of view. The infinity of the ordinary expanses of perception is replaced by an infinity to the second or sometimes the third degree. At the same time, filling every part of this infinity of infinity, there is silence, a silence which is not an absence of sound but which is the object of a positive sensation, more positive than that of sound. Noises, if there are any, only reach me after crossing this silence………..


That means the ending, not just of the reactions but also the thinker of them himself. If there are no responses of thought and knowledge, where is the thinker of them? Where is the knower?


Where is the meaning and purpose of human life on earth? If there is no thinker or responses to thought it simply is not possible for a person to consciously contemplate the most basic philosophical question: why am I here? You seem to be describing elementary psychological escapism. I agree people can get lost in the weeds fighting for self validation but the value of the garden doesn’t have to be destroyed to get rid of the weeds.

That's because I don't ponder them. I know you find this frustrating but for me what matters is only the actual living of it. I live in awareness of consciousness and thought. In that awareness there's a cessation and then what is 'other' is revealed. Then those things are a reality, not a word, not a hypothesis, not an explanation.

You see the difference. One thinks about all this, explains, theorises, the mind going round and round, but it's all sensory, all within the same area of sensory consciousness and one never gets out of it. We're seeking answers there, verbally, or we think we've found the answers there, but the answers aren't there, they're beyond it.


You seem to be describing the benefits of going with the flow. However I admire the small minority who are like salmon and are drawn to swim against the flow to return to the source. Real philosophy seems to support their efforts by advocating the process of remembering what has been forgotten through opening to noesis. Society must condemn them for disturbing the peace but most everyone I admire has been condemned for disturbing the peace. For example:

“I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of the peace.” ― Baruch Spinoza.


It is the way it is. The trick is to stay alive long enough to do some good. The disturbed are well equipped to put the disturbers in their place if allowed to remain alive.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 22nd, 2019, 11:05 pm
by charon
You've denied everything. Okay :-)

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 24th, 2019, 9:41 am
by Nick_A
charon » April 22nd, 2019, 11:05 pm wrote:You've denied everything. Okay :-)


Not everything. I still get conned. I'm no Simone. I haven't acquired her freedom of denial sufficient to experience the obvious..


"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press,

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 24th, 2019, 12:17 pm
by charon
I agree. As a plurality we have no I expressing inner unity


No, you don't agree. If you agree to this you can't disagree with the rest of it because it says the same thing.

Spirituality is outside the 'I'. There's nothing spiritual about the 'I', it's just a series of remembrances, knowledge, associations. It belongs to the brain and the brain is physical.

What Simone says is right.

I haven't acquired her freedom of denial


You can't acquire it. It's not a house or a car. You can only see the gods are imaginary, but not through logic. If you realise the false you may see the true.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 24th, 2019, 7:12 pm
by Nick_A
Charon

Spirituality is outside the 'I'. There's nothing spiritual about the 'I', it's just a series of remembrances, knowledge, associations. It belongs to the brain and the brain is physical.


Please explain what you mean by spirituality. I agree that the myriad of our small Is are just conditioned reactions but what is this "spirituality that is outside the domain of "Is"

I haven't acquired her freedom of denial


You can't acquire it. It's not a house or a car. You can only see the gods are imaginary, but not through logic. If you realise the false you may see the true.



Are you saying I cannot acquire the conscious ability for conscious detachment because it happens automatically?

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 24th, 2019, 9:21 pm
by charon
Nick -

Please explain what you mean by spirituality. I agree that the myriad of our small Is are just conditioned reactions but what is this "spirituality that is outside the domain of "Is"


It's the non-material. The 'I' or self is the material because it belongs to the brain.

I know you want a description of what is not the 'I' but there isn't one. Those things are not to be described and beware of those who try.

How do you explain light? Or love or beauty? Can you actually describe affection or love? And is any description adequate? So those things aren't to be described.

Are you saying I cannot acquire the conscious ability for conscious detachment because it happens automatically?


I don't say it happens automatically. But when you use the word 'acquire' who is the acquirer?

This isn't a puzzle or a conundrum. Who is it that desires to acquire, possess, keep for himself... any word you like?

The acquirer, the acquisitor, hears about detachment. It has a good review (!) so he'd like to try it, get it. Is that any different from wanting to get a new house or car?

It's not, is it? The process is exactly the same except one is called spiritual because it's of the psyche. So the desire for detachment is another form of attachment.

One wants to be detached because one discovers that in attachment there's pain. So the mind then becomes attached to the idea of detachment. So the mind is the acquisitor.

So what is detachment? It's not the result of the mind's reaction to attachment. So is there any such thing as detachment at all?

As long as one is attached one chases the idea of detachment. If one is no longer attached that idea doesn't arise.

It's the mind which is attached and the mind which escapes into the idea of detachment, which is another form of attachment. So it's going from one object of attachment to another all the time. It's the mind which wants to keep, hold, or give away. It's expanding and contracting all the time.

So can it see what it's doing? That's what matters, not attachment or detachment. Can it become aware of its own activities? And, if it does, what happens?

Normally it then tries to control itself, it tries to limit its reactions. Or it begins to analyse its motives. Or it goes to India to try to solve the puzzle of itself. Or it takes up so-called meditation. Or it goes to a psychologist or therapist. Or it does a dozen other things, all of which are the very essence of dull mediocrity.

So all it's doing is reacting all the time, one reaction after another, after another, after another. And eventually it gives up in despair because it's worn itself out.

So can it see what it's doing without any further reaction? You see the point of this? Everything it does is a reaction but what happens if it simply stays with the fact of itself and doesn't further react? That is, it meets its own activity with silence, which is inaction.

You said:

I cannot acquire the conscious ability for conscious detachment


Would it help if you did acquire it? Can it be acquired? The mind that says 'I have achieved detachment' is deceiving itself but the mind that has stopped reacting because it's understood itself is in a different state altogether. It's neither attached nor detached, it is free.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 25th, 2019, 11:23 pm
by Nick_A
Charon

How do you explain light? Or love or beauty? Can you actually describe affection or love? And is any description adequate? So those things aren't to be described.


I could explain light above Plato’s divided line intellectually as I’ve come to understand it in terms of the interaction of elemental forces but I agree that the description isn’t adequate. We can only experience what light is through noesis. Binary thought is clearly inadequate

I don't say it happens automatically. But when you use the word 'acquire' who is the acquirer?


This is the primary philosophical question. As I’ve written, I am a plurality; a living machine consisting essentially of three parts: thought, emotion, and sensation. They serve to experience and interpret the external world.

Human thought is not limited to binary reactions as is all other organic life on earth but within our collective being there is also the potential for conscious experience leading to self questioning. Self questioning makes us aware of the vertical psychological direction leading to a macrocosmic reality above us but also the microcosmic level of reality below our collective being.

The acquirer is this small part in us allowing for the contemplation of our contradictions. What are we and why are we as we are? This is why it is said that philosophy begins in wonder.


So what is detachment? It's not the result of the mind's reaction to attachment. So is there any such thing as detachment at all?


As we are we cannot know what we lose by surrendering to attachments. We can say that detachment lacks meaning but how can we say this when we haven’t experienced conscious detachment? Being caught up in attachments we become incapable of consciously connecting the macrocosmos and microcosmos within our being.

The Overman would be free of habitual attachments so free to adopt the will to power. Is this freedom meaningless?

Would it help if you did acquire it? Can it be acquired? The mind that says 'I have achieved detachment' is deceiving itself but the mind that has stopped reacting because it's understood itself is in a different state altogether. It's neither attached nor detached, it is free.


This gives me the impression that you do not believe human life has any potential other than to respond to nature’s laws as creatures of reaction much like the rest of organic life on earth: dust to dust. From this perspective philosophy and religion are just meaningless forms of escapism so it is best to just create our own reality. Is this true?

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 26th, 2019, 6:22 am
by charon
Nick -

Binary thought


I don't know what you mean by binary thought. To me there's just thought and it's operating or it's not operating.

Binary means two things and, more specifically, two things opposed to each other. Further down the post you said:

Human thought is not limited to binary reactions


So what do you mean by binary thought? Preferably in everyday terms for a dolt like me :-)

What are we and why are we as we are?


The acquirer is talking about himself. He's not posing some extraordinarily deep philosophical question, he's talking about himself.

As we are we cannot know what we lose by surrendering to attachments. We can say that detachment lacks meaning but how can we say this when we haven’t experienced conscious detachment? Being caught up in attachments we become incapable of consciously connecting the macrocosmos and microcosmos within our being.


You're theorising. End your attachments and see what happens.

This gives me the impression that you do not believe human life has any potential other than to respond to nature’s laws as creatures of reaction much like the rest of organic life on earth: dust to dust. From this perspective philosophy and religion are just meaningless forms of escapism so it is best to just create our own reality. Is this true?


It's the same thing. End your attachments and see what happens. Don't say you're just a pawn in nature's game, end them.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 26th, 2019, 11:38 am
by Nick_A
Charon


So what do you mean by binary thought? Preferably in everyday terms for a dolt like me :-)


To be specific binary thinking as you wrote accepts only two possibilities like yes or no. The Law of the Excluded Middle is a basic expression of binary thought:

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true.


We are entering a time in which a greater minority including scientists are becoming aware of the Law of the INCLUDED Middle which opens our minds to the reality of our triune universe. My guess is that if our species survives the next hundred years people will wonder how those people back then could have been so ignorant.


The acquirer is talking about himself. He's not posing some extraordinarily deep philosophical question, he's talking about himself.


I wasn’t clear. I and we are the same in this example. The inner man recognizes he lives in contradiction. It is natural to consider why it is so.

You're theorising. End your attachments and see what happens.


What do you have against a theory or a hypothesis? You can refuse to think or strive to verify a theory which seems to be the reasonable approach which is avoided like poison in these times.

It's the same thing. End your attachments and see what happens. Don't say you're just a pawn in nature's game, end them.


This seems to me to be like New Age escapism avoiding the essential question if life in the universe including human life on earth serves an objective purpose which can result in a conscious potential. If not, then philosophy and religion are just the means to appear important by BSing others and experiencing self justification. Without a theory offering a skeleton of our universe, how can anything be verified?

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 26th, 2019, 12:47 pm
by charon
Nick -

You're wasting my time, aren't you? But more importantly, you're wasting your own. And time is life.

What do you have against a theory or a hypothesis?


There's nothing wrong with them per se but you don't need to theorise when the facts are before you.

The fact is you think, like everybody else, but you don't examine it. You indulge it but you don't examine it. Examining it as a fact will tell you all you need to know, no theory necessary,.

But you refuse to do it, and I know why. Because examining it is action and you don't like action. It scares you because you might be faced with an unpalatable reality. It might, and it almost certainly would, upset all your cherished notions and intellectual conclusions. It may destroy your knowledge which is all nonsense anyway.

Examining it means being directly aware of it as it's happening, not interpreting or translating it as you go along. Interpretation and translation is also thought and you can't examine thought with thought, you have to include the whole package.

Then there's the question of who is doing the examining. The examiner isn't a separate entity, he himself is the result of thought. If all thought disappeared so would the examiner.

These are facts, not theory, and as such they need verifying. Not through thought but by action. Thought is not action, thought is a reaction, a reaction to a stimulus. Action is the result of perception, seeing, and seeing requires looking.

But you don't look, you theorise, therefore you never see. It's your loss. There's so much to be discovered, so much in life that we don't know. There are vast areas we've never touched and of which we're ignorant.

You wanted to know what lies beyond the 'I', the self. There's no adequate description and those things aren't fixed in any case. You can't find out with a theory, theories are guesswork. You can only find out when the 'I' ceases and it only ceases when it has seen its own nature. In the understanding of the 'I' is the ending of the 'I'.

That is wisdom, that is self-knowledge. There's no other way.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 26th, 2019, 3:10 pm
by Nick_A
Charon

You're wasting my time, aren't you? But more importantly, you're wasting your own. And time is life.


Wasting time is avoiding the sincere questions and replacing them with conditioned responses. The questions I raise have always been considered an annoyance since ancient times even punishable by death. There will always be the struggle between blind belief and blind denial. Anyone interfering with this struggle will be either ridiculed or even possibly killed depending upon how influential they become. There is nothing more offensive than common sense so there is no reason why it should be tolerated. You are providing the opportunity to question which I don’t consider a waste of time.

The fact is you think, like everybody else, but you don't examine it. You indulge it but you don't examine it. Examining it as a fact will tell you all you need to know, no theory necessary,.

But you refuse to do it, and I know why. Because examining it is action and you don't like action. It scares you because you might be faced with an unpalatable reality. It might, and it almost certainly would, upset all your cherished notions and intellectual conclusions. It may destroy your knowledge which is all nonsense anyway.


I’ve said this several times To “know thyself” is to have the conscious experience of oneself. It isn’t a matter of refusing to look but to acquire the ability to look. The majority of your collective being doesn’t want to look. I think you underestimate the power and nature of resistance to conscious experience.

Then there's the question of who is doing the examining. The examiner isn't a separate entity, he himself is the result of thought. If all thought disappeared so would the examiner.

These are facts, not theory, and as such they need verifying. Not through thought but by action. Thought is not action, thought is a reaction, a reaction to a stimulus. Action is the result of perception, seeing, and seeing requires looking.


I have seen and verified that my commonality is a question vivified by the experience of my essential contradictions. Can the examiner serve the question? Yes it can for ll those who recognize the potential for the seed of the soul existing within us.

The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God. Meister Eckhart


How can we question an idea like this? Binary thought is useless as are our animal emotions and sensations. One needs a higher form of reason which makes verification possible. I believe we have it in potential and you seem to avoid the question.

You wanted to know what lies beyond the 'I', the self. There's no adequate description and those things aren't fixed in any case. You can't find out with a theory, theories are guesswork. You can only find out when the 'I' ceases and it only ceases when it has seen its own nature. In the understanding of the 'I' is the ending of the 'I'.


Since we are a plurality we do not have this I of inner unity. It only exists in our imagination. Taking the place of reality it lacks objective purpose and its goal is ceasing to exist. No healthy god seed can grow in such a barren wasteland. I AM is a conscious human potential the world seeks to deny in favor of secular dominance.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 26th, 2019, 7:42 pm
by charon
I don't know what you're talking about.

Would you say that the mind itself was a reaction?

The mind is a thinking process. It's job is to analyse, judge, compare, dissect, calculate, and so on. It's a thinking process and its scope is very limited, narrow.

So the mind, as we know it, is a reaction of knowledge and memory. This is very basic stuff. The brain contains a certain amount of knowledge and, when triggered, that reacts. So any thinking that arises is itself limited because its source, knowledge, is also limited. Knowledge is always incomplete, never absolute. There's no absolute knowledge. So likewise there's no absolute thinking.

Also knowledge implies the past. We can only accumulate knowledge of things that are finished, over. There's no knowledge of the present or the future because one is actually happening and the other is yet to come. So any thinking that arises from knowledge is also tied to the past. One can only think about what has already been, so thought itself is the past.

So what we call the mind is a limited process tied to things which have been. The whole process is limited and time-based. So any response it may have is very narrow, limited, and strictly bound to the stored past as memory and knowledge.

But life is not the past, it is now, happening, living, actual. That is the present, the living present, but the mind 's reactions are always of the past. So is any response of the mind fully adequate to the present? Its movements are tied to the past but all living is now. So any reaction of the past can never fully deal with the living moment.

Yet the past as knowledge has its place. Without knowledge it's not possible to do anything, one couldn't tie a shoelace or open a door. So in practical and technical matters knowledge, memory, is essential. And that knowledge can be added to, expanded, updated, adjusted, and so on. That's necessary.

So what are the boundaries of knowledge? For practicalities it's necessary but that's not all our life. There's also the psychological, the personal area, if you will. In the realm of our relationships what is the place of knowledge?

I must know my own name and I must know your name also. We have to communicate. That's understood, but if in that relationship there's no love, no affection, no compassion, there'll be no justice. There will only be, only ever be, constant friction. We can - and do - cover that friction with pleasantries but that is not peace, that's not love. We may - and do - tolerate each other but that's not love either.

And knowledge, of course, is not love. I may know all about you but have no love for you at all. Or I may know next to nothing about you but that's no guarantee of love either. So without affection, compassion, patience, mercy, no real relationship with others is possible. This applies not only to personal, intimate relationships but also global relationships.

Now we have labels, which are symbols, and we relate to the symbols. A person is regarded as their label. So-and-so is a Russian, so-and-so is a Jew, so-and-so is a Communist, or atheist, or Christian, or Moslem. The labels don't bring us together, they separate and divide us which is why there's no love at all in the world of labels. But we like and prefer our labels. It's easy to kill a label.

The labels, the beliefs, the ideologies, are all based on knowledge. Traditions, the different cultures, are based on knowledge. Political systems are based on knowledge. So knowledge, apart from practical usage, is a factor of division and war in the world.

And all these things are reactions. One sees someone and immediately classifies them. One recognises a label and all the reactions associated with that label come up. Then there are the further reactions from that, as friend or enemy, and so on.

So you can see to what an extraordinary extent our life is guided, dominated, by something which is completely unnecessary, stupid and dangerous.

But if one sees this picture clearly, understands the meaning of it completely, which requires intelligence, then knowledge and its reactions are banished. Such a person, such a mind, has no label, is not a source of destruction in the world. And such a person can live peacefully in a world which is completely insane, as this one is.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 26th, 2019, 9:04 pm
by Nick_A
Charon

The mind is a thinking process. It's job is to analyse, judge, compare, dissect, calculate, and so on. It's a thinking process and its scope is very limited, narrow.


The mind does all this yet is incapable of feeling the objective value of facts. This requires a part of our mind which has been dulled if not atrophied. That is why as has been shown on another thread for example that we are limited to selective love. The love for life as a whole remains only a potential for humanity in general

So what we call the mind is a limited process tied to things which have been. The whole process is limited and time-based. So any response it may have is very narrow, limited, and strictly bound to the stored past as memory and knowledge.


You've provided a good description of the animal or computer mind. Tesla describes a potential for the conscious human mind. It can remember what has always existed. Remembrance of what has been forgotten does not take place in the past but happens in the present. Why allow the attitude of denial to limit the scope of the mind? What would it be like if people as a whole had a glimpse of what the mind is capable of?

"My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists." —Nikola Tesla

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 26th, 2019, 9:28 pm
by charon
The love for life as a whole remains only a potential for humanity in general


Why? Wrong education? Too much influence of a bad world? Don't say this stuff is only for the select few, that's so wrong. It's there for anybody who puts their mind to it.

You've provided a good description of the animal or computer mind.


I'm sorry, I absolutely refuse to call it animal. I doubt very, very much if the person who coined that expression knew what he was talking about. We are human, we have the human mind, shared by all. That mind can be transformed but only with tremendous insight and work on oneself.

What would it be like if people as a whole had a glimpse of what the mind is capable of?


Wonderful, but it's up to them.

"My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists." —Nikola Tesla"


There have always been people who knew more than others. But this doesn't mean, and it has never meant, that the vast majority of human beings are excluded. No one is excluded. It's much more that they either aren't interested or have never had the fortune to have it pointed out to them - hence the necessity for an education which covers that potential, which it does not at the moment. Even then it would depend on whether they were interested or not.

Let's strictly separate those who chase 'spirituality' as a comfort or means of escape from their real lives and what one might call the real thing. Very few are actually interested in the real thing.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 27th, 2019, 1:49 pm
by Nick_A
Charon

Why? Wrong education? Too much influence of a bad world? Don't say this stuff is only for the select few, that's so wrong. It's there for anybody who puts their mind to it.


The sad fact is that opening to the love for life itself rather than being restricted to selectrive love isn't wanted. The binary mind loves this and rejects that. It has become closed to experience that life serves a universal purpose so must be contemplated from a universal perspective to feel its meaning.

Consider what the entertainment dollar is spent on. It is a reflection of modern values. But if people don't find any value in putting their minds and hearts to it, there is no incentive to grow to feel the value of life for the majority. Of course it doesn't have to be this way but it is the way it is. This is why I admire and support the individuals like Simone Weil whose lives support awakening to human values

Simone Weil and Thomas Merton were born in France 6 years apart - 1909 and 1915 respectively. Weil died shortly after Merton entered the Abbey of Gethsemani. It is unclear whether Weil knew of Merton, but Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”


I know it appears insulting and cold but if it true that we live in imagination afraid of awakening, humanity remains largely not human. These seekers of truth are mocked and hated but IMO the future of our species will depend upon the influence of these rare people with the courage to think and feel beyond their conditioning.

I'm sorry, I absolutely refuse to call it animal. I doubt very, very much if the person who coined that expression knew what he was talking about. We are human, we have the human mind, shared by all. That mind can be transformed but only with tremendous insight and work on oneself.


A leopard in the jungle for example lives by binary reactions. We do the same and call it reason when it dominates our thought process. Life in the jungle doesn't function by choice but by reactions to cyclical natural laws. It is the same with society but we don't realize it and attribute collective reactions to choice.

Choice is a conscious action but if we are governed by habitual reaction, then by definition we lack choice. Is it really that insulting to admit that we are governed by habitual reaction with the potential for conscious action?

There have always been people who knew more than others. But this doesn't mean, and it has never meant, that the vast majority of human beings are excluded. No one is excluded. It's much more that they either aren't interested or have never had the fortune to have it pointed out to them - hence the necessity for an education which covers that potential, which it does not at the moment. Even then it would depend on whether they were interested or not.


Again, the sad truth is that public education refuses education in favor of indoctrination. A human education is a topic in itself and usually avoided since it disturbs the peace indoctrination is said to provide.

Let's strictly separate those who chase 'spirituality' as a comfort or means of escape from their real lives and what one might call the real thing. Very few are actually interested in the real thing.


As usual Simone gets it. But her observation will be rejected by both blind believers and blind deniers. Like it or not only a relative few will be willing to consciously transcend blind belief and blind denial to become open to acquire human understanding. Most will be driven to defend either blind belief or blind denial.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417


Atheism reveals the damaging effects of imagination while the essence of religion opens us to experience the third dimension of thought bringing meaning to binary thought. It is so obvious that it must be emotionally nd violently rejected.

To contemplate the potential for the Overman first requires appreciating what a human being living in Plato's cave is. Without admitting what we are, how can we know the potential for human being?

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 27th, 2019, 8:01 pm
by charon
Nick -

The sad fact is that opening to the love for life itself rather than being restricted to selectrive love isn't wanted. The binary mind loves this and rejects that. It has become closed to experience that life serves a universal purpose so must be contemplated from a universal perspective to feel its meaning.

Consider what the entertainment dollar is spent on. It is a reflection of modern values. But if people don't find any value in putting their minds and hearts to it, there is no incentive to grow to feel the value of life for the majority. Of course it doesn't have to be this way but it is the way it is. This is why I admire and support the individuals like Simone Weil whose lives support awakening to human values


Yes, you state this but go no further. Quite right, but then what?

Where do you stand in all this? Or are you only pointing the finger at others?

if it true that we live in imagination afraid of awakening, humanity remains largely not human.


All right, those who are unawakened don't understand life. But who are we to judge who is awakened or not? And call them sub-human?

I don't like the way this is going!

These seekers of truth are mocked and hated


What seekers of truth are mocked and hated? I don't know of any.

these rare people with the courage to think and feel beyond their conditioning.


Why do you call it courage? What has courage to do with it?

Is it really that insulting to admit that we are governed by habitual reaction with the potential for conscious action?


Those two things are in contradiction. Habitual reaction and action are not the same thing. The one is not the potential for the other.

the sad truth is that public education refuses education in favor of indoctrination. A human education is a topic in itself and usually avoided since it disturbs the peace indoctrination is said to provide.


Possibly, but before such an education can be provided the educators themselves must be at least half-educated. Are there any?

As usual Simone gets it.


She might get it but that won't do you and I much good, will it? What matters is whether we get it, not some other person.

But her observation will be rejected by both blind believers and blind deniers.


I doubt if they'd even be interested.

Like it or not only a relative few will be willing to consciously transcend blind belief and blind denial to become open to acquire human understanding.


But if they are the victims of blind belief and denial they won't be interested. Worse, they probably won't know what you're talking about even if you pushed it on them. Understand it, they've got to be interested!

the essence of religion opens us to experience the third dimension of thought bringing meaning to binary thought.


There's just thought, not one, two, three thought. And is the whole meaning of religion to experience thought? We're experiencing thought all the time. The whole world is totally dominated by it and the results are all too obvious. But their experiencing of it and its utterly dire effects has no effect whatsoever. And do you call that religion?

Without admitting what we are, how can we know the potential for human being?


So admit it then. Not by repeating 'I'm a useless sinner', which is merely neurotic, but by seeing things as they are and oneself as one is. Then one may discover the potential - discover it, not just read about it and think what a lovely idea.

You've spent a long post describing how most of humanity is ignorant, asleep, no use at all, etc etc. I'm afraid that's not your business. Your business is yourself and your life, not the lives of others.

Are YOU asleep? Are YOU indoctrinated? Have YOU risen above all this stuff? Or are you just the same human being we all are? You tell me.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 27th, 2019, 11:35 pm
by Nick_A
Charon
Yes, you state this but go no further. Quite right, but then what?

Where do you stand in all this? Or are you only pointing the finger at others?


Step one from a philosophical perspective is to witness and admit the hypocrisy of the human condition as a result of being under the power of imagination. This is what I am doing.

For example I was watching a documentary on the Jonestown cult in which 900 or so committed suicide following Rev. Jim Jones. I saw a picture of all these dead bodies lying on the ground. I’ve seen similar dead bodies resulting from the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide but these dead bodies were not the result of suicide.

It doesn’t do any good to make speeches and say oh how terrible. The real question is why are these events cyclical reactions. Forget about good or bad; the question is why man as a species allows it to happen.

Once I admit the absurdity of the human condition in the world I wonder if I am also under the power of imagination. Am I limited to accepting this absurd condition and defending it or is it possible for me to become more consciously realistic which should be normal for humanity. So I involve myself with those who have verified the human condition within themselves and practice efforts at self knowledge.

All right, those who are unawakened don't understand life. But who are we to judge who is awakened or not? And call them sub-human?

I don't like the way this is going!


That is because you are thinking in terms of good and bad. The world is absurd. Those who practice the philosophy of absurdism know it.

What is so insulting about being sub-human? Is it insulting to be a piano student rather than a pianist? Is it really insulting to be a medical student rather than a doctor? Must it be insulting to be a potential human being as opposed to being human?

Why judge? It is sufficient to recognize absurdity for what it is. But within the collective human condition there are some very advanced people. Why not grow to recognize those who are not just conditioned automatons if a person really drawn to experience objective human meaning?

What seekers of truth are mocked and hated? I don't know of any.


The classic example of course is Socrates. His ideas were mocked and hated and required his death. I’m no Socrates but have experienced how I must be hated. But in truth since no one knows me it is these ideas that must be mocked and hated because they disturb the peace. I’m just the messenger.

Why do you call it courage? What has courage to do with it?


Everything. Do you have the courage to die to yourself? If we admit that our lives are primarily lived by habits created by imagination, awakening to reality requires these dominant habits to die. They don’t want to and it requires real courage to allow them to die for the sake of experiencing the reality of our being in the context of the potential for human being we are being drawn to.

Those two things are in contradiction. Habitual reaction and action are not the same thing. The one is not the potential for the other.


Habitual reaction is the beginning. See it for what it is and experience how it works. Suppose a person has a smoking habit. They consciously observe in themselves the whole process of giving in to lighting a cig. Then they learn at what point within the process they can change it by a conscious action. Is that really so strange to consciously experience the struggle between yes and no?

Possibly, but before such an education can be provided the educators themselves must be at least half-educated. Are there any?


Yes in private schools dedicated to the meaning and purpose of human education as opposed to state required indoctrination.

She might get it but that won't do you and I much good, will it? What matters is whether weget it, not some other person.


Agreed.

I doubt if they'd even be interested

But if they are the victims of blind belief and denial they wpm't be interested. Worse, they probably won't know what you're talking about even if you pushed it on them. Understand it, they've got to be interested!


Of course they are interested. Blind believers want you to believe their blind beliefs and blind deniers insist on denying the source for opinions. Each side wants to dominate the other.

My concern is for the minority not possessed by blind belief or blind denial but who are good people having a genuine need to feel objective human meaning and purpose. How do they get help?

There's just thought, not one, two, three thought. And is the whole meaning of religion to experience thought? We're experiencing thought all the time. The whole world is totally dominated by it and the results are all too obvious. But their experiencing of it and its utterly dire effects has no effect whatsoever. And do you call that religion?


The purpose of non secularized religion as i understand it is to enable awakening to comic religious feelings. Secularism must struggle against it since to accept it invites universal meaning and purpose not to mention a source for existence itself. This cannot be allowed.

............................The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he want to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 28th, 2019, 2:47 am
by charon
Nick -

Step one from a philosophical perspective is to witness and admit the hypocrisy of the human condition as a result of being under the power of imagination.


How about from the normal perspective? We're not Socrates, we're just you and me. If you look as a philosopher it's an affected perception, not a free one. It's like looking as a businessman or a Communist, or some other thing. The contents of the thinking will distort and colour what we see, therefore it's not a true perception.

I think that's absolutely crucial to understand. One cannot look as anything, it must be an uninfluenced perception. Therefore we see things as they are, not translated into our own terms, or someone else's terms.

I was watching a documentary on the Jonestown cult


I've seen it myself :-)

The real question is why are these events cyclical reactions.


Didn't we answer that one way back in our discussion? Because we don't learn, therefore we commit the same mistakes again and again. I think that's fairly simple. You'd think by now we'd realise the danger of cults, sects, leaders, gurus, and all that. There's enough evidence for it. Apparently we don't, which is extraordinary, but there you are.

Once I admit the absurdity of the human condition in the world I wonder if I am also under the power of imagination


Exactly, that's the whole point. And how will you find out? Obviously by watching yourself, your thinking, your reactions, your beliefs. Study yourself, learn - which the others aren't doing apparently. Not as a philosopher, just as a simple person. Watch, learn, and you'll soon find out. How can you not?

Of course, if you let someone else dictate to you what you are then you're in the same position as those other people who've joined whatever-it-is. They accept that as their guide and they're lost. So you must go it alone.

Don't say 'courage'. Only the frightened talk about courage. If you know you need to look you just look. It's very simple.

is it possible for me to become more consciously realistic


Obviously. Do it now, not tomorrow or the next day. Don't make a big thing of it, just get on with it. See what you are, follow yourself, go wherever it takes you. That takes strength - not courage, strength. To make up your mind to do it and do it.

So I involve myself with those who have verified the human condition within themselves and practice efforts at self knowledge.


But can they help you? They may talk about it but they can't do it for you. Understand that in this you are alone, which has nothing to do with isolation.

What is so insulting about being sub-human?


Because they're not sub-human. They're as human as you or I. You may as well call them retarded or stupid. They're not. If they are it's a medical condition, not a human failing.

But within the collective human condition there are some very advanced people. Why not grow to recognize those who are not just conditioned automatons if a person really drawn to experience objective human meaning?


You keep talking about others who are advanced. Are you looking for a guru? Do you want to be taught like a student? They can give you knowledge, usually someone else's, and fill your head with it. Then you become indoctrinated! Do you really want that? Are you looking for a leader? So were those people in Jonestown.

What are you actually seeking, if we're straight about it? To be led, only you call it truth? Something safe and secure? That's what most people want. And I tell you this, if that's what you want you'll find it. It's round every corner.

Don't go that route. Instead find out what you want and see if it's worthwhile in the cold light of day. It may be, it may not be. Usually it's not.

I’m just the messenger.


Of what?

Do you have the courage to die to yourself?


Have you been with someone who was dying? Do you think it takes courage? Or it's just going to happen? You let go, that's all. Not just at the end of life but all the time. We must discuss death sometime :-)

Habitual reaction is the beginning. See it for what it is and experience how it works. Suppose a person has a smoking habit. They consciously observe in themselves the whole process of giving in to lighting a cig. Then they learn at what point within the process they can change it by a conscious action.


The conscious observation IS the action.

private schools dedicated to the meaning and purpose of human education as opposed to state required indoctrination


Do you know of any? Existing at the moment, not in the past.

Of course they are interested. Blind believers want you to believe their blind beliefs and blind deniers insist on denying the source for opinions. Each side wants to dominate the other.


I meant interested in NOT being blind. A literally blind person would be very interested in being able to see. Unfortunately the blind believer type isn't. If they were they wouldn't be blind.

good people having a genuine need to feel objective human meaning and purpose. How do they get help?


Go to a guru, a psychoanalyst, a preacher, a leader. And lord help them.

Needing help for a physical task is one thing. Asking for help spiritually is another. The moment you ask you're heading for dependence and prison. It destroys any chance of self-reliance, initiative, standing on one's own feet. When someone needs help it comes.

The confused seek help from others and the confused give it to them. I'm not against help but one has to be very, very careful with it.

The purpose of non secularized religion as i understand it is to enable awakening to comic religious feelings. Secularism must struggle against it since to accept it invites universal meaning and purpose not to mention a source for existence itself. This cannot be allowed.


I think you meant cosmic :-)

Look, first we have to solve the ordinary things, not bother with cosmic this and that. If we're free of the trivial the great may come, and usually does.

But we run after the 'great thing' before we've understood the nearest things like fear, death, relationships, comfort, belief, suffering, and so on.

A mind caught in all that can't come to the great thing. A mind free of that has no need to ask, it's there.

That is real help.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 28th, 2019, 7:28 pm
by Nick_A
Charon

How about from the normal perspective? We're not Socrates, we're just you and me. If you look as a philosopher it's an affected perception, not a free one. It's like looking as a businessman or a Communist, or some other thing. The contents of the thinking will distort and colour what we see, therefore it's not a true perception.


I think that's absolutely crucial to understand. One cannot look as anything, it must be an uninfluenced perception. Therefore we see things as they are, not translated into our own terms, or someone else's terms.



I was referring to the old archaic definition of philosophy as the love of wisdom which by definition requires impartiality.


You seem to be referring to the new improved definition of philosophy which defines it as the desire to create valid logical arguments defending an agenda and the preconceptions supporting it.
I am a hopeless romantic so still live by the old fashioned definition in which the seeker of truth transcends reliance on validity.


IMO the mistake you are making is the assumption that as we are we are capable of the quality of attention necessary for seeing things as they are.

When Julia Haslett was passing through a difficult time in her life she came upon a simple sentence written by Simone Weil: “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.” It changed her life and compelled her to create the documentary “An Encounter with Simone Weil’ to better understand why it had such great meaning for her. This is the power of an awakening idea creating a question. If this power of attention is so important, why don’t we have it?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOCE_d2R5lw


Didn't we answer that one way back in our discussion? Because we don't learn, therefore we commit the same mistakes again and again. I think that's fairly simple. You'd think by now we'd realise the danger of cults, sects, leaders, gurus, and all that. There's enough evidence for it. Apparently we don't, which is extraordinary, but there you are.


I think it is more subtle than that. It is in the nature of the fallen human condition not to learn but to accept the collective as the source of values. Why else would mass suicide be considered normal within the collective? The collective mind is another valuable topic


In "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life" (1934), Simone Weil develops the theme of collectivism as the trajectory of modern culture.

“Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking.”
Nothing illustrates the accuracy of her remark than the power of a cult and its ability to create mass suicide. We don’t learn because we reject the quality of attention necessary to learn and depend upon a collective to determine values.



Exactly, that's the whole point. And how will you find out? Obviously by watching yourself, your thinking, your reactions, your beliefs. Study yourself, learn - which the others aren't doing apparently. Not as a philosopher, just as a simple person. Watch, learn, and you'll soon find out. How can you not?



But it isn’t so easy. The same ideas are written over and over in best sellers. Their effect is the attempt to create more acceptable behavior but since we are as we are, the same problems occur only in a different form. A simple person wants to live a simple life in as easy a way as possible. There is nothing wrong with this. I value the rare ones who struggle to understand the human condition as it exists within them in their need to become truly human. They are an inspiration to be more than an atom in a collective..


Of course, if you let someone else dictate to you what you are then you're in the same position as those other people who've joined whatever-it-is. They accept that as their guide and they're lost. So you must go it alone.



Secularism relies on the senses to teach what to know. The esoteric traditions when genuine teach how to learn the reality of human being. We need genuine help to deal with our personal resistance supporting our conditioned responses and fears. Why deny it when genuine?


Don't say 'courage'. Only the frightened talk about courage. If you know you need to look you just look. It's very simple.



Apparently you have yet to confront your own self made demons. Yes it does require courage as many addicts will confirm.


But can they help you? They may talk about it but they can't do it for you. Understand that in this you are alone, which has nothing to do with isolation.



You seem to be referring to behavior and I am referring to understanding. Sometimes understanding can be communicated in ways beyond what the senses are capable of. Experiencing a change in understanding can change things in ways impossible for more facts.


You keep talking about others who are advanced. Are you looking for a guru? Do you want to be taught like a student? They can give you knowledge, usually someone else's, and fill your head with it. Then you become indoctrinated! Do you really want that? Are you looking for a leader? So were those people in Jonestown.



The idea that human being is a relative concept seems obvious to me yet a lot of people find it offensive and prefer to consider that the quality of being is the same in all people. This question requires discussing what being actually is. This is another topic.

I do know people who are closer to inner unity than I am and closer to the source of their existence than I am so the quality of their being is greater than mine. I have no trouble admitting it.

I learn to deal with resistance and negativity from secularists online. It is real and anyone whose ideas are not the norm should be tested in this way to get rid of the misguided modern assertions concerning the desire for communication. In contrast I learn what people are capable of in real life. It benefits me psychologically from being in the presence of people with understanding. It isn’t a matter of teaching but of sharing an “atmosphere” which makes self knowledge possible.

What are you actually seeking, if we're straight about it? To be led, only you call it truth? Something safe and secure? That's what most people want. And I tell you this, if that's what you want you'll find it. It's round every corner.

I’d like more of the courage Simone had which made it possible for her to experience joy.

"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams."
Simone Weil-- Gravity and Grace


So if I can’t be a Simone I can at least pursue the pathe of intermediate Christianity explained by Jacob Needleman in the preface to his book “Lost Christianity.”


………….What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding
of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific
mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the
heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal
weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be– both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.
But, this is not an either/or. The premise –or, rather, the proposal—of this
book is that at the heart of the Christian religion there exists and
has always existed just such a vision of both God and Man. I call it
“lost Christianity” not because it is a matter of doctrines and concepts
that may have been lost or forgotten; nor even a matter of methods of
spiritual practice that may need to be recovered from ancient sources.
It is all that, to be sure, but what is lost in the whole of our modern
life, including our understanding of religion, is something even more fundamental, without
which religious ideas and practices lose their meaning and all too
easily become the instruments of ignorance, fear and hatred. What
is lost is the experience of oneself, just oneself—myself, the personal
being who is here, now, living, breathing, yearning for meaning, for
goodness; just this person here, now, squarely confronting one’s own
existential weaknesses and pretensions while yet aware, however
tentatively, of a higher current of life and identity calling to us from
within ourselves. This presence to oneself is the missing element in
the whole of the life of Man, the intermediate state of consciousness
between what we are meant to be and what we actually are.
It is, perhaps, the one bridge that can lead us from our inhuman past
toward the human future……………………………


It works for me. I’ve learned a reasonable hypothesis for universal purpose and Man within it and ways in which to verify it through the efforts to “Know Thyself,”


Look, first we have to solve the ordinary things, not bother with cosmic this and that. If we're free of the trivial the great may come, and usually does.

But we run after the 'great thing' before we've understood the nearest things like fear, death, relationships, comfort, belief, suffering, and so on.

A mind caught in all that can't come to the great thing. A mind free of that has no need to ask, it's there.

That is real help.


This is the secular approach and I have nothing against it. I just know that without the help of grace everything just turns in cycles and nothing changes. When we lose the quality of attention which enables us to remember our connection with help from above, we lose the connection and we are left to our own devices. The results of the human condition have proven what they are worth. We are simultaneously capable of both the greatest compassion nd the greatest atrocities. This doesn’t offer a promising future.

Since that is the unfortunate reality I support those who struggle to acquire the quality of conscious attention which not only benefits the world but enables a person to remain open to the help of grace. Without it Man on earth may not have a future.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 28th, 2019, 8:34 pm
by charon
Nick -

I was referring to the old archaic definition of philosophy as the love of wisdom which by definition requires impartiality.


Yes, but you're still looking at things as 'a philosopher'. It doesn't matter which one.

IMO the mistake you are making is the assumption that as we are we are capable of the quality of attention necessary for seeing things as they are.


I guarantee you the moment something really serious happens there is instant attention, no matter who it is. If it's important to you, you'll attend. If it's not, you won't.

If this power of attention is so important, why don’t we have it?


You do have it. Everybody has it. We just don't use it much. You mean to say if the doctor told you you had 6 months to live you'd sit there thinking about something else?

You're making a mystery of it. It's not a mystery, it's anything but a mystery.

But are you paying attention now???!

It is in the nature of the fallen human condition not to learn but to accept the collective as the source of values.


Oh, well, that's all right then, we don't have to bother, do we? You see how you explain things away and neatly sweep them under the carpet?

But it isn’t so easy


No one said it was easy. I certainly didn't.

A simple person wants to live a simple life in as easy a way as possible.


What do you mean by simple? Thick in the head? Cerebrally challenged? That's not simple.

Simple means direct, clear, unconfused, untainted by crazy ideas, other peoples' theories, mad beliefs, idealism, and all the rest of the utter nonsense that surrounds us.

The intelligent mind is always simple. It's unclouded therefore it can see the reality and truth of things immediately. The clever, complicated mind can't, it has too many barriers.

We need genuine help to deal with our personal resistance supporting our conditioned responses and fears. Why deny it when genuine?


If you're a mixed-up case then probably you do need specialist help. But we're not talking about them. This whole discussion is about something much greater. To embark on that one needs extraordinary health, sanity, initiative, clarity. Problem people can't do it, which is very obvious.

Apparently you have yet to confront your own self made demons.


I'm glad you said self-made. I never had any.

You seem to be referring to behavior and I am referring to understanding.


We're talking about examining oneself, studying oneself, observing oneself, self-knowledge. Do you think another person can do that for you? All they can say is look at it. They can't look for you.

It benefits me psychologically from being in the presence of people with understanding.


It's probably not for me to point out but you're in the presence of one now but it's like talking to the wall. No, really! I'll have to think of something else...

I’d like more of the courage Simone had which made it possible for her to experience joy.


Look, old fruit, my dear Nick, does it take guts to experience joy? You think it does, but does it? Doesn't joy come unasked? It comes any time, out of the blue. It's not something you work up to with gritted teeth!

So if I can’t be a Simone I can at least pursue the path of intermediate Christianity


Then pursue it. Someone invented it and you become the avid follower... Is this the way to truth? You want a path because, presumably you feel lost. A path gives you direction, meaning, purpose. Isn't that the way to self-deception? We covered this before, I believe.

I just know that without the help of grace everything just turns in cycles and nothing changes.


Do you really, truly believe that? If so there's nothing you can do about it, is there? You can't summons grace, can you? So what will you do?

You can - not just you, everybody can - wait around waiting for grace to intervene or you can do something else. While you're waiting for grace, who may not turn up, life is slipping by. So what will you do?

You never mention love. Find out if you love and, if you don't, find out why. When you love then grace may be your friend. And, if you don't, why should she be?

You want to depend - on people, reassurance, guidance... you're not seeking truth at all, you're seeking comfort.

Sorry, I'm a straight talker.

Re: Nietzsche's expanded concept [superhumanity]

PostPosted: April 28th, 2019, 11:53 pm
by Nick_A
Charon

You are confusing conscious attention with mechanical attention/ You are describing incidents which produce mechanical attention. This is good and necessary. We do not produce attention. Rather attention moves through us. It is animl attention. When a cat concentrates on it prey he is reacting to mechanical attention.

Conscious attention is different. We produce it consciously rather than external life producing it. The greatest example I know of revealing the results of conscious attention is the Crucifixion and Resurrection. It was a conscious drama. We cnnot experience a conscious death. Heck we cannot remain present if someone outside gives us dirty look.

Jesus’ conscious death made the Resurrection possible and benefited those open to the quality of grace it invited.. Of course you will think it rubbish until you experience what grace is capable of. Even on a small scale

Attention is the one thing we can call our own but we don’t know how to use it so reject our potential and just limit ourselves to reaction.

What do you mean by simple? Thick in the head? Cerebrally challenged? That's not simple.


A simple life is a life not caught up in activism as in politics for example and expressions of self importance as all to common in what for some reason is called the world of art. Such a person accepts their responsibilities and lives a good life free of the dramatics. Such a person is often far more advanced than all these politicians, artists, and gurus since they are not victims of self deception which destroys the seed of the soul

It's probably not for me to point out but you're in the presence of one now but it's like talking to the wall. No, really! I'll have to think of something else...


So what hve you come to understand? Do you understand what Simone ment by writing “grace fills empty spaces?”

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

"That is why we fly from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes sin, but fear of God. We know that we cannot see him face to face without dying, and we do not want to die."
-- Gravity and Grace


You don’t know what it means to die to yourself, your personality, as opposed to a physical death. If this is true, what do you understand?

Then pursue it. Someone invented it and you become the avid follower... Is this the way to truth? You want a path because, presumably you feel lost. A path gives you direction, meaning, purpose. Isn't that the way to self-deception? We covered this before, I believe.


No. Esoteric Christianity is part of the perennial tradition which always was. It wasn’t invented by Man.

“antisocial behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world of conformists.”― Nikola Tesla


Yes I know how offensive this is to the modern world which worships the grand collective and its God “the Great Beast.” It demands acceptance of and obedience to the the demands of the state. All antisocial behavior must be restricted to challenging whatever threatens loyalty to the Beast. But I’ve always been this way. Why I am still alive must be because of the bad aim of all those intolerant of ideas disturbing the peace.

As jean Shepherd once said: “there are two kinds of people, the punctuators and the rest of us.” I knew right away that I was one of the rest of us. I’ve been defending myself from attacking punctuators ever since.

You never mention love. Find out if you love and, if you don't, find out why. When you love then grace may be your friend. And, if you don't, why should she be?


Which quality of love do you refer to?

https://www.thoughtco.com/platos-ladder-of-love-2670661

Diotima spells out the stages in this ascent in terms of what sort of beautiful thing the lover desires and is drawn toward.
1. A particular beautiful body. This is the starting point, when love, which by definition is a desire for something we don’t have, is first aroused by the sight of individual beauty.
2. All beautiful bodies. According to standard Platonic doctrine, all beautiful bodies share something in common, something the lover eventually comes to recognize. When he does recognize this, he moves beyond a passion for any particular body.
3. Beautiful souls. Next, the lover comes to realize that spiritual and moral beauty matters much more than physical beauty. So he will now yearn for the sort of interaction with noble characters that will help him become a better person.
4. Beautiful laws and institutions. These are created by good people (beautiful souls) and are the conditions which foster moral beauty.
5. The beauty of knowledge. The lover turns his attention to all kinds of knowledge, but particularly, in the end to philosophical understanding. (Although the reason for this turn isn’t stated, it is presumably because philosophical wisdom is what underpins good laws and institutions.)………………….