Scouts

Sir, you belittle their efforts by believing, as you at some point earlier stated, that indignation has no purpose. The slave that never runs away from or fights its master remains always a slave. In other words, their willingness to rise above and beyond their unfortunate circumstances arises from their contentious view of being treated in such a way, which is the very foundation of indignation.

Someone who got tired of being beaten said: fuck that. This must be stopped, or I will die trying to stop it. It may seem to you (and I am trying to read between the lines of all your nonsense, because for all that you think you speak plainly, you plainly do not) that this is nothing more than an extension of a fight or flight response. I contend that it is more than this. Indignation can beget deliberation of the facts that calm acceptence cannot, and change the way things are done, even change the very nature of the beings who are brave enough to engage in it. You do not believe this, that is plain. However, your belief that calm acceptence somehow gives us a clearer world view is not demonstrably true. Both indignation and calm acceptance are different filters which must be applied to different situations.

Were you not indignant when the racoon accosted your rooster? Or, in that split second between observation and reaction, did time stop and give you the requisite means for calm deliberation?

Likewise, how is it that someone with such a non-contentious point of view should be so persistent in contending someone else's point of view? To enlighten me, you suppose; but it seems to me you do so to further reinforce your own dissociative double standard.

 

No, I said indignation delivers indignity only. Righteousness cannot be had unless it is shared with those around you.

Unless of course they become friends and choose to stay together.

Pain is sufficient instruction you don't need indignation.

I don't think I speak particularly plainly, I try to be succinct.
I must have spoken plainly enough because indeed it is extension of the fight or flight response. Fight or flight is a suitable response to imminent existential threat, with is the only genuine threat. And again fight or flight is tethered to your level of identification. Someone needn't get tired of or grow weary of anything. If your fight or flight response is in proportion to genuine threat then your dire encounters will be few and they will be brief. However, if your fight or flight mechanism is triggered by imaginary threats then you may find yourself neurotic indeed. You may find it difficult to trust even when you feel trust might be warranted.

I said nothing of calm acceptance. I said clear and without distraction.

I was not indignant when the raccoon attacked the rooster, I cared only to protect the rooster. i didn't need to deliberate, the threat was clear and immanent.

I contend with the same errors of perception that others do, I just don't make perceptual errors my habit. I have an interest in sharing peace because those who feel threatened are unpredictable.

 

"Unless of course they become friends and choose to stay together."

Slave: Hey, master. I know you daily beat me and starve me and put me to work and rape my wife; but could we be buddies? I mean, let's let bygones be bygones, huh?

Master: Why, sure! I'll go over to your shack and check on the wife, and you just get out in the field and pick that cotton, and everything will be just fine, boy! I'm glad we had this talk!

Man, I give up. You are hopeless.

 

...which brings us to the topic of the point of forgiveness. An I would say its got to be one of the more difficult "phenomena" to grasp. Good thing as humans we may forgive. & we have the ability to choose our energetic spaces so that we may forgive an assailant and be somewhere else in order to keep safe physically and emotionally. I like to think of it as "they know not what they do." To remind myself we are all on this journey side by side simultaneously having our own experiences and all in our own places learning our own lessons. May we always remain humble to the journey of another as a gift from person to person.

 

Forgive, maybe... but never, ever forget.

 

The trick is to replace the memory and emotion with the memory and a new emotion maybe? To make new associative connections. I would say that's one way to forgive and not forget. I have an ex that admitted he's an alcoholic. He hurt me a lot. And when he admitted his follies many years later I was faced with his forgiveness. And it created much closure. It's harder to forgive those that don't admit their own follies. But it isn't impossible but like I said with those people you know you just have to love them from a distance.

 

My my---such a Freudian concept of the mind----oozing with the festering discharge of a dualistic rationality spawned from the legacy of a judeo-christian culture.

Carl Jung went against Freud's advice that the Subconscious was filled with the dangers, evils, and perversions of mankind. Yes----he did find the shadow---our darkside that was in fact the creation of our ego (by repressing all those aspects of our nature that probably emerged innocently--but now repressed and denied, they had the possibility of reappearing in a more sinister, evil, or violent manner-----but it was the dualistic nature that kept them poised to jump out...). But he realized that reassimilating the shadow elements into the self, defused them and took away their power.

But he also found that the subconscious was filled with valuable lessons, teachings, guidance----archetypes. There are the teachers, and the guidance that drives us to our life's purpose. It communicates in an archaic irrational way---symbols and myths, a nonlinear language----which is why it is where our dreams originate, and why we rarely understand the lessons the dreams have for us.

Freud only claimed to have cured a couple of patients---the truth is he never cured any--the ones he claimed to have cured spent the rest of their lives in and out of institutions. He did groundbreaking work---but he was too wrapped up in the dogma and fears of his Victorian times.

 

Sorry Maelstrom if my response seems harsh----I was in a writing zone---man...

Some people really love Freud----my point was to think beyond Freud-----to Jung.

I'll have to take the time to read this thread more to participate more fully...

 

...Though I must say that the original post seems to have strains of Kierkegaard----calling out to people to make that ultimate choice-----either/or----to be truly true to oneself, and one's beliefs, rather than the hypocritical masses that surrounded him in ignorance---buried in blankets of vulgar mediocrity----afraid to even approach that ultimate question---to face the self and seek truth.

Then I read the last two pages see thedope's responses------yes---I'll have to take the time to read through all of this.

------No I take that back----the original post is more than just strains of Kierkegaard-----it is Kierkegaard in spirit all the way-----am I wrong?

 

Yes---Kierkegaard----his life was unhappy, because he made a choice to give up the one he loved to seek out the truth, and break through what he perceived as the cultural taboos of his times. There were also the episodes of ostracization. He felt that every generation only had a few people who could actually break free to truth in this way-----and the costs could be great, including the possibility of obscurity...

His truth involved Christian existentialism----but he is often looked to as the founding father of existentialism.

 

Forget what, an offense?

Our situational awareness is compromised when we condemn the phenomenal world. We condemn not the facts but the interpretation of facts. We condemn because reality fails to perform a role that we ourselves had assigned it. We condemn the world for what we do to it. As we condemn our response to phenomena becomes severely limited as the only tools available for us to apprehend the world are suspicion at best to viciousness at worst.

This perpetual critical mindedness is a cultural affectation stemming from hero worship and taboo. We are taught to see the world in terms of us and them from the earliest age as you don't talk to strangers. Critical is a grave condition guaranteeing animosity.

Forgiveness is not a practice of overlooking obvious fault, although initially it does appear to the indoctrinated to be a kind of falsification of bills. It is the practice of refusing to condemn. How many times should you forgive a thing, not seven times, but seventy times seven. Or let those who are without guilt, throw the first stone.

Nothing is more gentle than nature. Forgiveness restores true proportion to the apprehension of phenomena. It's purpose is not to excuse acts. Acts good and bad are misinterpretations of energetic processes, physical not moral. Processes which transpire regardless whether you consider the situation worthy or not of your blessing.

You cannot appreciate, that is apprehend correctly things that you despise.
A surgeon has to get over the sight of spilled blood in order to understand and treat the wound.

 

Just to let you know, I'm through talking to you for now. Press on if you want, but you have no helpful discourse to offer me, even if you don't see it. I tried to give you another chance, and you just ramble on and on preaching the Way but never understanding how utterly different are our paths and goals, and how utterly important it is for different people to fill different roles. If your philosophical base -- if any philosophical base -- were a catch-all for all of life's little problems -- which is what you are suggesting, though you may not see it -- these discussions wouldn't happen, let alone be necessary. So long, farewell, ugh!

 

I have only glossed over Kierkegaard, so I won't pretend to know much about him. I take my epistemologtical base mostly from Bertrand Russel, and empirical science, which might surprise you. I've been an Atheist since age seven, though I have often sought to lighten the darker side of the subconscious by exploring occult methods, and with varied and interesting, but no concrete results. Likewise, I am widely studied in comparative religion, though I wouldn't call myself a scholar.

Nietzsche, who is grossly misunderstood -- still even by me, I'm sure -- was onto something real in suggesting that the individual is a new, or recent, creation; "creation" of course being a figurative term in this case, just like the exclamation "God is dead!", which many people misunderstand to mean that Nietzsche actually believed there ever was a god. What he did or didn't actually believe is still something I can't commit to, and may never be able to commit to; but my attempts to interpret him, and my understanding of others' interpretations have lead me to one certainty: he was niether an individualist nor a collectivist, and his philosophy was not a political philosophy. It was the philosophy of the individual, the new creation and creator.

Again, we get mired in figurative language when trying to turn our minds into a dazzling new paradigm; but it must have been similarly dazzling, and terrifying, to the ancients to come to the realization that the earth is just a sphere floating in a space so vast as to be incomprehensible. Kudos to the men of reason, as well as the men of passion, that reached for the heights with their hearts and hands.

Kierkegaard, from your description, might be a sort of intense version of Hume? There seems to be a correlation, at least in the realization that intellectual pursuits and the attempt to struggle with the mysteries of the unknown instead of just accepting things on faith alone, tends to isolate a person. Probably off, but I'm just throwing that out there.

Likewise, I was a Thelemite for awhile; and though I was never too impressed with Crowley's cult of personality -- which was something he strictly and repeatedly warned people against ("the imp Crowley") -- and he was in no uncertain terms a rascal, the profundity and comrehensiveness of his thought, once you get past all the flowery language, gave me a lot to go on, and I'll never regret the experience. And to paraphrase Russel: an intelligent scoundrel is better than a righteous idiot. LOL. But who can ever necessarily tell the former from the latter?

 

Yes, indeed, and a good trick it is, Apples; but if we move on too soon, our unfinished business can come back to haunt us in our complacency. Practical and emotional matters do sometimes have a way of getting all mixed up. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes a bad thing, but always a thing that has to be dealt with directly. It's worth the effort, as is the exchange of ideas. Thank you.

 

Move at the speed of your own motion. All things will come to place them selfs in time as they will and as they should.

 

Osiris,

I am not surprised at all---I read through the whole tread last night till late. I saw the rationalism peek through your writing, I saw Nietzsche, and of course you referenced him.

I went through a period of atheism---but then I found Jesus---I'M JOKING!!! I'M JOKING!!!! But seriously, today I am an essentialist--believe being is based on essence rather than the materialist being based on existence. As an atheist, or agnostic is probably better, there were experiences in my life I could not explain----that eventually led me to indigenous spirituality. But I am also existentialist in that we all have our subjective individualist expriences in these matters---we are all on our own path---things that happened to me were meant for me and my path.

I have problems with the New Age. I have big problems with organized religion--personally, I now that organized religion is an important part of other peoples lives and that is fine--that is their trip--their path through life. At a cultural level, and by cultural I mean Modern Culture----American culture, which has spread to every last corner of the globe and is now Modern Culture, is suffering an existential crisis (hence the New Age, and all of the other attempts towards meaning). We no longer have a unifying myth (which is in effect a cultural truth). We are living in Nietzsche's age of nihilism, but few realize it, because it is masked over by consumerism and physical or emotional addictions. And therefore subconsciously we are afraid to approach the questions of truth. Religion will never play that role again--hence Nietzsche's post-Enlightenment understanding, God is dead. And with today's globalized culture, religion would be a big problem of 'whose religion?'

I feel our only hope for the salvation of our culture lies with quantum physics and other areas of science that are shaking up the reductionist scientific points of science, and give our culture a renewed unifying truth.

I also feel it is time we discard the dualistic zeitgeist that has carried man down such a divisive path since he began to move into villages, and had to learn a whole new group ethic in order to survive. This planter culture group ethic determined an in-group and out-group. Fertility was the main concern, and thus the feminine was in control. There was still a lot of grey between the black and white, but as institutions evolved, ownership, and other concepts became more concrete, the world became increasingly black and white. The rise of the male God, particularly in the West, added more of an objectivistic element to that duality. This in turn gave rise to Greek rationalism---and on and on. Today we live in a world that is overly focused on the conscious mind. We are alienated from our subconscious. This egotistical state inevitably results in an inflated ego-shadow complex, and has much to do with the ills of modern society---crime and all... Duality creates a very divisive world.

Hunter-gatherers saw the world in a much healthier perspective---which actually mirrors the world more realistically---they saw (and see) the world as a multiplicity. Therefore you have the goal of achieving a balance of the forces of nature, rather than a continuous battle of opposing forces. They understand (as modern philosophy had to rediscover) that there are no universals----no universal good and evil----that is a human construct born of human experience.

Thedope spoke in terms of a Oneness of all reality. I understand this in essentialistic terms---it is the essence of being. Within that oneness is the multiplicity. Duality is merely a polarization of the multiplicity.

Like Thedope, I believe we all create our own reality---we are responsible through our decisions as to what happens to us. Thedope spoke of creating a loving environment, to which the dualistic response was when you create good, you are also creating bad----this is how far this dualistic zeitgeist s programmed into our thinking. Yes it does happen--but this is usually due to: 1.) factors beyond our control and are therefore not exactly our creation--meteorites do fall from the sky; 2.) Our own subconscious hangups subverting our efforts---a karma of the psyche if you will; 3.) Creating good based on a perceived good that is judgemental and divisive and will therefore inherently create a dualistic result (e.g. forcing our own standards or ethics on others); or, 4.) a combination of any or all of these dynamics.

Number 3 I think is a point that Thedope was trying to get across.

Anyway---that is where I am coming from----so everyone has a little background before I enter the discussion.

 

Until we create individual autonomy the attempt to seperate ourselves from the dualistic machinations of our ancestors will continually fail. The first thing we have to do is a.) hold the right of every person to do with themselves as they will above all other rights, and then b.) understand that anyone who violates this right has abdicated their own.


With respect to raising children, this means we have to stop indoctrinating them into fixed mindsets -- which is such a violation -- and start teaching them to think for themselves, allowing them to develop cognition from a base unhampered by preconceived spiritual notions. Then, from that, the spiritual, if such is to be had, will flower.


Collectively, we are a long way off from that. I contend with the notion that this will be accomplished by simply sitting on our asses and waiting for everyone to catch up, or preaching love and forgiveness and kindness, or remaining equanimitous in the face of the violation itself. It's not about forcing a view on anyone, it's about reacting to injustice. Fundamentally, I'm talking about defending people's rights to seek for themselves and to defend themselves, which rights tend to go by the wayside as often as not in the world of supposed loving-kindness.


For every person that really believes this concept of non-judgement or non-attachment there is another person that preaches it and uses it to take advantage of the less wary one who believes it. Your understanding of organized religions -- or, in other owrds, cults -- should have opened your eyes to the fact that none of them are strictly innocuous.

I agree with you that we have to move beyond reductionist scientific views, but to move back into this mystical thinking is a regression. The hunter-gatherer had the luxury of a relatively unpopulated world, and a lot of free time. Hence the point of view of which you are speaking.

There is a whole new paradigm waiting to open up, and if we are to push forward through it we have to defend ourselves against that very regression. Work is what must be done, and complacence will not do it. Nonetheless, I am all for the kind and grandfatherly natures you and the dope express. When I am a grandfather. Not there yet. There's still too much to fight for.

I appreciate your sense of humor and lack of preachiness. What bothered me about the dope was this insistence that people are somehow responsible for the injustice in the world by standing up to it, which is utterly ridiculous. Surely you should be able to see this. We're not there yet. Don't get ahead of yourself.

And that's the point of my intitial post. Some of us elect to do this work instead of resting on the work already done. Either one is fine, for those respectively suited to it. Some moderate between the two. Whatever it is inside me that pushes me is something I've made peace with, finally; and it is in this peace with my fundamental will, my essence if you please, that I have discovered what will bring me peace. There will be suffering -- no doubt! -- but no sacrifice. I laugh and smile to go forth on my path as I will.

 

I am not sure why you are frustrated and frankly it is contrary evidence to the claim that you put yourself out there in uncomfortable situations. I have no desire to make you uncomfortable.

I do not offer a philosophical base as catch all to life's problems. That is a misinterpretation of what I said or intended to say. I do not teach the way.
What I am saying is that a certain way of regarding the world creates errant perceptions of phenomena and that actions and reactions are based on those perceptions to the detriment of us all. That is putting conditional requirements on the apprehension of phenomena puts phenomena to the test of your requirement but tells you nothing essential about the phenomena.

I think the idea that our paths are utterly different is a level of small ego identification and a misapprehension about nature of our experience as members of specie homo sapiens. You may have a different personal narrative about your life and your relationship to the world, but we breathe the same air and we both ride a terminal metabolism. We all end up in the same place just as we all emerge from the same real processes.

I am open to hearing something of mutual practical substance from you
other that you know what good and bad are based on the rough and ready definition you gave. When I questioned with specific examples of how your treatment might appear, you said my questions were unanswerable. The reason you think they are unanswerable is because you are not applying a standard metric and that metric does not suffice for many variables. It is arbitrary and the fundies think the very same thing about their perceptions.

If the value of your experience can only be transmitted by you via personal anecdotes, where are they?

I can't add to the discussion on philosophers or formal philosophies as I have not read them nor studied the discipline.

 

I think this is good by itself---there are many ways you can go with it. If your prison is metaphorical---a symbol of the existentialist crisis we ignorantly suffer from (as in my last post, for example) then this is a call to seek truth, just as Kierkegaard did. Nietzsche too, referred to the mediocrity around him as vulgar, and made a similar cry to discover truth, though he knew few would understand him.

I too feel the spirit of this, though I have always been fairly noncomformist, and so being ostracized is not as big a fear as it might be for others.

On the other hand if you are referring to a perceived political threat or your next comments about the cave or 'freedom while it lasts' are indicative of a future threat, then your comments become a bit more risky. Not to put words in Thedope's mouth, but this might be at least the neighborhood of the issue he has.

What becomes scary is if this is more than a philosophical quest, and includes a call to action, and you come up with a reductionist truth (an answer to all) that you then want to impose on others.

You say you dig the individual, so that is a big plus. Rationalistic objectivism--science has a bad tendency to take away any subjectivism and repress the individual. If your truth dualistically imposes judgement on others, than that becomes scary too. Both Socialist and Fascist dictatorships all began with the rally call of breaking the chains of slavery.

Essentialism is a reductionistic philosophy as well. Christianity for example is of course essentialist---the essence being god, and Mussolini to name one example wanted to create a State of superior spirituality, with every one of one mind---in a Christian way it was an honorable undertaking---a truly Christian State---based on the duality of the planter group ethic----it was fascism. Oh yes, his truth included an understanding that his politics raised the individual to a new level---he acknowledged that fascism was anti-individualist, but he believed that it freed the individual from the false freedoms that the industrial age presented to the individual under the name of individualism.

Hitler, and his intellectuals twisted Nietzsche's philosophy, and tried to build a better society based on a dualistic reductionalism that justified eugenics--the physical removal of the inferior. Stalin too used rational objectivistic reductionalism to mechanically force a superior society, because objectivism makes the individual an object, and the Soviets clearly took Marx's objectivism to heart.

On the other hand, essentialism is a benign reductionism if it is not based on a dualistic philosophy that allows judgement on one group over another. If your approach is existentialistic (and in this case I refer to simply existence as the basis of being), then I would suggest searching out the same kind of benign truth that is nonjudgemental----this is perhaps one thing that Thedope was getting at. *

 

Unless you yourself become as a little child, perceptually, then you are hampered by preconceived cultural/spiritual notions.

Not at all what I said. I said to have a future different from the past, you must make a different choice in the present. To endow elements of human behavior with criminal cause is barbaric superstition. Criminal is an idea about behavior. Every thing has a body. The way to end criminality is to starve it of attention. Everything arises from conception including the criminal mind. Let the dead bury the dead and focus the mind on cultivating understanding. New paradigms will emerge.

Will bring you peace as in you don't have it yet? Just asking, not suggesting.