but I guess if it exists, our happiness doesn't matter, does it? " –
rigsy
Actually, when residing in 'the kingdom' of eternity, happiness is the
natural state. Some call it nirvana. Regardless, being driven by
memories, the phantoms of the past and/or by projections into the
future…when such things are driven by passions, dissatisfactions and
the like, most philosophies and even religions know the natural result
is suffering. So, with this wisdom in mind, living in the eternal
present can and does exist with a resultant state that includes
happiness. The experience of this state certainly does matter
especially when contrasted with a state of disillusionment.
On Aug 30, 9:22 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspected as much! Would we need an eternity if life were happier-
> but I guess if it exists, our happiness doesn't matter, does it?
>
> On Aug 30, 12:35 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "...What is an "ultimate sense"?" - rigsy
>
> > In this context, ultimate sense implies eternal/eternity.
>
> > On Aug 30, 6:36 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Never fear! By last evening I considered that the ego could be viewed
> > > as the "husk" of the soul! :-) Yes- I think in day-to-day terms though
> > > I can stretch, if forced. For instance, we cease to exist because we
> > > are forgotten and really only a grain of sand in an historical sense.
> > > I am thinking that birth and death and their mystery started the
> > > rituals- religions- philosophies- arts. What is an "ultimate sense"?
>
> > > On Aug 29, 7:08 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Yes it is as I distinguish you from all others. Why? Because you
> > > > have
> > > > projected your ego driven self into words." – rigsy
>
> > > > In the way you are looking at it rigsy, yes, ego does exist. Having
> > > > had numerous and long discussions about this topic with Vam in the
> > > > past, it is my understanding that when he (and I to some degree) say
> > > > that ego isn't real we are talking in more of an ultimate sense, not a
> > > > day to day interaction way. It is more in the line that anything that
> > > > is 'real' is something that is permanent. And, I think it is clear
> > > > that all of us, or most of us at least, hold that ego does cease to
> > > > exist at some point.
>
> > > > On Aug 29, 4:25 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Yes it is as I distinguish you from all others. Why? Because you have
> > > > > projected your ego driven self into words.
>
> > > > > On Aug 28, 11:16 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Vam, we are in agreement. The ego isn't real.
>
> > > > > > On Aug 28, 12:27 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Just continuing this discussion...
>
> > > > > > > - The ego is NOT a living being in truth, in reality. It, in truth,
> > > > > > > does not exist, is non-existent, is absent. If we still feel it as
> > > > > > > something real, as some "thing" that must die, it is only because we
> > > > > > > are ignorance itself, we are a lie, as in opposed to truth, we are
> > > > > > > living in non-existence !
>
> > > > > > > So, the only meaning that "...the death of the ego" has is " awakening
> > > > > > > in truth, in existence, in reality," and resuming something very
> > > > > > > ordinary, natural, and true. It is wholly strange being, but only
> > > > > > > because we have been living in non-being so far.
>
> > > > > > > But we have staked so much, our everything, in this non-existence and
> > > > > > > untrue... that, indeed, it is not easy, herculean for most, and
> > > > > > > impossible for the rest. Only because we simply not leave these
> > > > > > > paradigms of untruth and non-being !
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 28, 11:07 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Yes Vam, as one continues to move up the scale, the point above
> > > > > > > > disillusionment is the death of ego itself. This more commonly is
> > > > > > > > known as the dark night of the soul.
>
> > > > > > > > The path isn't easy…but is knowable.
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 7:42 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Agree with everything you said here...
>
> > > > > > > > > What I must emphasise however, as I believe you would too, is that '
> > > > > > > > > violent ' nauseating experience of emptiness is not the last word on
> > > > > > > > > it. Without this perspective, and caveat I may say, despair and
> > > > > > > > > depression is inevitable... the background to the well known and
> > > > > > > > > extended debate between Sartre and Camus aired publicly !
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 28, 4:54 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > "Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have
> > > > > > > > > > thought... " – paradox
>
> > > > > > > > > > IF you somehow interpreted my having said "Relativism and
> > > > > > > > > > deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the well of
> > > > > > > > > > disillusionment." as a call for blindness, nothing could be further
> > > > > > > > > > from the truth.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is the semantics involved with the term 'disillusionment'.
> > > > > > > > > > If so, in an attempt at clarification, this term to me is fairly high
> > > > > > > > > > up the ladder of levels of consciousness. In fact, it is very close to
> > > > > > > > > > where one begins to see things as they actually are. The term itself
> > > > > > > > > > means that one is no longer held by the trance of illusions. And, in
> > > > > > > > > > this context, such a realization compared to how most people apprehend
> > > > > > > > > > the world before reaching being disillusioned, can be quite painful –
> > > > > > > > > > thus the reference to depths of a well. Here, even though such pain
> > > > > > > > > > has always been part of the psyche; at this level, one who is 'waking
> > > > > > > > > > up' is no longer anesthetized to their ego (illusion) pain… it is
> > > > > > > > > > being felt quite strongly consciously for the first time.
>
> > > > > > > > > > So here, with the awareness of pain, one actually is able to begin to
> > > > > > > > > > open one's eyes metaphorically.
>
> > > > > > > > > > As an aside, Sartre's novel, "Nausea", is an example of the psyche
> > > > > > > > > > reaching this particular level of consciousness. And, as most are
> > > > > > > > > > aware, Jean-Paul was opening his eyes rather than closing them. Thus
> > > > > > > > > > it can be said that this level of transition is where the awareness of
> > > > > > > > > > the emptiness of life is quite acute.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 10:57 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have
> > > > > > > > > > > thought...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 3:13 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Relativism and deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > well of disillusionment.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois morality
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. I take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To abandon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and 'low and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in considering a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and wonder what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have any 'right'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman concerned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - that is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > help with her distress.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to 'free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') - one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the answer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us with some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we can be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in this sense.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good example would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold this view
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. Yet what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on debt - even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from debt' and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition of debt
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not be. We
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical about debt
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at least in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário