1) vanity , pride , a great sense of self-importance.
2) self-sense or awareness , because you can be aware only if you have
a self-sense.
To rid yourself of vanity is good and can be accomplished but you
cannot rid yourself of self-sense because it is an attribute of life
and vanishes only with the death of the organism. You are the ' Truth
' only in the sense that everyone's essence is the Truth. You are, and
everyone is because there is a reality behind Creation , and we are
all parts of that Creation.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:37 AM, ornamentalmind
<ornsmindseyespam@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 ethics, we could
>> > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better
>> > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of 'return' -
>> > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things through -
>> > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much 'morality' in
>> > > > > that.
>>
>> > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all. Makes
>> > > > > > a change huh!
>>
>> > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick in
>> > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when you think
>> > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but then the
>> > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, religion,
>> > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and expectations
>> > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out the
>> > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-)
>>
>> > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody who thinks
>> > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight.
>>
>> > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of deity, and the
>> > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious faith may
>> > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? Culture does,
>> > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age.
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the intent to outline
>> > > > > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's professor seems
>> > > > > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate than the
>> > > > > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less cripples morality,
>> > > > > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The weakness
>> > > > > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle hardly shows
>> > > > > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to protect
>> > > > > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can hope for is some
>> > > > > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral because so many
>> > > > > > > > > people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral on grounds
>> > > > > > > > > like active homosexuality and most varieties of fornication. We might
>> > > > > > > > > think of ridding ourselves of morality and ethics and get on with
>> > > > > > > > > doing our best in difficult situations that need decision.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:08 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other way around!
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > To dictionary.com!
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure i agree or fully understand your distinctions, Lee; you're
>> > > > > > > > > > > > certainly right that "ethics" and "morality" are not "opposing labels
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of the same thing", though.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > To be brief, in my opinion, a thought or action is "ethical" or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise if it meets my standard of conduct; a thought or action is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > "moral" if it meets a predetermined and prescribed (by ordination,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > coordination, or cognition) system of "human" values. It is this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > latter category of behavioural conditioning that Marks "deconstructs"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > so eloquently in his article.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Or so it seems to me, i may be wrong.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 9:51 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ethics vs Morality as opposing lables for the same thing?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not how I understand the two terms myself.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ethics is concerned with the correct course of action, both as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > individuals and on a larger scale, whilst morality is an individuals
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding of what is correct or incorrect.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is I may have a moral system that agrees or
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »
0 comments:
Post a Comment