The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.)

Zarathustra

Saint Paul the Apostle

Previously:

Quote:

Where truth is sufficient, there is no need for "holy lies". In relation to this one would do well to consider Paul's monster lie. Paul, with style and cunning befitting a Saint, carved in stone the words 'TRUTH IS NEVER SUFFICIENT'. Subsequently, all kinds of "holy lies" came to be seen by the spirit as necessary- one was in need of them at all times. Everything veracious was henceforth known as poison, evil- and it's avatar, the man of knowledge, was condemned. There is little else as infernal for us thinkers.

EDIT: [Something about "unsleep"... geek

]

Subject: Re: The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.) Thu May 28, 2009 7:33 pm

This text is familiar... It has been a long time but I have read it before somewhere... Will you remind me???

Suffice to say St Paul was the nemesis of my youth.

Essentially, still is.

Last edited by Наdji on Thu May 28, 2009 8:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

"Nietzsche" writes in Thus Spoke Z, Blessed are the sleepy, for they shall soon drop off. I took this for sarcastic. Wouldn't wakefulness, ... In Fanny och Alexander, the line, "I am horribly awake", though said in distress, it meant: clear seeing. This is a virtue for philosophers? This reminds me of Rip Van Winkle for some reason. Sleep deprivation is a very important mystic's tool too. What do you mean here by sleep and body and wakefulness?

Subject: Re: The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.) Thu May 28, 2009 7:56 pm

thanks Hadji

yes, I 'knew' this was Nietzsche. I should read old N again Smile

Been a while.

Nietzsche's main concern was the health of the body - he was quite obsessed with medical health. Partially due to his own illness, and also his perception of decaying and existentially unpleasant forms of being as physically [and in turn mentally] unhealthy.

Consider the lab experiments on sleep deprived rats who stop grooming themselves, become physically ill and die. Also experiments on humans where the participant quite literally becomes ill, delirious and physically weak.

It is from this perspective that Nietzsche speaks against St Paul. Essentially berating Paul for promoting bad habits that are detrimental to physical, mental and social health - to create a herd of ill health and despair, 'nay sayers' who despise the earthly and sensuous.

We have to consider, what was Nietzsches personal and social experience - and using this material in contrast to the 'joyful' Classical history he studied, what was he trying to say? Often Nietzsche is trying to warn us - if you look at his style, it is a mix of the semi-biblical and Classical [understandably].

Subject: Re: The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.) Thu May 28, 2009 8:57 pm

Mind if I join this enlightening debate?…

Quote:

"I am horribly awake", though said in distress, it meant: clear seeing. This is a virtue for philosophers?

Clear seeing of the material world is probably not, old age and illness, ignorance and stupidity abound. Perhaps seeing within the material shell is enlightening, this reminds me of the Japanese concept of wabu-sabi, in one way we are getting older and changing, yet in another way we remain the same inside. On the outside is change on the inside is union, sameness and stability, the outer world offers perhaps only ultimate despair, the inside hope.

This is a very interesting and valid perspective you added Quetzel. What we are having here has turned out to be a nice brainstorming session rather than a debate. Which works well in this context.

Bear in mind Nietzsche was focusing specifically on 'medical conditions', and very much saw the mind and body as so intricately intertwined that one affected the other in very obvious was - and of course 'bad habits' or 'bad cultures/narratives/discourses' could be very detrimental to wellbeing/Existence/the soul. [Slightly different takes on the same issues].

If you discussed this with Nietzsche, he may have suggested that any inner sense of peace would be impossible in a state of affairs suggested by St Paul. [In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, if I recall, Nietzsche spoke fairly more favourably than usual towards Buddhism [he literally said 'peace with Islam', verbatim, in Beyond Good and Evil - for the very reasons he perceived these systems as more 'affirmative' outside and inside...]

Not only is anatomy destiny but neuroscience is exploring how body schema produces consciousness and results in body image (self-consciousness).

The body's construction and its movements, its activity, both conscious and unconscious, as well as the varying levels of organ health affects perspective.

Jung's idea concerning the collective unconscious ties into this as a form of cellular memory, akin to the missing limb syndrome, and to recent insights as to how environmental conditions affecting the parent are immediately and directly transferred to the offspring.

Heraclitus' dynamic reality is proving to be more right than wrong, and absolutists, including monists, are struggling to maintain their faith in the unseen thing-in-itself or Deus or God or the idea of an immutable spirit/soul or even Buddhism's emptiness.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY

Quote:

Bear in mind Nietzsche was focusing specifically on 'medical conditions', and very much saw the mind and body as so intricately intertwined that one affected the other

Hmm, I would agree with him that they do, but it’s the way they do that counts. For example; pain is subjective, this highlights the fact that there is equally a mind-body dichotomy. An unhealthy or aged body does not necessarily mean the same for the mind, in fact some things that are detrimental can also be beneficial ~ you cant have genius without asbergers right.

Quote:

If you discussed this with Nietzsche, he may have suggested that any inner sense of peace would be impossible in a state of affairs suggested by St Paul.

Sorry I jumped in without reading the rest of the thread, Embarassed

please enlighten me to paul’s state of affairs?

Quote:

Not only is anatomy destiny but neuroscience is exploring how body schema produces consciousness and results in body image

All the while we are ‘aware‘ and that is not a body image, it is that which experiences it and all other inputs. The body and brain are the vehicle, we the driver, 'ultimately' we have the ability to make decisions upon the given information the body gives us.

Quote:

Jung's idea concerning the collective unconscious ties into this as a form of cellular memory, akin to the missing limb syndrome

Interesting, please enlighten me! Smile

Quote:

Heraclitus' dynamic reality is proving to be more right than wrong, and absolutists, including monists, are struggling to maintain their faith in the unseen thing-in-itself or Deus or God or the idea of an immutable spirit/soul or even Buddhism's emptiness.

As for the latter, how would we explain singularity prior to manifestation of particles? Indeed mass is essentially empty! I agree about absolutes though and as you inferred Buddhist emptiness as such then I agree in that context. I would go with infinity and its universal expression = reality, there are no absolutes in that, nor is it confined to any given models ~ it is open ended with no beginnings or creation points, though it is feasible that creation could be continual.

I think of us as being composites, it seams obvious to me that anything we describe the soul/spirit/self as, would be a {universal} shared resource! [e.g. life, mind, awareness {if we can qualify such things, but you get the point, that whatever we or anything else are composed of, is a universal thing ~ like energy for example}]

quetzalcoatl wrote:

Hmm, I would agree with him that they do, but it’s the way they do that counts. For example; pain is subjective, this highlights the fact that there is equally a mind-body dichotomy.

No mind/body dichotomy required.

The observed, the phenomenon is perceived, felt, senses interpreted in relation to the observer.

Pain is a relationship between the organism's available energies, in maintaining itself, and the flow of existence - its attrition pulling the emerging unity back towards a state of disordering flow (linear) - entropy.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY

quetzalcoatl wrote:

All the while we are ‘aware‘ and that is not a body image, it is that which experiences it and all other inputs. The body and brain are the vehicle, we the driver, 'ultimately' we have the ability to make decisions upon the given information the body gives us.

Neuroscience is now considering how innate activities determine consciousness. They call these organic activities pronoetic .

The "driver" is really directing the vehicle, to use that metaphor, by looking in a rear view mirror and is adjusting course after it has traversed a distance -or after the fact.

This is where intelligence comes in as an adaptive advantage.
The functions we include in the general term consciuosness and its qualitative evaluation using the term intelligence, is a method of preempting an ongoing reality, in relation to which consciousness lags behind, as a way of directing an organism's activities. We call this a Will.

The activity is a tautology with existence and it is the very essence of what it means to exist.

Quote:

Interesting, please enlighten me! Smile

Well, it seems to me that Jung's explanation as to why certain mythological themes are repeated cross culturally, them being rooted in primal instinctive behavior estalbished through natural selection, implies that many of our instinctive drives are really visceral and not only produced in the mind.

There is a code, for instance, a schema, which directs healing on a cellular level and so the mind may possess a map of the body, it being a product of it, which evolves along with how the environment forces the organism to adapt to particular stimulation.

Quote:

As for the latter, how would we explain singularity prior to manifestation of particles? Indeed mass is essentially empty! I agree about absolutes though and as you inferred Buddhist emptiness as such then I agree in that context. I would go with infinity and its universal expression = reality, there are no absolutes in that, nor is it confined to any given models ~ it is open ended with no beginnings or creation points, though it is feasible that creation could be continual.

The very idea of a singularity is a human concept and it has no existence outside the human mind.
I would say that all human concepts are simplifications of a fluid reality into models, such as the #1 or the idea of a 'here' and a 'now'.

These concepts are really signposts offering orientation to a Will - a towards.
They represent the mind's perceptual event horizon and so all these artificial absolutes, these abstractions, are useful but not actual. They offer a destination, a towards, for an emerging unity that is action, fluidity, manifest.

Quote:

I think of us as being composites, it seams obvious to me that anything we describe the soul/spirit/self as, would be a {universal} shared resource! [e.g. life, mind, awareness {if we can qualify such things, but you get the point, that whatever we or anything else are composed of, is a universal thing ~ like energy for example}]

For me the idea of being composed of "things" is a human prejudice, based on the methods the mind uses to make sense of the world.

I think of existence as a process manifesting in phenomena, the apparent, flowing towards completion, the ideal the end, but never attaining it.

A particle is simply the mind freezing the fluidity of existence into a hypothetical, generalized/simplified, point so as to make it comprehensible.

Language symbolizing these abstractions, are based on absolutes and so language when used literally fails to describe reality and inevitably it results in paradoxes.
Paradoxes are caused when there is a disharmony between a fluid reality and the static models used to describe it.

The only way around this human limitation, caused by the way by the simple mechanism of on/off which is what consciousness is, by using metaphor or more artistic methods.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY

Quote:

The observed, the phenomenon is perceived, felt, senses interpreted in relation to the observer.

True. it’s a difficult one to pin down, the interpretation to begin with, then more importantly that the mind [at the very least, in terms of awareness] is beyond the body [as it cannot be defined within it].

Quote:

Pain is a relationship between the organism's available energies, in maintaining itself,

That part I get and is obvious.

Quote:

and the flow of existence - its attrition pulling the emerging unity back towards a state of disordering flow (linear) - entropy.

This part I don’t. do you mean that a balance is found [harmonic state] after a period of fluctuations in the elecro-magnetic forces?

quetzalcoatl wrote:

True. it’s a difficult one to pin down, the interpretation to begin with, then more importantly that the mind [at the very least, in terms of awareness] is beyond the body [as it cannot be defined within it].

"Within it" is the only place it can be defined.

For me the mind, reflecting the body, is a process, not a thing. It is action manifest and so mind/body are one and the same.

Quote:

This part I don’t. do you mean that a balance is found [harmonic state] after a period of fluctuations in the elecro-magnetic forces?

[/quote]Let me use a metaphor.
If existence is flow then an organism is a particular current within this flow exhibiting a separation an autpoiesis (membrane - skin) as it moves towards order - ordering, Becoming, and so it is a reaction against the flow which is increasing entropy.

I call this emerging unity a congruence of energies which has reached a certain level of sophistication, ordering, trying to maintain itself against eh flow of time.
It is a rejection of temporality. The amount of energies available to this congruence of flow determines it strength, its power, and this slowly declines due to the attrition of temporal decay - the effects of flow upon this resistant, cutting away emerging unity.

The sensation of need is the interpetation of the absence of a static state, a perfection, an absolute.
Suffering, pain is the interpretation of this resistance to entropy and so suffering and life are tautologies.
Suffering can only be endured, not escaped.

The method of inebriation (meditation, drugs religion delusion etc) helps but it does not avoid. It simply numbs the mind to its own essence.

Quote:

Neuroscience is now considering how innate activities determine consciousness. They call these organic activities pronoetic .

Sure, I can see consciousness or at least its physical expression, as being mainly of the brain, but not awareness, and that leaves a substantial part unexplained e.g. can awareness make a decision or have any effect, or is it just present.

Quote:

The "driver" is really directing the vehicle, to use that metaphor, by looking in a rear view mirror and is adjusting course after it has traversed a distance -or after the fact.

It guides and acts yes. I see your ‘after the fact’ point ~ kinda like jumping into a moving vehicle and trying to steer it. Maybe that is so, its certainly a big part of the answer, though once we have control then perhaps we can instigate ‘before the fact’ aspects, especially in the realm of ideas and even in terms of will ‘ultimately‘ [like driving much is done for us].

Existence is quite another subject, before we can make up tautologies about it we must describe the philosophical space, and we are nowhere near to achieving that. In fact our focus on the material is somewhat limiting almost to the point of absurdity.

Quote:

Well, it seems to me that Jung's explanation as to why certain mythological themes are repeated cross culturally, them being rooted in primal instinctive behavior estalbished through natural selection, implies that many of our instinctive drives are really visceral and not only produced in the mind.

Some would be of the mind, for example we see things getting born all the time, so it is natural to think of creation and that which creates. Sure these things may derive from instinctual drives and general physical processes, but the mind plays a big part too ~ esp, in the detail.

I would add universal archetypes too, as everything we describe would need a primary source all the way down the line. In short something don’t arise unless its environment is conducive to its arising/existence. The universe, atoms, singularity are defined by what, they need the idea [within potential] and environment prior to their existence.

Quote:

There is a code, for instance, a schema, which directs healing on a cellular level and so the mind may possess a map of the body, it being a product of it

Interesting! Indeed one would think it must.

Quote:

I would say that all human concepts are simplifications of a fluid reality into models, such as the #1 or the idea of a 'here' and a 'now'.

I am pleasantly surprised! I was beginning to think I was going to get the usual science lecture. This is why I go on about infinity so much as it breaks the moulds.

Quote:

These concepts are really signposts offering orientation to a Will - a towards.
They represent the mind's perceptual event horizon and so all these artificial absolutes, these abstractions, are useful but not actual. They offer a destination, a towards, for an emerging unity that is action, fluidity, manifest.

Indeed, so how can we talk about the actual? Everything seams to be between our notions, reality is infinite and not so, it always ends in a paradox leaving us only with ‘something’ ?

Quote:

I think of existence as a process manifesting in phenomena, the apparent, flowing towards completion, the ideal the end, but never attaining it.

Brilliantly put! A flow between the unmanifest and the manifest, never being either [this I call the Awen, maybe a Taoist would say the Tao]. No absolutes either side of the equation.

Quote:

A particle is simply the mind freezing the fluidity of existence into a hypothetical, generalized/simplified, point so as to make it comprehensible.

Partly, though wouldn’t you say the particles do exist even if they are just spinning energy ~ at least in terms of what is almost manifest. Whatever the shape of things, we have to make shapes to make shapes right?

Quote:

Paradoxes are caused when there is a disharmony between a fluid reality and the static models used to describe it.

Once it is written it is lost.

Quote:

The only way around this human limitation, caused by the way by the simple mechanism of on/off which is what consciousness is, by using metaphor or more artistic methods.

Personally I direct all my efforts towards arriving at what I call ‘contemporary thought’ it’s a meditative state in a sense but equally a contemplative state, somewhere near statelessness. I feel you have arrived there too in your own way.

Well its nearly 2 am here so see ya all laters, and thanks for a great discussion.

quetzalcoatl wrote:

Sure, I can see consciousness or at least its physical expression, as being mainly of the brain, but not awareness, and that leaves a substantial part unexplained e.g. can awareness make a decision or have any effect, or is it just present.

Awareness IS consciousness.

Quote:

It guides and acts yes. I see your ‘after the fact’ point ~ kinda like jumping into a moving vehicle and trying to steer it. Maybe that is so, its certainly a big part of the answer, though once we have control then perhaps we can instigate ‘before the fact’ aspects, especially in the realm of ideas and even in terms of will ‘ultimately‘ [like driving much is done for us].

Not 'for us" for this, again, implies a mind/body division.

The body works on preexisting, pre-programmed instinctive reactions that do not require consciousness. Consciousness can only understand them in the hopes of preempting their effect, if it chooses to do so. But some of them are automatic on such a primal level, such as breathing or the heart beating or digestion, that any direct conscious intervention is impossible.

Quote:

Existence is quite another subject, before we can make up tautologies about it we must describe the philosophical space, and we are nowhere near to achieving that. In fact our focus on the material is somewhat limiting almost to the point of absurdity.

Matter, for me, is but a manifestation of flow. The characteristics of matter, or energy, or any phenomenon, are interpretations of its expressed essence - the sum of its past (becoming).

For instance matter's hardness or mass or texture is an interpretation of its temporal signature, its rate of flow, in relation to us, the observer or the interpreter. The harness of a substance, for example, indicates a far slower rate of flow in relation to us.

Quote:

Some would be of the mind, for example we see things getting born all the time, so it is natural to think of creation and that which creates. Sure these things may derive from instinctual drives and general physical processes, but the mind plays a big part too ~ esp, in the detail.

Therefore many of our mythologies and beliefs are determined by our perceptual and intellectual limitations.

Quote:

I would add universal archetypes too, as everything we describe would need a primary source all the way down the line. In short something don’t arise unless its environment is conducive to its arising/existence. The universe, atoms, singularity are defined by what, they need the idea [within potential] and environment prior to their existence.

something arises as a sum of its past, its essence, interacts with an environment - the sum of all phenomena within the flow and the flow itself.

Archetypes are necessary types, patterns, tested and proven to be beneficial toward an end.

Quote:

I am pleasantly surprised! I was beginning to think I was going to get the usual science lecture. This is why I go on about infinity so much as it breaks the moulds.

For me infinity is related to space. Space is a projection of possibilities; possibilities flow opens up.

Possibilities are only restricted by the mind's ability to project, and so are considered infinite given a hypothetical mind with no limitations.

Quote:

Indeed, so how can we talk about the actual? Everything seams to be between our notions, reality is infinite and not so, it always ends in a paradox leaving us only with ‘something’ ?

This position is a normal one to come to. This mental triangulation the construction of absolutes (abstractions) make possible, is how we determine our place within reality.

We place ourselves "between' two non-existent absolutes such as: Good/Evil, Here/There, Something/Nothing etc.

In fact all absolutes define what is absent and so what is non-existent, and so they both stand in opposition to the existent. Therefore we are neither nothing or somehting, because we are no thing at all. We are a process, a movement towards both.
Whether we characterize our goal positively or negatively defines how we cope with our essence.

Nevertheless the attainment of either nothing or something, as they both refer to the same absence, would mean our end and so they are both nihilistic tendencies.

Quote:

Partly, though wouldn’t you say the particles do exist even if they are just spinning energy ~ at least in terms of what is almost manifest. Whatever the shape of things, we have to make shapes to make shapes right?

No, particles are a freezing of the flow, the wave, into a point, a moment and thing. the characteristics of the particle, as we interpret it, reveals aspects of the flow but in a very simple and general way.

Quote:

Personally I direct all my efforts towards arriving at what I call ‘contemporary thought’ it’s a meditative state in a sense but equally a contemplative state, somewhere near statelessness. I feel you have arrived there too in your own way.

I seek clarity, for very specific self-serving reasons.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY