Lakefingers said:
I'm still waiting for the final verdict on tautologies. I think, generally, our sound opinions are swayed by the turtle-filled void we feel after collectively sensing there are no certain pillars... Instead of "no defintion, no separation", perhaps we need some definition, no sepearation.
Taking a line from Krishnamurti: the politicians have never solved any problems because they are all about ideas. Ideas create more problems... True, in the sense that we loose sight of wholeness, the whole, or striving for the Hegelian Absolute. Yet on the political level, to retain this political level we need the dirty work of ideas (which is where the sit back and realism as you call it, fails miserably).
The discourse of things in themselves, as I said, is perhaps necessary for the metaphysics of a future program, perhaps the reinvention of the left.
No definition? no separation?
As a comparative experiment I have allowed a week to pass without contributing a single definition to the thread. Now that I am defining and weaving something together, I'll be able to personally prove that my signature offers good advice by submitting another execrable heap of intolerably highfalutin sophistry.
At the same time I like the idea of coming up with ideas ("coming up" = trip is starting, rising from an ocean-floor dive) and attempting to articulate them clearly, exploring the feedback.
As important as self-deprecation - to me - (as if saying that absolved me of belief in the universality of the opinion, as if saying this didn't make the entire post much less enjoyable) is deprecation of everything the self encounters, absolutely everything.
There's a certain Fuck-that/Bullshit indignation that accompanies serious contemplation of any idea, intellectual/social/institutional edifice, or affectation that is a kind of drive for no definition and no separation - the concepts feel, to varying extents, like they're manufactured crap with pointless relevance to real life. The feeling is greater the more Others readily repeat and propagate them.
Those initiated with various freeing chemicals and onsets of love know of a particularly pleasant stomach massage with coruscating beams of bright light having taken the place of the small intestine. This feeling doesn't come around with third-party evangelism, especially if the gospel contains inner contradictions or denials of personal experience and idea-generation - the hot-brain neuronal signal-fire is reserved for the new, beautiful and unexpected.
But hearing and imbibing these others' ideas first-hand, assuming there is something there to discover, is often that ecstatic. The definitions and separations are accepted, relished, showered in. Discarding them, however, is just as important. Read the great philosophers, learn the storied theories, see where they're coming from and appreciate their correlations, but keep the dialogue going, move on to the next idea, yours or someone else's - one person's (or committee's) perspective is too limited within this swirl of culturally nuanced counterpoints. Analyze things in your own way once in a while; maybe you'll set someone else, even only yourself, on fire.
Krishnamurti did go over this; I remember it from the video you linked to a while back. Assuming Bohm's facial contortions were involuntary correlates to mental objections, we are able to see that even the most somber pronouncements by the most respected are readily countered (Bohm is great all throughout, never condescending, working together) - surely Krishnamurti's thoughts are as limited as he says they are. His disbelief that the political sphere could change to improve the world appears justified but short-sighted.
Political ideas cannot encompass the entire mysterious void of existence, to be sure, but as they have enormous impact on physical sobriety they can be evaluated in terms of their potential to meet certain limited though highly desirable goals for international and social relations. Their beneficence is as limited as the perspectives of those for and by whom they are designed. When all factual perspectives are considered, there do seem to be certain methods that objectively worsen or improve things as well as obvious impure motivations.
For the sake of meeting these goals that we set (the public largely at odds with the leadership) we can create useful definitions with which to better reject political (inseparable from other) powerlessness and maybe feel the courage to participate in ways additional to watching televised memorial services for super-rich entertainers (Oh yes, that's bad/that's bad/you know it). These right ideas at least seem to have the possibility of coalescing into some form of reinvention, provided that some action, or non-participation, goes along with them.
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Lakefingers 
BlueCoyote 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
This knowledge of not ever knowing would be an absolute as well, so it's again fishing in thin air 
1 2 3 all )
seeker
Sclorch
Swami
exclusive58
machineelf368
TaoinShrrom
SkorpivoMusterion