Wholeness and Fragmentation

[Nick_A]

If the student can't think of the unchanging patterns of things because they are held by fetters (imagination) how can the university help them? How can it help the soul to turn towards the light in the presence of fragmentation to experience the unchanging patterns of things?

By cultivating awareness.

This is not an exercise in thinking, its not about learning new concepts - its about practising to be aware (at all times) and, as such, not being caught in thought-world.
The "experience of the unchanging patterns of things" happens automatically once thought has stopped running the show... it can't be learned from books, it has to be practiced and then it happens on its own (just like riding a bike happens once you practice it for a while).

There is a good reason why buddhist/zen monks meditate, why they work - highly alert - in silence (no matter what they do - cleaning dishes or raking leaves...) and why learning from scriptures is deemed less important than aware presence.

From my post above:

In Ch. 19, "The Transdisciplinary Evolution of Education," he lays before us a vision of education as a life-long process. Invoking the Delors Report, compiled by Jacques Delors, Chair of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century sponsored by UNESCO, Nicolescu explains how the report described “four pillars” of a new form of education: “learning to know,” “learning to do,” “learning to live together,” and “learning to be.” After commenting on each of these in turn, he puts forward a challenge to the university to become a place that is once again true to the meaning found in the etymology of the word ‘university.’ He sees the university once again becoming a place for “the study of the universal.”

The uiversity has become skilled in teaching fragmentation but ignorant of And Actually opposes opening the mind to the experience of universals. The ability to meditate is helpful but becomes "interpreted". Awareness and conscious awarness are one thing and interpretation is another. Dr. Nicolescu: “four pillars” of a new form of education: “learning to know,” “learning to do,” “learning to live together,” and “learning to be.”

The quality of what we know, do and learning to live together requires in its essence; learning to be. What does learning to be mean to you and how IYO is meditation helpful in the struggle against the fetters or imagination which keeps the collective quality of human being and its hypocrisy as it is?

[AlexW]

The quality of what we know, do and learning to live together requires in its essence; learning to be. What does learning to be mean to you and how IYO is meditation helpful in the struggle against the fetters or imagination which keeps the collective quality of human being and its hypocrisy as it is?

I think there would have to be a general shift from "I think therefore I am" to "I am aware therefore I am".
We live in a world where thought is king and awareness - its actual "mother" - has been completely forgotten.

To be means to be aware - if (proper) meditation would be taught from an early age on, people would see and understand that thought, and with it the ego, arises in awareness; that it is awareness that is the centre of their life, from birth to death, and that it is the only constant one will ever know - everything else changes, only awareness remains the same.

I think most people have experienced this "feeling" of not having changed "deep inside" since they were young - now they are old, but somehow they are still the same... what is it that hasn't changed if not awareness? If it actually "feels right" to identify with this changeless, eternal "being" then why give it up and adopt a made up persona and turn into an "ever changing lunatic"?

If children wouldn't be driven/forced to identify with an acquired bit of conceptual knowledge - the ego/self - but would rather be allowed to see themselves (as well as others) as they are - as awareness - then the world would be quite a different place.
The biblical phrase "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" would actual mean something and wouldn't be just empty words.

[Nick_A]

"I am aware therefore I am." Is this what it means to be? I am not being critical when I offer another perspective. If we are a tripart soul as Plato suggests then we are a plurality and not inner unity. I Am suggests inner unity or one. I am aware suggests there are other parts of the collective soul not aware

To Be as I understand it is the human striving to unify our plurality. To be or not to be is the question. Is it better just to die or is there any reason to consciously experience the results of the human condition as it exists in us and in the world or just imagine it?

that is the centre of their life, from birth to death, and that it is the only constant one will ever know - everything else changes, only awareness remains the same.

But only a small part of us is interested in awareness. Our negative emotions don’t nor do our physical appetites. Awareness gets in the way

So IMO teaching awareness is one thing but not what it means to be or unify our plurality into a balanced working Whole. It begins with learning what it means to know thyself rather than imagining ourselves

Dr. Nicolescu founded CIRET. It invites those skilled in thought, the arts, and mechanics to join since they know they all have a piece of the whole, thought feeling and sensation, which exists unified as a higher level of reality

I am aware is not the same as striving “To be” which is a plurality becoming ONE which IMO is truly human

[AlexW]

"I am aware therefore I am." Is this what it means to be? I am not being critical when I offer another perspective. If we are a tripart soul as Plato suggests then we are a plurality and not inner unity. I Am suggests inner unity or one. I am aware suggests there are other parts of the collective soul not aware

"I am aware therefore I am." is only the first step into the "right" direction (away from "I think therefore I am").
It leads to "I AM" and somewhen to the non-dual "AM" (or rather beyond the ideas of being and non-being)

Is it better just to die or is there any reason to consciously experience the results of the human condition as it exists in us and in the world or just imagine it?

I don't know if there is a specific reason to "experience the results of the human condition" - my personal opining is that: no, there is no specific reason.
But why would it be better to "just die"? Is there a specific reason to end the "experience of the human condition"? Experience happens ... so why not simply enjoy it?
As I see it, true enjoyment, happiness, does not arise from specific conditions - it is what awareness is - pure enjoyment enjoying itself.

But only a small part of us is interested in awareness.

Well... thought is not "interested" in it as it cant take an objective grip on it - but it still tries anyway, mostly by coming up with the idea that awareness is limited, that it is the property of an individual being/entity.

So IMO teaching awareness is one thing but not what it means to be or unify our plurality into a balanced working Whole. It begins with learning what it means to know thyself rather than imagining ourselves

Yes, agree, it begins with "learning what it means to know thyself" - but this first step happens still in the arena of thought - while it is important it is still only a conceptual insight and it has to be followed by actual practice - which is not a mental exercise, but the cultivation of conscious awareness/presence. Actual balance, a working whole, only comes from acting from a position of aware presence - if it is only a mentally considered approach then it will always lack something, it will be one-sided, not whole.

Dr. Nicolescu founded CIRET. It invites those skilled in thought, the arts, and mechanics to join since they know they all have a piece of the whole, thought feeling and sensation, which exists unified as a higher level of reality

As I see it, the highest level of reality is pure awareness itself (reality = awareness) - conceptual thought remains forever on the dualistic level and as such will always lead to fragmentation.
Of course this doesn't mean that we should give up all our skills - we can still create art, mechanical machines etc etc - but it has to happen from the foundation of awareness/being and not only from dualistic/egotistical thought.

[Nick_A]

Alex

"I am aware therefore I am." is only the first step into the "right" direction (away from "I think therefore I am").
It leads to "I AM" and somewhen to the non-dual "AM" (or rather beyond the ideas of being and non-being)

A basic difference in our perspectives. You defined being as either being or non-being while I see being as relative and not black and white. Becoming able to reason is essential to understand the relativity of being.

I don't know if there is a specific reason to "experience the results of the human condition" - my personal opining is that: no, there is no specific reason.
But why would it be better to "just die"? Is there a specific reason to end the "experience of the human condition"? Experience happens ... so why not simply enjoy it?

As I see it, true enjoyment, happiness, does not arise from specific conditions - it is what awareness is - I don't know if there is a specific reason to "experience the results of the human condition" - my personal opining is that: no, there is no specific reason.

But why would it be better to "just die"? Is there a specific reason to end the "experience of the human condition"? Experience happens ... so why not simply enjoy it?

As I see it, human purpose is based on the idea of the relativity of being. Man is unique on earth as able to consciously transform its being to a higher quality which aids the lower as opposed to the “pure enjoyment enjoying itself.”

Well... thought is not "interested" in it as it cant take an objective grip on it - but it still tries anyway, mostly by coming up with the idea that awareness is limited, that it is the property of an individual being/entity.

Yes, this is the goal of reason as opposed to mechanical thought

“When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.”

Mechanical thought demands a conclusion and the arguments between these conclusions are called intelligent. Simone is describing how to consciously think so as to experience the contradictions for what they are and reveal the door.

if it is only a mentally considered approach then it will always lack something, it will be one-sided, not whole.

True but if you deny the value of thought, it is still one sided. Why not learn how to think

As I see it, the highest level of reality is pure awareness itself (reality = awareness) - conceptual thought remains forever on the dualistic level and as such will always lead to fragmentation.
Of course this doesn't mean that we should give up all our skills - we can still create art, mechanical machines etc etc - but it has to happen from the foundation of awareness/being and not only from dualistic/egotistical thought.

But we are already fragmented. We are the tripartite soul. That is how we live. The question for philosophy is if the tripartite soul can be unified through conscious evolution into ONE

But our difference begins with the relativity of being. If you are right there is nothing else but “pure enjoyment enjoying itself,” Without any objective meaning or purpose. Seems a bit egotistical

[AlexW]

A basic difference in our perspectives. You defined being as either being or non-being while I see being as relative and not black and white.

No... I didn't define being at all.
I only said that realisation as well as practice leads beyond the "ideas of being and non-being".
That's no definition of being - it only places the idea of being (and non-being) whiting the relative and as such thought based domain.

Being will always be relative as it only makes sense/exists relatively to its opposite, to non-being, to non-existence.
By the way: Seeing something as "black and white" is relative as well.

As I see it, human purpose is based on the idea of the relativity of being

Yes, agree.

Man is unique on earth as able to consciously transform its being to a higher quality which aids the lower as opposed to the “pure enjoyment enjoying itself.”

What exactly is this "Man's being"?
And what would change within this being if it would be "transformed to a higher quality"?
Could you please explain?

Yes, this is the goal of reason as opposed to mechanical thought

I am not sure I understand what is so special about "reason"... To me, it is simply more thought, nothing to be especially proud of...
How is reason different to other "types of" thought?

Simone: “When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.”

Mechanical thought demands a conclusion and the arguments between these conclusions are called intelligent. Simone is describing how to consciously think so as to experience the contradictions for what they are and reveal the door.

Yes, agree (partially), but tell me about a contradiction that can actually be resolved. Every solution will always give birth to at least one more contradiction - this process continues ad infinitum. Now, when taking a step back and looking at the whole picture one will find that all of duality is nothing but a door - a gateless gate - that simply leads to non-conceptual, non contradictory here/now - outside the maze of contradictions (of relativistic thought) and into reality.

She is as such not "describing how to consciously think" or how to "experience the contradictions" (you can not experience a contradiction - you can only think about it), but rather how to see thought for what it actually is - as duality itself.
A contradiction is an imaginary (and as such non existent) door leading only to where you already are - its not about resolving a contradiction but recognising it as truly non existent.

True but if you deny the value of thought, it is still one sided. Why not learn how to think

I am not denying the "value" of thought - I actually said that it has its use just like all other "parts" of experience do.
Problem is that thought has usurped reality by positioning itself as this very reality and making "you" believe that thought-world, including all its interpretations, contradictions, judgements, limits and separate parts are actual reality...

"Learning how to think" would mean turning the imposter, the self anointed master, back into a humble servant - meaning: thought should not control and define you, it should be a tool employed to consciously navigate life.
Unfortunately, this tool as become very powerful, now the guest rules your house and you, the proper master, have accepted its rules and limitations and thus have forgotten yourself.

But we are already fragmented.

Only thought is fragmented - or rather: it projects the perspective of fragmentation.
You are not fragmented at all.

We are the tripartite soul. That is how we live. The question for philosophy is if the tripartite soul can be unified through conscious evolution into ONE

This is what thought tells you - and for good reason ... because it is impossible to unify something that has never been broken.
Now you look and search far and wide to unify your soul where there really is nothing else to do but reject the belief that you are broken.

If you want to meet the devil, look into your own head (aka thought) - reject the devil and you will find yourself in heaven (I must be in a "poetic" mood )

If you are right there is nothing else but “pure enjoyment enjoying itself,” Without any objective meaning or purpose. Seems a bit egotistical

Purpose is in the domain of conceptual thinking - it is fine to have a purpose, but one should be aware that all purpose is for the ego, for the conceptual self. To me, believing in individual purpose is egotistical, it leads to where the world is headed right now.
I guess you do observe the madness that is happening everywhere - now please tell me, where does this madness come from if not from individual purpose? Where do all problems come from if not from our belief in contradictions? Where do misunderstandings come from if not from our personal convictions?

[Nick_A]

What is being? The great chain of being is a description of the relationship between qualities of being. The quality of being is defined by its relationship to our Source. The higher the quality the closer it is to the Source. Is there anything we can agree on in the concept?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being

Great Chain of Being, also called Chain of Being, conception of the nature of the universe that had a pervasive influence on Western thought, particularly through the ancient Greek Neoplatonists and derivative philosophies during the European Renaissance and the 17th and early 18th centuries. The term denotes three general features of the universe: plenitude, continuity, and gradation. The principle of plenitude states that the universe is “full,” exhibiting the maximal diversity of kinds of existences; everything possible (i.e., not self-contradictory) is actual. The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute. According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God.

If being is relative it is possible that the being of animal man is at a lower level of reality than conscious man? Can we agree on this?

What exactly is this "Man's being"?
And what would change within this being if it would be "transformed to a higher quality"?
Could you please explain?

The being of Man defines its qualia. It is defined by the vibrational quality of of matter together with the spiritual quality the body is within. The quality of being above Man has higher material vibrations and greater consciousness while the quality below man contains less conscious awareness within more dense matter

I am not sure I understand what is so special about "reason"... To me, it is simply more thought, nothing to be especially proud of...
How is reason different to other "types of" thought?

Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being. ~ Simone Weil

The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit. ~ Simone Weil

Is this a contradiction? No. Simone is describing the change to a higher degree of intelligence Plotinus describes I think you agree with

“Knowledge has three degrees – opinion, science, illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition.”
— Plotinus

She is as such not "describing how to consciously think" or how to "experience the contradictions" (you can not experience a contradiction - you can only think about it), but rather how to see thought for what it actually is - as duality itself.
A contradiction is an imaginary (and as such non existent) door leading only to where you already are - its not about resolving a contradiction but recognising it as truly non existent.

https://fleurmach.com/2016/04/25/simone ... radiction/

The contradictions the mind comes up against—these are the only realities: they are the criterion of the real. There is no contradiction in what is imaginary. Contradiction is the test of necessity.
Contradiction experienced to the very depths of the being tears us heart and soul: it is the cross.
When the attention has revealed the contradiction in something on which it has been fixed, a kind of loosening takes place. By persevering in this course we attain detachment.
The demonstrable correlation of opposites is an image of the transcendental correlation of contradictories.
All true good carries with it conditions which are contradictory and as a consequence is impossible. He who keeps his attention really fixed on this impossibility and acts will do what is good.
In the same way all truth contains a contradiction. Contradiction is the point of the pyramid………………………………..

Jesus on the cross is the ultimate conscious contradiction to be experienced.

You say contradiction is imaginary and she says it is a necessity and without experiencing it, we live in imagination. It takes a higher quality of thought to resolve this question.

Purpose is in the domain of conceptual thinking - it is fine to have a purpose, but one should be aware that all purpose is for the ego, for the conceptual self. To me, believing in individual purpose is egotistical, it leads to where the world is headed right now.
I guess you do observe the madness that is happening everywhere - now please tell me, where does this madness come from if not from individual purpose? Where do all problems come from if not from our belief in contradictions? Where do misunderstandings come from if not from our personal convictions?

Madness is the result of living by imagination

“Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be obtained only by someone who is detached. ”

Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it. Simone Weil

Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be obtained only by someone who is detached. Simone Weil.

If she is right we have two choices. We can either refuse to look or learn how to look which is very rare and can get you boiled in oil. One doesn't disturb the peace. This seems to be our difference.

[AlexW]

Jesus on the cross is the ultimate conscious contradiction to be experienced.

You say contradiction is imaginary and she says it is a necessity and without experiencing it, we live in imagination. It takes a higher quality of thought to resolve this question.

I don't think it requires a "higher quality of thought to resolve this question" - it is actually very simple:
Find out where contradictions come from, where they originate from and you are half way there.

So lets isolate the problem... do contradictions arise within direct experience, do they arise within the realm of the five senses?
Does seeing itself contain or provide the information of contradictory views? No - seeing is simply colour - and colour can never be contradictory.
Does hearing itself contain or provide the information of contradictory sounds? No - hearing is simply sounds - and sounds can never be contradictory.
Does tasting itself contain or provide the information of contradictory tastes? No ... etc, etc ... I guess you understand my point, right?

Does a conceptual interpretation of reality, of the data received via the senses, provide the information of contradictory views, standpoints, judgements, opinions, beliefs...
Well... yes, of course it does!

Do you agree with me insofar as that contradictions never arise to the senses, that they actually never arise in reality/direct experience?
Would you agree that a contradiction is only ever an interpretation of what is being perceived, of what is directly experienced?

Lets assume you do, if so, then we have as such answered the question:
Where do contradictions originate from?
Answer: They originate from conceptual thought and from nowhere else.

This leads us to the next question: Can I directly experience the content of conceptual thought?
Answer: No! You actually can not.
You cannot experience "apple" - you can only experience color, taste and the sensation of touch (and even these are just labels pointing to the nameless reality beyond) - from percepts we form concepts by weaving these impressions into a conceptual structure, we define an object, a thing... but even we now might believe that we can actually experience a thing called apple, this is not the case - there is no direct experience "apple" (or any other thing) and even less an experience of the concept "contradiction".

This is why I said that "contradiction is imaginary".
I would agree with Simone in that "it is a necessity" to understand something conceptually to realise and see the border between imagination and reality - but the result is not a push to enhance the "quality of thought" but rather to identify conceptual thought itself as the one and only source of the (imaginary) problem/contradiction.

The contradictions the mind comes up against—these are the only realities: they are the criterion of the real. There is no contradiction in what is imaginary.

I think this is - unfortunately - utterly wrong (or she uses a very different definition for words like: mind, reality, real, imaginary).
As mentioned above, a contradiction is always "within the mind" - it is made of thought and more thought - and can as such NEVER be a criterion of the real - it can only be such if one would define the contents of the conceptual mind as reality (which I do not).
To me, all contradictions arise within the imaginary - which is just another word for conceptual thought - and no place else.

“Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be obtained only by someone who is detached. ”

Yes I fully agree.
But detachment from what?

You cannot actually be detached from reality (even this kind of detachment is exactly what conceptual thought attempts to achieve), you can only be detached from opinions, definitions, contradictions and ultimately the individual self - from something that is not ultimately real.

As I see it, detachment (that has any chance of success) is based on a refusal to believe (or at least take with a grain of salt) what cannot be proven directly.
No conceptual structure/idea can be proven outside the arena of thought - it is thought proving its own existence... tell me, how trustworthy is this setup? Its like Trump voting for himself...

Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it. Simone Weil

Yes, I agree regarding "imagination", but one has to be careful when using the word "real" - what are "real needs and compulsions ... real interests"? The only difference to "regular, not real" needs is purely conceptual - it depends on definitions and agreements of what is real and what is not (regarding needs etc), but this doesn't make one more real than the other on the level of actual reality (reality knows of no needs or compulsions).

Great Chain of Being, also called Chain of Being, conception of the nature of the universe that had a pervasive influence on Western thought, particularly through the ancient Greek Neoplatonists and derivative philosophies during the European Renaissance and the 17th and early 18th centuries. The term denotes three general features of the universe: plenitude, continuity, and gradation. The principle of plenitude states that the universe is “full,” exhibiting the maximal diversity of kinds of existences; everything possible (i.e., not self-contradictory) is actual. The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute. According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God.

If being is relative it is possible that the being of animal man is at a lower level of reality than conscious man? Can we agree on this?

Sure, as long as we remain within the arena of relativity - as such within the realm of conceptual thought - then this conception of the nature of the universe, the Chain of Being, is just as good as any other (or maybe: better than most).

There is only one problem:
Reality has no levels, only conceptual thought (what we call: intelligence) has levels - reality is perfectly free from any kind of gradation.

And more often then not, intelligence - especially if one sided - can be worse than being a complete idiot:
Simone Weil: A village idiot in the literal sense of the word, if he loves truth, is infinitely superior to Aristotle in his thought, even though he never utters anything but inarticulate murmurs.
Quite funny, if you ask me

Madness is the result of living by imagination

Agree.
Now please tell me one concept/idea/belief that is not "imagined" (aka "fabricated").

[Nick_A]

Alex

Do you agree with me insofar as that contradictions never arise to the senses, that they actually never arise in reality/direct experience?
Would you agree that a contradiction is only ever an interpretation of what is being perceived, of what is directly experienced?

Lets assume you do, if so, then we have as such answered the question:
Where do contradictions originate from?
Answer: They originate from conceptual thought and from nowhere else.

This leads us to the next question: Can I directly experience the content of conceptual thought?
Answer: No! You actually can not.
You cannot experience "apple" - you can only experience color, taste and the sensation of touch (and even these are just labels pointing to the nameless reality beyond) - from percepts we form concepts by weaving these impressions into a conceptual structure, we define an object, a thing... but even we now might believe that we can actually experience a thing called apple, this is not the case - there is no direct experience "apple" (or any other thing) and even less an experience of the concept "contradiction".

Do we experience contradiction through the perceived facts of sensory experience and random thoughts? I don’t believe so since they don’t contradict each other.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.

That reality is the unique source of all the good that can exist in this world: that is to say, all beauty, all truth, all justice, all legitimacy, all order, and all human behaviour that is mindful of obligations.

"At the centre of the human heart is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world."
Those minds whose attention and love are turned towards that reality are the sole intermediary through which good can descend from there and come among men.

According to the Law of the included Middle it is a certain quality of emotions which can reconcile the contradiction between the facts and the Good. The symbol of the expression is a triangle. The base expresses the gap between facts and the good and they are reconciled at the higher level of reality which includes both.

What is this quality of emotions?

Our lives are filled with negative emotions. Anger, irritation, hatred, worry, fear, resentment, bitterness etc. There is nothing that we so much enjoy as experiencing negative emotions.

If our love for negative emotions is so dominant, by definition we lack the quality capable of reconciliation. we become part of the problem
How do we experience existence if our senses interpret existence? As I undestand it few people ever experience positive emotions. There is no greater enjoyment than the expression of negative emotions

."Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil

It is only through conscious thought that can free us from negative emotions. Again, we can either not think or learn how to consciously think by becoming capable of conscious attention

There is only one problem:
Reality has no levels, only conceptual thought (what we call: intelligence) has levels - reality is perfectly free from any kind of gradation.

And more often then not, intelligence - especially if one sided - can be worse than being a complete idiot:
Simone Weil: A village idiot in the literal sense of the word, if he loves truth, is infinitely superior to Aristotle in his thought, even though he never utters anything but inarticulate murmurs.
Quite funny, if you ask me

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:05 pm
Madness is the result of living by imagination
Agree.
Now please tell me one concept/idea/belief that is not "imagined" (aka "fabricated").

But what if you just assume there are no levels of reality and it is an imagined concept?

What if we experience the attraction at the depth of our being through noesis to the greater reality, the verticality beyond our senses. Is the attraction to objective meaning natural for the human essence or a perversion? Can it be verified either way

[AlexW]

Do we experience contradiction through the perceived facts of sensory experience and random thoughts? I don’t believe so since they don’t contradict each other.

I am not sure what you mean with "perceived facts of sensory experience"... you seem to put them in close relationship to "random thoughts"... what exactly is a "perceived fact of sensory experience"? Can you please give me one example?
Could you please also let me know of one example of a contradiction that you think you experience?

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Yes and no ... the "reality outside the world, that is outside space and time" is simply the here/now. It is the only reality, the other reality, the one in space and time is only a thought up / conceptual reality/world.
Reality is as such "accessible" by human faculties - precisely by the five senses -, but not by the human faculty of conceptual thought.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

True (even the "heart" is only a symbolic centre) - this is also why I said in a previous post that reality is “pure enjoyment enjoying itself”.
We long for it even we don't know exactly what for - we miss it, there seems to be certain lack, but to overcome this lack and find this "absolute good" which is not an "object in this world" we have to give up the word including the belief in our own separate self ("giving up" means stopping to identify oneself with an object of the world - this also "destroys" all other objects) - what remains is "God", the "absolute good", “pure enjoyment enjoying itself”.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Yes, as I said before: As long as you only move in thought-world there will be "absurd and insoluble contradictions" - these contradictions are only present in the "terrestrial manifestation of reality" (in the thought-world of concepts), but not in reality itself.

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.

Yes, again.
"the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts" - what is a fact? A conceptual interpretation of direct experience - nothing else. The reality of thought-world is built upon these concepts called "facts".
The "other" reality - actually: the ONLY reality - is the foundation of all - of perceived good and evil within thought-world, of right and wrong etc etc , but in itself there are no opposites, there are no fragments, there is only "itself" and as such there is only "good"/love/God.

Our lives are filled with negative emotions. Anger, irritation, hatred, worry, fear, resentment, bitterness etc. There is nothing that we so much enjoy as experiencing negative emotions.

If our love for negative emotions is so dominant, by definition we lack the quality capable of reconciliation. we become part of the problem

The only "problem" is the "I/me/ego". It is not more than conceptual structure, but it is referenced so many times in thought during each day that it takes on a life of its own - this ego-self is the only problem - it is the one that loves all these emotions (which are really nothing without the ongoing stream of thought "in the head").
It lives and grows by being awarded attention - no matter what kind of attention - it needs to be loved, pitied, worried about, afraid, hopeful, irritated, angry... it doesn't matter, as long as it is fed attention.
Refuse attention to your ego-self and "good" will automatically manifest - not from a different reality - but from the only one there is - from here and now.

It is only through conscious thought that can free us from negative emotions.

No, its conscious awareness of thought, of all the chains of thought that one can so easily get lost in - remain "outside", disinterested and the rest will take care of itself.
See, its a common misunderstanding that one has to always "do" something to effect change - its actually quite the opposite - to effect real change for "good" all doing is a step into the wrong direction (with doing I am referring to activities based on self-centred, egotistical decisions).
There is a good reason for the prayer: Thy will be done - this is meant quite literally: Not my will, not the will of the ego, shall be done, but thy will - "Gods will", the "will of good" - should be done.

But what if you just assume there are no levels of reality and it is an imagined concept?

No, it is my direct experience that there are no levels of reality.
Of course concepts introduce levels, separation, fragmentation, but these levels are not existent anywhere outside the world of concepts (and, in effect, of relativity and objectivity).

Is the attraction to objective meaning natural for the human essence or a perversion? Can it be verified either way

We have to look at what it actually is that is "attracted to objective meaning" - if it is the human, than what exactly is a "human"?
As I see it, the body itself cannot be attracted to meaning, only thought can be attracted to meaning.
But thought IS meaning (besides other "things") - it is as such thought being attracted to itself - which is, in a way, the same as "good being attracted to good" (only to itself), a natural thing to happen.
The only "problem" is that thought is capable of creating its own, imaginary world, a world that hides the underlying reality of "good" by splitting it into a million conceptual pieces.
Now "good" is lost (or rather not visible) in this thought-world - even it is, in its essence, nothing but "good", it is, due to the introduced fragmentation capable of hiding its source - just like pure white light is refracted into colours, so thought refracts "good" into levels of "bad", some apparently closer to white light, yet none of them actually absolutely white/"good".
The ego-self is nothing but a personal identification with a fragment, and as such with "bad" ... the result is the world of today...

[Nick_A]

Alex

I am not sure what you mean with "perceived facts of sensory experience"... you seem to put them in close relationship to "random thoughts"... what exactly is a "perceived fact of sensory experience"? Can you please give me one example?
Could you please also let me know of one example of a contradiction that you think you experience?

The classic example is the multitude of optical illusions. A person can see it one way and later see it a different way. It is the same sensory experience seen differently but doesn’t require thought. If a thirsty person sees an oasis in the desert, does it require thought?

The only "problem" is the "I/me/ego". It is not more than conceptual structure, but it is referenced so many times in thought during each day that it takes on a life of its own - this ego-self is the only problem - it is the one that loves all these emotions (which are really nothing without the ongoing stream of thought "in the head").
It lives and grows by being awarded attention - no matter what kind of attention - it needs to be loved, pitied, worried about, afraid, hopeful, irritated, angry... it doesn't matter, as long as it is fed attention.
Refuse attention to your ego-self and "good" will automatically manifest - not from a different reality - but from the only one there is - from here and now.

Here is where we disagree. The ego in many new age traditions is something to be eliminated. As usual Simone gets it right. Why not learn how to use it?

"Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

Think of what a person can do if they experience the world by their senses without interpreting and seeing only what they want to see. The ego is what gives a person the ability to experience the world while it is vulnerable to the slavery of imagination which prevents it

Yes, again.
"the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts" - what is a fact? A conceptual interpretation of direct experience - nothing else. The reality of thought-world is built upon these concepts called "facts".
The "other" reality - actually: the ONLY reality - is the foundation of all - of perceived good and evil within thought-world, of right and wrong etc etc , but in itself there are no opposites, there are no fragments, there is only "itself" and as such there is only "good"/love/God.

But what of our emotions? Facts allow us to compare phenomenon but without emotional awareness they cannot experience their objective value. All we can do is imagine bliss. We cannot experience the objective good for Man and the objective evil or moving further into the domain of dust to dust

True (even the "heart" is only a symbolic centre) - this is also why I said in a previous post that reality is “pure enjoyment enjoying itself”.
We long for it even we don't know exactly what for - we miss it, there seems to be certain lack, but to overcome this lack and find this "absolute good" which is not an "object in this world" we have to give up the word including the belief in our own separate self ("giving up" means stopping to identify oneself with an object of the world - this also "destroys" all other objects) - what remains is "God", the "absolute good", “pure enjoyment enjoying itself”.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

What is the knowledge of good and evil when there is only bliss? The vertical scale of involution and evolution exists regardless of our thought. I appreciate it as a necessity. For Man the “good” is the path to evolution and the “evil” are the obstacles which prevent it. If I read you right, there is no tree of the knowledge of good and evil which can only be experienced by our higher emotions. There is only bliss. Knowledge of good and evil is illusory.

We have to look at what it actually is that is "attracted to objective meaning" - if it is the human, than what exactly is a "human"?
As I see it, the body itself cannot be attracted to meaning, only thought can be attracted to meaning.

The experience of meaning is emotional.

People mistakenly assume that their thinking is done by their head; it is actually done by the heart which first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide the reasoning that will defend it. Anthony de Mello

I think you underestimate what our emotions are capable of. The sacred emotions of faith, hope, and love, can evolve to become human. The purpose of emotions isn’t bliss but rather to serve the universe as only a conscious individual can. Of course the world must hate them. They disturb the peace. They bring a light which cannot be tolerated.

[AlexW]

If a thirsty person sees an oasis in the desert, does it require thought?

I believe it does require a certain mental activity - you won't see an oasis if you have never seen water and trees before in your life... it is as such dependent on memory (not on language based, conceptual thought, but still on thought)
You see what you want/hope to see - its not the eye, but the brain that turns light, which is refracted by a layer of hot air, into a "dream image".

Here is where we disagree. The ego in many new age traditions is something to be eliminated. As usual Simone gets it right. Why not learn how to use it?

Why not learn how to use the "devil"?
Sure, you can try, but someone who likes to be the master will not make a great servant...

Man would like to be an egoist and cannot.

Really?? Is this how you interpret what has happened on this planet over the last few millennia?

Think of what a person can do if they experience the world by their senses without interpreting and seeing only what they want to see. The ego is what gives a person the ability to experience the world while it is vulnerable to the slavery of imagination which prevents it

Maybe your definition of "ego" is different to mine, but as I see it, the person/individual self IS the ego - it is not more than a huge collection of conditioned knowledge, concepts and beliefs.

The ego is not a real entity - it is just an ever changing collection of ideas.
Ideas can not experience anything - its rather the opposite - ideas are being experienced - or, to be more precise: chains of thought arise in awareness and create the "illusion" of there being a separate entity "ego/self" - the ego is as such not more than a mirage of thought.

And now you intend to learn how to use this mirage of thought ... you wont find any water in the oasis - its dry and barren, no matter how fancy it appears.

But what of our emotions? Facts allow us to compare phenomenon but without emotional awareness they cannot experience their objective value.

Emotions are not more than a delicate mixture of thought and physical sensations (actually mostly thought and only a pinch of physicality).
The objective value of an experience is always based on thought - there is no objectivity or relativity without thought.

All we can do is imagine bliss.

And by continuing to do so you will never find it.
It's like trying to taste an apple with your mind - its not possible.

What is the knowledge of good and evil when there is only bliss?

A mirage, an optical illusion.

If I read you right, there is no tree of the knowledge of good and evil which can only be experienced by our higher emotions. There is only bliss. Knowledge of good and evil is illusory.

Yes (illusory as: only existing in a conceptual sense, as an idea/belief)

The experience of meaning is emotional.

Yes... but, as stated above, emotions are again mostly thought - and meaning especially is nothing but thought.
There is no meaning if there is no thought - imagine there are no humans or any other intelligent life forms on this planet (or anywhere else), there never have been and there never will be... now... has this planet, including all the lower animal life on it, still meaning?
No! Meaning vanishes with the mind/thoughts that invented it... No humans, no thoughts, no meaning...

I think you underestimate what our emotions are capable of.

Oh, no, I don't... I know how powerful thought can be - especially if supercharged with individual/personal meaning.

The purpose of emotions isn’t bliss but rather to serve the universe as only a conscious individual can.

Agree, the purpose is not bliss.
But do they "serve the universe" or do they want to conquer and subjugate it?

They disturb the peace.

They sure do

[Nick_A]

Alex

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:02 pm
Here is where we disagree. The ego in many new age traditions is something to be eliminated. As usual Simone gets it right. Why not learn how to use it?


Why not learn how to use the "devil"?
Sure, you can try, but someone who likes to be the master will not make a great servant...

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:02 pm
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot.


Really?? Is this how you interpret what has happened on this planet over the last few millennia?

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:02 pm
Think of what a person can do if they experience the world by their senses without interpreting and seeing only what they want to see. The ego is what gives a person the ability to experience the world while it is vulnerable to the slavery of imagination which prevents it

Maybe your definition of "ego" is different to mine, but as I see it, the person/individual self IS the ego - it is not more than a huge collection of conditioned knowledge, concepts and beliefs.

Maybe we do have a different conception of ego. So I’ll begin with mine and we can compare.

"Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

How can I understand this? I begin with the human organism as the tripartite soul. A clam is a living machine of one part. It opens and closes as reactions. A dog and higher mammal have two parts. They sense but also feel and guided by like and dislike along with sensing.. Man is in three parts he functions by senses, likes and dislikes, but also reasons and because of the ability to reason becomes capable of human rather than restricted to animal reactive consciousness.

The inner man or our essence contains what the child is born with. Then, around the age of four the child begins to develop a personality: the outer man. This is the means by which a child is enculterated. The essence stops growing and only the personality grows. The personality experiences and interprets impressions through the outer part of the personality. The part that touches the external world and called the ego

This part or the ego has become corrupted and dominates the pesonality Sometimes the essence dies prematurely and only the personality keeps functioning. This is what Jesus meant by “let the dead bury their dead”

In this remarkable observation by Simone she reminds me that it is possible to heal the ego. W have no idea of what man with a normal ego is capable of The ancient esoteric traditions refer to this in one way or another. How is another matter until we can agree that it is corrupted and can become capable of functioning normally. If it is condemned, as is normally the case, there is no sense in it.

[Dontaskme]

Nick...Wholeness does not fragment, it's self illuminating, it doesn't require a human mind to know itself, it is the knowing.

[Dontaskme]

Madness is the result of living by imagination

Who you are is not imagined. It is who you are not that is imagined.

You IS - and you cannot not be IS - because you fundamentally have to BE to even be able to imagine not being which you cannot be. It is not possible to even imagine Absolute NOTHINGNESS. Therefore, imagination is a self arising phenomena, it's an illusory duality upon nondual beingness, it's an imprint upon the blank canvas that is pure beingness.

Agree.
Now please tell me one concept/idea/belief that is not "imagined" (aka "fabricated").

It is not possible to even imagine Absolute NOTHINGNESS - imagination is a concept known by the only knowing there is.
This Immediate Knowing is inscrutable and cannot be imagined.

.