Christianity

[Dontaskme]

Christianity, with the help of the Spirit, is a means of turning from the inwardly hypnotic sleep of Plato's cave into the inner vertical direction of the light with the whole of oneself. I've learned in life and on forums that most involved with philosophy prefer to argue from within Plato' cave. Only a small minority feel the necessity of turning towards the light in the cause of human conscious freedom and willing to work for it. The majority do not want it and consider it insulting.

"A good horse runs even at the shadow of the whip."

Enough light can be added to a shadow to make it temporally disappear, but unless the opacity of the obstructing influence is eliminated, the shadow will return.

Only in shadowlands, do shadows have shadows.

[Belinda]

When you are asleep in bed how well do you reason?

When you are asleep in Plato's cave what is called waking sleep is really just a higher quality of sleep and reason is determined by associative thought or conditioned reactions acquired in Plato's cave. Conscious reason or the highest form of reason is noesis and enables associative thought to be put into a higher conscious perspective.

Do we really know what to reject or are we guided by our acquired preconceptions? How many killings are inspired by reasoned denials?

But the prisoners in the Cave are not asleep.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.8.vii.html

Asleep in esoteric language means turning away from the light. The following is the secret of philosophy that secularism requires to be hidden. From your site.

Socrates - GLAUCON

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it' the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Christianity, with the help of the Spirit, is a means of turning from the inwardly hypnotic sleep of Plato's cave into the inner vertical direction of the light with the whole of oneself. I've learned in life and on forums that most involved with philosophy prefer to argue from within Plato' cave. Only a small minority feel the necessity of turning towards the light in the cause of human conscious freedom and willing to work for it. The majority do not want it and consider it insulting.

In the Gospel of Matthew: "Then He said to them, 'My soul is very sorrowful even to death; remain here, and watch with Me. '" (Matthew 26:38) Coming to the disciples, He found them sleeping and, in Matthew 26:40, asked Peter: "So, could you not watch with Me one hour?"

This passage refers the loss of conscious attention. The Apostles didn't roll out the cots for sack time.

To compare ignorance with sleep is a bad metaphor because, unlike ignorance, sleep is healthy.
You may wait for supernatural inspiration if you like, but for most of us our best chance of attaining the good is to inform ourselves, improve our evaluations, and help others to do so.

[Dontaskme]

Asleep in esoteric language means turning away from the light.

Gurdjiieff states that Consciousness is Self-Awareness...but all he is claiming is that ''life is a dream dreamt by no thing''.
The apparent difference between Awareness and Consciousness is knowledge, as and through the reaction to sensation.When LATENT awareness knows sensation there is a conscious recognition or reactive response where latency becomes it's absolute opposite in the exact same instant. A sensation is inseparable from the awareness that knows it, therefore, there is no difference at all between awareness and consciousness, except in this conception which is likened to a dream in which a dreamer is dreaming difference where there is none.

In reality there is no self other than awareness itself all one.
There is no conceptual Self-aware object that knows it is conscious.There is no consciousness behind the conceptual object that is known only to awareness. An object is simply a conceptually known image of awareness which is imageless. In other words what is seen is what's looking, and what is known is what's knowing. All is ONE..and is why christianity is nothing but a story arising in awareness, in other words, every story is likened to a dream, and nothing ever happened in a dream.

The following is the secret of philosophy that secularism requires to be hidden.

Awareness is never hidden because awareness is all there is, was and ever will be. In the same context the space in which an object is known is never hidden.

Awareness is just another word for empty space in which every object is known.

[Nick_A]

But the prisoners in the Cave are not asleep.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.8.vii.html

Asleep in esoteric language means turning away from the light. The following is the secret of philosophy that secularism requires to be hidden. From your site.

Socrates - GLAUCON

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it' the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Christianity, with the help of the Spirit, is a means of turning from the inwardly hypnotic sleep of Plato's cave into the inner vertical direction of the light with the whole of oneself. I've learned in life and on forums that most involved with philosophy prefer to argue from within Plato' cave. Only a small minority feel the necessity of turning towards the light in the cause of human conscious freedom and willing to work for it. The majority do not want it and consider it insulting.

In the Gospel of Matthew: "Then He said to them, 'My soul is very sorrowful even to death; remain here, and watch with Me. '" (Matthew 26:38) Coming to the disciples, He found them sleeping and, in Matthew 26:40, asked Peter: "So, could you not watch with Me one hour?"

This passage refers the loss of conscious attention. The Apostles didn't roll out the cots for sack time.

To compare ignorance with sleep is a bad metaphor because, unlike ignorance, sleep is healthy.
You may wait for supernatural inspiration if you like, but for most of us our best chance of attaining the good is to inform ourselves, improve our evaluations, and help others to do so.

Waking sleep as previously described is healthy for the physical body and adjusting to cave life. However, the third degree of sleep prevents a person from psychological or spiritual awakening for those who desire it and realize what is lost by remaining asleep.

The Buddhist parable of the burning house describes the young within the house as fascinated with their toys so oblivious that the house is burning. Their physical bodies are awake but they are spiritually asleep. The Noble Lie is often necessary to arouse the curiousity necessary for awakening. Plato is saying the same thing as does the essence of Christianity and the necessity for rebirth to awaken.

The real question here or the one that can get anyone kicked out of a secular dominated forum is what it means to awaken? It first means having experienced that one is asleep to reality and then what it means to awaken and how to achieve it. It is such an offensive question that it is better avoided where not wanted and too disruptive for the protection of the youth of Athens as Socrates found out.

Let sleeping dogs lie.

[Nick_A]

Asleep in esoteric language means turning away from the light.

Gurdjiieff states that Consciousness is Self-Awareness...but all he is claiming is that ''life is a dream dreamt by no thing''.
The apparent difference between Awareness and Consciousness is knowledge, as and through the reaction to sensation.When LATENT awareness knows sensation there is a conscious recognition or reactive response where latency becomes it's absolute opposite in the exact same instant. A sensation is inseparable from the awareness that knows it, therefore, there is no difference at all between awareness and consciousness, except in this conception which is likened to a dream in which a dreamer is dreaming difference where there is none.

In reality there is no self other than awareness itself all one.
There is no conceptual Self-aware object that knows it is conscious.There is no consciousness behind the conceptual object that is known only to awareness. An object is simply a conceptually known image of awareness which is imageless. In other words what is seen is what's looking, and what is known is what's knowing. All is ONE..and is why christianity is nothing but a story arising in awareness, in other words, every story is likened to a dream, and nothing ever happened in a dream.

The following is the secret of philosophy that secularism requires to be hidden.

Awareness is never hidden because awareness is all there is, was and ever will be. In the same context the space in which an object is known is never hidden.

Awareness is just another word for empty space in which every object is known.

Becoming able to "know thyself" or having a genuine experience of oneself without imagining it requires a person experiencing that they are dual natured. The higher can observe the reality of the lower The higher parts of oneself is attracted to universal consciousness while the lower animal parts are connect by habit and conditioning. My philosophy begins with my experiential awareness of human "being" or our dual nature. Your philosophy seems to deny the dual nature of human being and considers it the imaginary whims of a deity.

My interest is in the eventual complimentary relationship between non-political science and the essence of religion in the mutual search for truth. It is possible for the greatness of Christianity. There is no way I can see how your philosophy consciously evolves to reflect the normal evolution of facts and values rather than its devolution inspired by greed.

[henry quirk]

Nick,

Is liberty possible without some people previously having voluntarily given up their liberty to achieve safety for a society?

As I say: it's natural and normal for man to be free. No one has to give up diddly to get sumthin' they are born as.

Can a woman have the freedom to walk down the street without fear of attack?

More accurately: can anyone have the freedom to walk down the street without the possibility of gettin' harassed? Nope, not even in the best of circumstances...not even with cops on the corners and cameras all around. But, everyone can be prepared for it.

Of course the essential word is VOLUNTARILY. If people give up freedom for imagined safety, than it leads to tyranny.

Seems to me: when folks clamor for safety, and are willin' to have rights carved away in favor of safety, they're already in a tyranny.

Since it is impossible for the human condition to voluntarily sacrifice what is essential for a society based on liberty, we are better off valuing our own liberty beginning with the ideal of the nuclear family replacing government now having adopted these responsibilities.

Not sure what you're sayin' here, but let me stab at it and see what I come up with: if you're sayin' it's hangin' time, I'm all in.

Of course government will do what it can morally and financially to destroy these ideas.

They only do, and get away with, what we let 'em. See Canada (HONK! HONK!) for what a turnin' tide looks like (and that's just the most recent, and public, example).

Of course this raises the question of what a society built on objective conscience would be capable of? Would this be a super civilization?

If you mean: what would a society built on natural rights look like? I'm not sure. A nation where each person's life, liberty, and property were respected, no exceptions, might mean -- initially -- many would-be and actual legislators would get tar & feathers and many, the rope. It would mean folks -- like some in-forum -- would find themselves run outta town, any town, for their communitarian ideas. It would mean folks who didn't mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves would get introduced to or else, lickity-split. It would mean compassion would be reserved for, and extended to, the truly needy, and parasites would starve. It would mean...well, you get the idea. Don't know if it would be super; do know it would be leaner, more honest, and definitely harsh for dips who chose to take a piss on lives, liberties, and properties.

Nick, I'm breakin' up my response to your last post, to me, into separate posts, so there's more to come.

[henry quirk]

Nick,

I am referring to collective man in culture or what Plato called the Beast. The need for freedom or to be more than reactions of the Great Beast are really against the norm.

Oh, quite the opposite, I think: what's against the norm is The State and a culture fostered by The State. That's why, after centuries of domestication and propaganda and manipulation, TPTB still haven't killed individuality, free enterprise, privacy, family, ownness (the intuition a person has that he belongs to himself completely), etc. They've eaten away at those, had some success drivin' some folks -- a lotta folks -- batshit crazy and pussifyin' a whole whack more, but, despite their best (worst?) efforts, most human beings remain persons. Global coghood & leashin' is still unrealized and their time has just about run out.

[henry quirk]

Nick,

The three branches of government represent the human connection with external reality: body, mind, and spirit. Some rely on their mind or their body or their emotions to guide them. The American system was designed to reflect how man can reason as a whole rather than conflicting parts. The prince of darkness had to ponder the best way to get rid of it but soon decided the best means is through greed. It worked.

Nah. Government (as opposed to proxyhood) is a hoodwink. The founders may have been well-intentioned but they took the wrong road from the start. No man needs governing (some, however, need redirectin').

[henry quirk]

Nick,

We forget that freedom is the enemy of the growing secular government and all thoughts defending freedom must be cancelled. Freedom has a very powerful enemy as culture continues to decline into further fragments and away from the wholeness the essence of Christianity reminds us of.

But this has been the way of things since before proto-man fell out of the tree. The War has always been between the free man and the slaver. It's the eternal conflict. Both persist. If you wanna get fancy about it: Good contends with Evil. And till He calls an End to the state of things, this contending isn't ain't goin' nowhere.

[henry quirk]

Nick,

It just seems to me America is on the declining parts of its mechanical cycle

Oh, sure, I agree. Don't mourn for what's dead, prepare for what's to come.

[henry quirk]

Nick,

Would a forum based on perennial philosophy be possible?

Sure...why not?

The dominant leashed secular whole will reject it.

So what? Let 'em.

It is up to those striving for individuality.

Everything comes down to work: there ain't no free lunch.

But who knows how to begin?

Well, first step is findin' a hostin' service...you can start with the one that hosts the PN forum.

[Nick_A]

Nick,

Is liberty possible without some people previously having voluntarily given up their liberty to achieve safety for a society?

As I say: it's natural and normal for man to be free. No one has to give up diddly to get sumthin' they are born as.

Is Man born free or does human being exist between two worlds making us a slave to the struggle between these two forces manifesting s above and below? The frightening truth is that Man is not free but only has the potential "TO BE."

Can a woman have the freedom to walk down the street without fear of attack?

More accurately: can anyone have the freedom to walk down the street without the possibility of gettin' harassed? Nope, not even in the best of circumstances...not even with cops on the corners and cameras all around. But, everyone can be prepared for it.

It means respect for the laws that make freedom possible. As society devolves and becomes more fragmented in the battle for rights, Society loses its respect for these essential laws

Of course the essential word is VOLUNTARILY. If people give up freedom for imagined safety, than it leads to tyranny.

Seems to me: when folks clamor for safety, and are willin' to have rights carved away in favor of safety, they're already in a tyranny.

America has laws reflecting the commandment not to steal. If a person demands to be protected from theft, have they given up a necessary right or are certain rights necesary to be given up for the sake of freedom. Is it worth sacrificing the freedom to kill for the sake of freedom from the intent of BLM and Antifa? But the reality is that society, as we know it, supports the selective kill. Who decides who is "worth killin"?

Since it is impossible for the human condition to voluntarily sacrifice what is essential for a society based on liberty, we are better off valuing our own liberty beginning with the ideal of the nuclear family replacing government now having adopted these responsibilities.

Not sure what you're sayin' here, but let me stab at it and see what I come up with: if you're sayin' it's hangin' time, I'm all in.

Since we have learned that government leads to corruption, we are better off without it in the cause of the good capable for human being. The government is only concerned with power and not the good so struggles against awakening ideas

Of course government will do what it can morally and financially to destroy these ideas.

They only do, and get away with, what we let 'em. See Canada (HONK! HONK!) for what a turnin' tide looks like (and that's just the most recent, and public, example).

Yes, but who stops the imaginary belief in "progress?" Power is the dominant incentive for cave life and the struggle for power leads to inevitable corruption. It is the nature of the Beast.

Of course this raises the question of what a society built on objective conscience would be capable of? Would this be a super civilization?

If you mean: what would a society built on natural rights look like? I'm not sure. A nation where each person's life, liberty, and property were respected, no exceptions, might mean -- initially -- many would-be and actual legislators would get tar & feathers and many, the rope. It would mean folks -- like some in-forum -- would find themselves run outta town, any town, for their communitarian ideas. It would mean folks who didn't mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves would get introduced to or else, lickity-split. It would mean compassion would be reserved for, and extended to, the truly needy, and parasites would starve. It would mean...well, you get the idea. Don't know if it would be super; do know it would be leaner, more honest, and definitely harsh for dips who chose to take a piss on lives, liberties, and properties.

Nick, I'm breakin' up my response to your last post, to me, into separate posts, so there's more to come.

We don't IMO have natural rights but we do have the potential for conscience to evolve. A person can evolve to feel objective conscience. A world believing in objective conscience could produce a super civilization. Spinoza explains

Spinoza expressed his resolve to: "...inquire whether there might be some real good having power to communicate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to the exclusion of all else; whether, in fact, there might be anything of which the discovery and attainment would enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending happiness." He found, for himself, that the "chief good" is "knowledge of the union existing between the mind and the whole of nature."

The true study of Spinoza's ideas involves the study of our own particular nature, seeking to clarify the confusions and passive emotions brought about through our own imagination and, by using Reason and Intuition, to direct our mind toward union with our Eternal Essential Being.

It is possible for our species to transcend the corruption of our emotional nature to unite with our Eternal Essential Being but it isn't probable. Without the help of the Spirit to provide direction, the imaginary attraction of Plato's cave is too strong so we remain sailing in circles on Plato's Ship of Fools arguing opinions.

[Nick_A]

Nick,

I am referring to collective man in culture or what Plato called the Beast. The need for freedom or to be more than reactions of the Great Beast are really against the norm.

Oh, quite the opposite, I think: what's against the norm is The State and a culture fostered by The State. That's why, after centuries of domestication and propaganda and manipulation, TPTB still haven't killed individuality, free enterprise, privacy, family, ownness (the intuition a person has that he belongs to himself completely), etc. They've eaten away at those, had some success drivin' some folks -- a lotta folks -- batshit crazy and pussifyin' a whole whack more, but, despite their best (worst?) efforts, most human beings remain persons. Global coghood & leashin' is still unrealized and their time has just about run out.

How do you define social progress? Simone Weil describes it this way:

“Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison.”

It seems to me that progress is currently defined as falling deeper into Plato's cave as opposed to inwardly turning to following the light and leaving the cave

[Nick_A]

Nick,

We forget that freedom is the enemy of the growing secular government and all thoughts defending freedom must be cancelled. Freedom has a very powerful enemy as culture continues to decline into further fragments and away from the wholeness the essence of Christianity reminds us of.

But this has been the way of things since before proto-man fell out of the tree. The War has always been between the free man and the slaver. It's the eternal conflict. Both persist. If you wanna get fancy about it: Good contends with Evil. And till He calls an End to the state of things, this contending isn't ain't goin' nowhere.

What IYO is the GOOD? Why did Plato call it the GOOD? If we don't know what the GOOD is, how can we compare it to evil? But this is what people do. They adopt man made conceptions of good and then define evil from misconceptions. Is it really logical to expect our conscience to experience what good and evil are from secular worldly conceptions? It can't, so everything turns in circles.

[Dontaskme]

There is no way I can see how your philosophy consciously evolves to reflect the normal evolution of facts and values rather than its devolution inspired by greed.

Christianity is a whimsical fantasy story designed specifically by humans to use to comfort itself because the reality of their being is much too bleak to imagine otherwise. The truly awakened human being has already left this planet, they have died to their fake ego, surrendering wholly to the inevitable realisation that evolution is finished and that nothing great can ever be accomplished for sentient feeling organisms other than total death and destruction, and that everything that starts will end as though nothing ever happened. In fact, nothing really does last forever...the cycle of sentient and non-sentient life is directly observed as a gradual slow inevitable decaying devolution of the biological organism. To be born is to be sentenced to death, sometimes a very slow painful and disgusting death like what happened during the nazi holocaust, which is just a scratch compared to the future war that will be a nuclear holocaust. Sentient life is doomed to fail because no intelligent master would have created a reality that sees nothing but carnage and mess. A mess that is left behind for our children to clean up. Who are now literally walking and living off of all the rotting corpses of their own biological bodies that have been ground into one giant compost heap made of blood and bone.

Acceptance is the key. All I speak of is my own opinion, I'm in no way saying that we should all think this way, it's just how I see it, and I'm not in the slightest bit bothred about sharing my views as I personally see them. I simply like to live in the real world as it is observed and reported directly as it is witnessed by your truly. The mirror does not lie.