Philosophy Now Forum

Challenge them. And when you come to that soft spot where you are feeling vulnerable for not knowing it all, go in for the kill, admit it, and adapt and evolve.

JS, don't you get dizzy riding your merry-go-round? After all, it takes beliefs to challenge beliefs.

Does it?

Jaded Sage wrote:

image.jpg

image.jpg

The spirit of the first quote sounded familiar to me right away when I read it and commented earlier. "We are no longer stuck with the heavy baggage we used to have when we considered our belief system to be a part of ourselves." It's a hard thing to put into words, but I think this quote did it well. And it's one of those things that probably only rings true or makes sense for someone who has experienced something like it.

The second one is very interesting! I especially like the last part "the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true". There is some teaching somewhere that starts off: "Step 1: Forget everything you've been told." Now some people would scoff at this... especially if they prize their intellectual platform. But I think there's value in looking at the "spirit" of these ideas. And in this example, it's suggesting that we can't see more until we are willing to drop the obstacles we've so whole-heartedly prescribed to. As you said (I think), JS, it's not easy for people to do this. They don't want to let go of what they believe in. And the truth is, they don't have to... because we can DO this experience however we want to. But if a person wants to see more, they have to move into new territory... they have to ascend to a place of even broader perspective. It simply isn't logical to sit perched on a stump and congratulate oneself for all one knows, and expect to be seeing all there is to see.

I never thought of enlightenment as a "destructive process"... but that's because I tend to cast a less favorable view on destruction (unless it's the destruction of institutions or systems that corrupt and enslave people. ) But it's true... enlightenment is the destruction of ideas that hold us entranced.

Jaded Sage wrote:There is a significant difference between enlightened people and unenlightened people, and only the former are aware of it.

What if one is aware that they are not enlightened?

One thing I notice, and it is deliberate, is that in the 'enlightenment' circles there is rarely offered a definition of 'enlightenment'. To understand the use of the term one has to attempt to understand the 'function' of the idea about it. This is true for all ideas: What function does this serve? Into what preconceived ideas does it fit, and what use do people make of it. Also one has to trace the history of the concept of 'enlightenment'. For example, in some enlightenment schools the concept of enlightenment is very connected to Indian spirituality and to the idea that it is possible to have an absolute realisation of self which transcends the immediacy of self-in-the-world and to being locked into the 'round of birth and death'.

The really enlightened (and marginal and partial degrees of enlightenment are recognised) have ceased to have a relationship, through karmic tie, with their very incarnated existence itself. Ramakrishna has said that when one gets enlightenment 'the body falls away'. Meaning, one is pure spirit and that one has disincarnated from the duties and obligations of body-ownership. There are many different patterns of 'enlightenment' that interweave all Eastern schools, from the traditional Hindu schools on into Zen wackiness.

There is another variation on the theme in the Occident, at least I think it is related: Sanctification. The notion of sanctification is similar but not comparable in the same way. But in the Catholic concept (sanctification doesn't exist in the same way in radical Protestantism because saints don't or can't exist!) proposes that sanctification is offered to God's obedient and to those who have renounced the devil-realm with its pomp (pompae diaboli), and the pits and snares of the world to achieve a grace-gift as it were of a certain illumination and luminescence (nimbus).

"We renounce thee, Satan, and all thy deceitfulness, and thy wiles, and thy service, and thy paths, and thy angels" comes from the Armenian rite but it expresses the general idea.

The Christian ideas are constructed in large measure upon Greek intellectualism and Platonic concepts of the rational soul vs the contaminating world. It is all a pretty interesting topic and it should be obvious how the background to the question 'What is enlightenment' needs to be filled out before one can really answer Jaded Sage's invitation to participate in his 'question', which is more precisely to play the enlightenment game with him and to subject oneself to the project of renouncing one's 'no-hope' position. Generally speaking, and when these rehearsals are enacted on public forums, it seems to follow similar lines. Once again I'd mention the issue of 'power'. These are conceptual and power-games that have their root in people and you have to ask and answer What is intended here?

Lacewing wrote:...but that's because I tend to cast a less favorable view on destruction (unless it's the destruction of institutions or systems that corrupt and enslave people.

People who 'come out in the open' (as I suggested that you do, Jaded Sage) reveal their 'operative cores', and when they do one quickly sees that the ideas that function in them are not neutral. Even when the 'idea' remains submerged, unstated, or deliberately hidden, there still has to be an idea there. A person defending something, or resisting something. I suggest - because she is a wonderful subject for all this - that Lacewing represents the emotional and unstated aspect of 'idea'. She does not exactly know what she is up to in all these things, and yet she is very clearly up to something. I will assume the same for JS. It is simply a good and prudent stance to take.

If 'enlightenment' means to serve the movement of ideas against 'institutions or systems that corrupt and enslave people', one has here said a mouthful. One will need in fact a few hundred mouths just to begin to masticate these statements as they are charged with assertion. Yet, one asks: Who is asserting? And quo warranto? By what authority?

By what authority shall we undertake a project of 'the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true'? One understands that she is speaking of her own self, and perhaps out of reaction to (justified in many but not all senses) her rigid Christian upbringing. But even this, which is understandable and we have all resisted structures of thinking to get where we are today, requires careful thought. If we engage in a project of destruction and dismantling, quo warranto? Are we required to 'really know what we are talking about'? Or, can anyone, just on a whim or because it feels right or seems right, engage in projects of destruction and overturning? These are the questions that have to be asked and answered. And there is nothing simple about them.

I will suggest that the notion of 'enlightenment' as it is expressed here - I have to guess with Jaded Sage because he refuses to 'come out in the open' and for good reasons (I assume) - is part-and-parcel of another octave and dimension of 'radical liberalism'. Liberalism in this sense is a doctrine of total freedom for the individual and is 'individualism' taken to its logical extreme, or the possibility to 'do what you want' with no need to subject your plan or intention to any authority or structure.

Liberalism in relation to the self, and certainly in our age, is related to projects of dissolution, radical revision, resistance, but also undermining, cynical excavation, thwarting. It has both an intellectually-defined and supported structure and one that is largely without such structure. In no sense can it be said to be exclusively or 'cynically destructive', and there is often a great deal of creativity associated with it, but because it is emotionally-based it seems to get out of one's hands rather easily. Plato spoke of the change in shifts in musical modes to indicate substantive changes in society. The same is so for body and dance movements.

See here for an interesting view of 'bodily freedom' and 'radical liberalism'.

And the truth is, they don't have to... because we can DO this experience however we want to. But if a person wants to see more, they have to move into new territory... they have to ascend to a place of even broader perspective. It simply isn't logical to sit perched on a stump and congratulate oneself for all one knows, and expect to be seeing all there is to see.

...enlightenment is the destruction of ideas that hold us entranced.

I'd have said 'enthralled' as it agrees more with your general notion about freedom from enslaving structures. It is interesting though to consider these terms 'trance' and such in their shamanic/spiritualist sense.

Well, I'd suggest that 'enlightenment' is a completely loaded term and cannot be discussed unless one really subjects it to a dialectical process!

So, Jaded Sage, are we 'on topic' yet?

Lacewing wrote: And it's one of those things that probably only rings true or makes sense for someone who has experienced something like it.

I was afraid of that, or at least hopeful there might be a few around here.

Lacewing wrote:They don't want to let go of what they believe in. And the truth is, they don't have to... because we can DO this experience however we want to.

This one I am much more inclided to hear the "spirit" of the quote. The other has, at least for me, been quite literal.

G'day, chap!

Greta wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:There is a significant difference between enlightened people and unenlightened people, and only the former are aware of it.

What if one is aware that they are not enlightened?

He means the differences that come with being eightenened, not enlightenment itself.

Gustav, I am dumbfounded that you could be so well-written and yet miss the point so perfectly. The part you need to destroy is every opinion you have formed about me (and other things, obviously). I'm hiding nothing. The out-into-the-light part is the first quote. Forget the second quote. They are talking about the exact same thing only with different attitudes.

I am destroying - you stoned hippy nut - everything you think is true about yourself and your looney ideas.

Don't let your mouth hang open. Flies have been known to enter.

Jaded Sage wrote:Gustav, I am dumbfounded that you could be so well-written and yet miss the point so perfectly.

I'm not so surprised. He does this all the time. I've never know anyone who can miss a point so radically and yet type so much bullshit at the same time.
He's an old wind-bag, and my visits to this site have become less vexatious since I blocked his posts.

I still like to think there may be hope for him.

Attack and destroy that hope. It's a self-deception of the First Order.

I think I'll keep posting this until someone gets it well. The part you need to destroy is every opinion you have formed about your own belief system or worldview (and other things, obviously). The second quote is talking about the exact same thing only with a different attitude.

You need to redefine and strengthen the opinions and the general belief-system and worldview you have - your idea of things - and all other things that derive from it. You need to avoid like the plague anyone who tells you different.