Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 6:48 pm
Greta wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 6:02 am
There's been much talk on the forum about people being fully human (or not).
There general gist is that if you believe in God then you are fully human but if you don't then you are not fully human, maybe not human at all.
What do you see as "fully human"? Do you consider non humans to be lesser beings?
I probably provoked this question by posting a portion from the following quotation:
This is what I believe Thomas Merton meant after being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”
Through lack of experience we don’t know what it means to speak with our own voice so remain not human.
A fully human or consciously evolved human being has several qualities partial humans have only in potential. I'll begin with one such quality and if people are interested we can discus other qualities as well. The first is inner unity. A fully human being has inner unity. Partial humans live as a plurality in opposition to itself. A fully human being could say "I Am." A partial human being must say "We Are."
Sounds a bit like Gurdjieff ... aren't you part Ruski? Do you think GG's and Ouspensky's ideas were much influential in Russia (they were only slightly influential in the west).
It's too absolutist for me and incomplete. I am AND we are. Not only that but there is another "we" - our much-neglected relationship with our inner microbes, for whom we are the entire world.
This is ultimately about identity being defined by our relationships. Psychology 101 will tell you that we are parents, offspring, siblings, friends, bosses, subordinates, colleagues, neighbours, citizens and so forth. Outside of human society we are part of the local natural systems - the biology, geology, hydrology, atmosphere and so forth.
I think it better to be adaptable in these roles while remaining true to oneself rather than being relatively fixed in trying to assert I AM.
Nick_A wrote:Here is how others described the human condition:
"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...
"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man. ` Nietzsche
So according to Nietzsche we exist between the level of beast and overman. We are not one thing or the other. We are becoming used to this abnormality and soon will be unable to despise the human condition as it exists in us resulting in the glorification of "wretched contentment."
Nah, that's old hat. We have always been beasts and not beasts. That's what happens when you share almost all brain structures with other mammals.
You know what the whole ancient "do not be a beast" obsession was about? It was about maintaining civil order rather than stealing, raping and killing - like a beast. While we remain nine meals from anarchy but there's nothing for anyone to feel insecure about here - we remain unmistakeably human. Being human is the capacity to shape one's responses rather than accept our initial capacities. This ability is greatly accelerated through cultural transmission - accessing the experience of those who came before.
The rest of it depends on our own interests and aptitudes, so I'm seeing a continuum in humanity where you see a hard division.
Nick_A wrote:St. Paul describes the wretched man as he describes himself.
Romans 7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.
Yes, but Paul was most likely a self hating bisexual struggling with his urges.
What he's saying is that, no matter hard he tries, he stuffs up. Stop the presses! Living things are not perfect! Who'd have thunk it??
Really Nick, isn't being miserable because one is not perfect throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Why not accept that we will never be perfect, do our best anyway, and accept this gift of life with gratitude? Paul seems ungrateful, resentful that he's not all he thought he could be.
That is just ego and pride speaking. People who believe themselves capable of great things can be in denial about the relative mediocrity they achieve. The fact is, if they could have been great, they would have been. If they failed to live up to their imagined potentials, then there must have been other aspects of their mentality or character that interfered with said ability to succeed. In other words - they only looked at their strengths and were in denial about their weaknesses.
Be grateful! The chances of you existing - this egg with that sperm - are trillions to one against. If you are not as awesome as you thought, join the line - it's a long one and I'm in there too
Nick_A wrote:“Only one who devotes himself to a cause with his whole strength and soul can be a true master. For this reason mastery demands all of a person.” ~ Albert Einstein
But since we live as an inner plurality, "all of a person" is rarely in agreement creating the human condition as it manifests in the world.
So the first step to becoming fully human requires admitting the plurality of the human condition and the benefits of acquiring inner unity. But how many are willing to admit it much less consciously strive towards inner unity? No, the world seeks to destroy the impulse to sustain the hypocrisy of the status quo maintained by imagination
Yeah, I had a music tutor who had studied martial arts and believed in that kind of single-minded discipline, and he gave me a lot of shit too (especially when he got drunk and frustrated on Sundays and would go crazy with poison pen SMSs until I decided that his lessons came at too high a price).
Basically Einstein is stressing the importance of clear goals. However, not everyone can be a master. They might have the brains but not the drive, or vice versa.
The Einstein quote is actually timely because I have had writer's block of late (hence all the forum BS) but my goals have been most fuzzy ...
PhilX