A Conversation With Simone Weil

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:28 am

Vege wrote:
I might have missed it but did you say which of her ideas you like the most? Which have the most value to society in a practical sense?
When I first started reading Simone Weil I had the distinct impression that I was for the first time in my life experiencing the pure heart of an evolving woman. I’m used to emotional women and it is hard to explain but their expressions are mixed and more guarded and superficial. Simone’s writings are pure. That is why she has this effect. She writes from the depth of her being so touches a person at the depth of their being.

Simone Weil is called the “New Saint” not only because she had this quality of heart capable of opening to Plato’s verticality of being but the mind of a scientist as well. When I experienced this I was captured. Science and the essence of religion functioned in her being. This is a very rare and beautiful gem.

If society can ever grow to admit the importance of conscious attention and what is lost by sacrificing this ability for obsession with fragmentation, she will have done more for humanity than we can ever know. She wrote:
"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
The problem is that we imagine reality rather than experiencing it with conscious attention. As such everything repeats including the horrors of war. If humanity ever collectively recognizes the value of conscious attention the Great Beast will lose its power. It doesn’t want to so will struggle against it. Those like Simone do touch a minority who then make efforts to acquire conscious attention and benefit from it for their need to experience “meaning.” They will have a beneficial psychological influence on the collective human psyche.

Nick_A
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:43 am

Greta wrote:
Nick_A wrote:From Elisabetta Rombi ‘imaginary conversation with Simone. There are many meaningful ideas worth contemplating in this conversation but to be brief, here is one:
“I also like what you wrote on the education of young people – most of all, your idea of getting beyond the division between physical labour and intellectual work.”
I learned about Frederick Taylor's "scientific management" and specialisation, leading to Ford's production line back in the 80s. So you, Simone, Elisabetta and I - along with a few billion others - agree that Taylor and Ford suck :). However, the system works. Specialised organisations and societies with division of labour out-compete those with less organised specialisation. Humans, along with naked mole rats, are the only mammals to adopt this kind of specialisation, along with colony-forming insects. Such tight coordination is a powerful tool. As you say, it's important to consider a bigger picture than just humanity - humans don't exist in a void but present as one of the more recent tiny, temporary animated bumps on the Earth's surface.

Back to specialisation: eusocial groups effectively cohere to for a single functional body or sorts (we can hark back to your Plato quote), with specialised functions performed by different specialists just as a body's organs and other viscera have their particular roles. The group forms a single, cohesive entity that is orders of magnitude more effective at surviving and reproducing than less organised groups. Note that there is a blurred line between colonies and organisms (with the sea sponge being the link, the only animal that can reconstitute itself after being broken into smithereens).

Your "Great Beast" metaphor brings to mind how the first microbes would have felt (if they could think) about the gigantic emergent eukaryotes that soon came to dominate the globe. Individuals are effectively like plankton looking up at multinational "whales", hoping not to be scooped up in the whale's next mouthful. None of this is evil or wrong, just how things are. In time, all beings are superseded - and the trend happy seems to be towards "upgrades".

Sure, there might be "two steps back" before the "three steps forward" but progress is never linear. Yes, these are hard times. Hard inevitable times. We are most lucky to be born in this general time period but slightly unlucky to now be witness to a regressive period and, scarily, a period of climate change, extinctions and seemingly upcoming general pestilence. Damn, and it had been going so well! :lol:

So let's say millions rise up in a new "American Christian Spring" to overthrow institutions, as you hope. The conglomerate you breaks down all the controlling and untrustworthy institutions to start afresh. How long do you think it might take before new institutions rose again with their own atrocities? History has taught us that lesson so often it's a cliché.

The problems we discuss are wicked ones. If all our little voices speak out for what we believe to be right - even if we disagree with each other fundamentally - that's the best influence we can impart.
Nick_A wrote:Normally we are so involved with the problems of living that we fail to experience and admit what we are: a living contradiction. If this is true could Man as a society be other than a great beast incapable of opening to higher conscious influences making imagination take the place of objective reality? A serious discussion as to why we live in contradiction requires people willing to be open minded and humble. You won’t find them on philosophy forums. :)
Nick, you are in a glass house when chiding others for their lack of humility ad open-mindedness. Why not accept that you have your worldview, others have theirs, and it's okay for your worldviews not to match?

Our institutions clearly have much room for moral improvement and I expect that will improve in time just as humans have done in their history. There is today enormously reduced human sacrifice, witch burning, inquisitions, torture, blood sports and so on.

I don't see a contradiction in how we live either, just compromise. The groups that provide us with protection and resources place demands on us and limit our freedoms in return. As a right winger, I'm sure you don't approve of people taking without even making some compromises in return.
I think our main difference is in how we define human progress. You seem to define it by technological advances and selective moral accomplishments. You seem to define progress by what we DO. I define human progress as the change of what we ARE. Simone explains it better than me.
"Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison." - Simone Weil
Progress for the human animal is technological adaptation. Progress for human being is the conscious return to its source.

As we are now, Man serves the Beast's progress. Could technology ever grow to serve the being of MAN?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Greta » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:22 am

Nick_A wrote:I think our main difference is in how we define human progress. You seem to define it by technological advances and selective moral accomplishments. You seem to define progress by what we DO. I define human progress as the change of what we ARE. Simone explains it better than me.
"Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison." - Simone Weil
Progress for the human animal is technological adaptation. Progress for human being is the conscious return to its source.

As we are now, Man serves the Beast's progress. Could technology ever grow to serve the being of MAN?
I define "progress" as either external or internal accomplishments, and often in history the two have been concomitant. The retreat from barbarity which accompanied technological and intellectual progress is not just "selective moral accomplishments" IMO, it is huge, with ramifications throughout lives of most people in a civilised modern society. So many more people today given the opportunity to grow and develop without being brutalised, traumatised, maimed or killed in their formative years.

I think the main difference between us is that I am more accepting of the world's foibles. There are many important improvements modernity has made, especially relating to using long term policies to raise the living standards of millions, despite the inequality: https://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/w ... ul-charts/. Another that comes to mind is that many more girls are being educated than in the past.

You may consider education to merely be just training to be a mindless servant for the Big Bad Kahooni. That's easy enough to say with the benefit of a tertiary education - not so easy for women in developing countries struggling to know what's going on around them - exploited, manipulated and controlled by more educated men. Education opens up our eyes to the world of human society and a distillation of what they have learned over thousands of years.

Education is simply an extension of the very quality that empowered humanity in the first place - cultural transmission. There is nothing wrong with passing on the benefits of prior generations' experience, even if the content is vast and complex today.

Meanwhile, church never cared about people's development, graphically shown by the Inquisition. Only obedience would be required. It amazes me how many religious people think that a theocracy would bring freedom from tyranny. Yet in reality, theocracies in the world today are amongst the most corrupt and brutal.

Nick_A
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:19 pm

Greta wrote:
I define "progress" as either external or internal accomplishments, and often in history the two have been concomitant. The retreat from barbarity which accompanied technological and intellectual progress is not just "selective moral accomplishments" IMO, it is huge, with ramifications throughout lives of most people in a civilised modern society. So many more people today given the opportunity to grow and develop without being brutalised, traumatised, maimed or killed in their formative years.

I think the main difference between us is that I am more accepting of the world's foibles. There are many important improvements modernity has made, especially relating to using long term policies to raise the living standards of millions, despite the inequality:
I agree That humanity has benefited from scientific knowledge. A knife for example serves many useful purposes. At the risk of a bad pun, a knife is dual edged. It is also used to kill for egoistic satisfaction. Drugs can also cure or kill. People remark how good it is that we save these young girls crossing the border in America. Of course how many know that they are adopted by sex slave masters who sell them or put them into sex slavery..

I accept the world’s foibles because it is just a reflection of what we ARE. Good and bad have nothing to do with it. They are just words reflecting subjective determinations. Good and bad can only exist for humanity in the presence of conscious choice. Indoctrination is not conscious choice. I maintain that the most harmful effects of the cycle of war and peace can be minimized from the influences of a quality of energy people striving for conscious awakening release.
Meanwhile, church never cared about people's development, graphically shown by the Inquisition. Only obedience would be required. It amazes me how many religious people think that a theocracy would bring freedom from tyranny. Yet in reality, theocracies in the world today are amongst the most corrupt and brutal.
Secularized religion has produced mixed results. That is why Simone never joined the church and became the “Patron Saint of Outsiders." She knew its depth was being held captive by secular influences. However I believe she understood the theoretical value of the church even though it has become secularized in society.
“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.” Simone Weil
Simone Weil describes a human being as being analogous to a plant. The roots of the plant gets its nourishment from the ground while the leaves get theirs from the sun. When balanced the whole plant is nourished from two sources: above and below.

Good soil for human roots, its animal nature, is a culture with a healthy metaxu. Grace nourishes our higher parts much like the sun nourishes the leaves of a plant. The bottom line is that quality human being requires being nourished from above and below. We agree on the below but as anti religious as you are I don’t know if you can open even theoretically to the potential for the reality of the energy of grace essential for developing impartial conscious understanding. It raises the question of a source which is an unforgivable sin for secularism. Right now dominant secularism denies grace preferring cold indoctrination which will fail since we are as we are. But that doesn’t mean some are unwilling to admit the human condition and respect each other’s need to experience truth at the expense of being a captive to imagination, pleasure, and self justification.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Greta » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:47 pm

Nick_A wrote:I maintain that the most harmful effects of the cycle of war and peace can be minimized from the influences of a quality of energy people striving for conscious awakening release.
In other words, if we become better people then we're less likely to carry on like utter bastards (ie. make war). True. This has been the human project for millennia, and today is where that project is up to so far. Personally, I'm amazed at our rapid progress but most are horrified by our lack of progress. I start my assessments of our progress from 4.6 billion years ago, whereas most people's views pertain to metrics over the past few decades.

So I figure, to this end, things are probably going swimmingly as far as larger dynamics are concerned (which don't concern us, aside from the possibility that we will be superseded). The universe has been a SNAFU place for 13.8 billion years. I do not expect much different, certainly not in my lifetime.
Nick_A wrote:
Meanwhile, church never cared about people's development, graphically shown by the Inquisition. Only obedience would be required. It amazes me how many religious people think that a theocracy would bring freedom from tyranny. Yet in reality, theocracies in the world today are amongst the most corrupt and brutal.
Secularized religion has produced mixed results. That is why Simone never joined the church and became the “Patron Saint of Outsiders." She knew its depth was being held captive by secular influences.
It's true that religions always become corrupted. The old cliché of "power corrupts" still holds.

I note that religious people often seem to resent this harsh physical reality in which we are thrust without choice, longing for an imagined nonmaterial existence post-death without the pitfalls of this one. It's often been posited that the Earth is one of the levels of Hell. If I was living in Africa or the Middle East, I might agree!
Nick_A wrote:Simone Weil describes a human being as being analogous to a plant. The roots of the plant gets its nourishment from the ground while the leaves get theirs from the sun. When balanced the whole plant is nourished from two sources: above and below.

Good soil for human roots, its animal nature, is a culture with a healthy metaxu. Grace nourishes our higher parts much like the sun nourishes the leaves of a plant. The bottom line is that quality human being requires being nourished from above and below. We agree on the below but as anti religious as you are I don’t know if you can open even theoretically to the potential for the reality of the energy of grace essential for developing impartial conscious understanding. It raises the question of a source which is an unforgivable sin for secularism. Right now dominant secularism denies grace preferring cold indoctrination which will fail since we are as we are. But that doesn’t mean some are unwilling to admit the human condition and respect each other’s need to experience truth at the expense of being a captive to imagination, pleasure, and self justification.
I like these kinds of analogies, although I posit that our "roots" are our lungs, as we are as firmly rooted in the atmosphere as a tree is rooted into the earth - and their internal structure is rootlike.

Simone W's top/bottom analogy seems out of kilter to me. I see the duality of our nurturing needs as to be inside/outside. The old adages again hold true - all one need to is balance mind, body and spirit (define the latter any way you like). It's not complicated, just that it's hard to control oneself at times. The eternal human challenge - self control!

Secularism does not preclude grace but assumes it to the point where one's spiritual journey is generally not considered the state's business or concern. That is, the state assumes that we will follow our own spiritual journeys (or not) whether they intervene or not. People are trusted by secular society to look after our own spiritual lives in our private time while secular authorities educate us with practical information about how to navigating societal systems. This separation of church and state is what allows for religious freedoms.

You seem to wish for people to be indoctrinated by a paternalist state - "nourishing" us "from the top" with information to set us on our spiritual journey. Yes?

Many of us, however, do not want to state to indoctrinate us and prefer the current system of leaving it up to individuals to decide for themselves. I can't see why, as a right winger, you would want everyone's taxes to pay for the government to concern itself with people's spiritual lives. Surely this is a "user pays" situation?

Surely people should just be educated with the info they need to get by in life? Why should they not be left to their own devices when it comes to spirituality? Why do you think the state should involve itself in our spiritual lives?

Also, note what can happen when religions cloister themselves away to avoid secular influence. Some of secluded orders have an outrageous problem with child molesting:
Forty per cent of the members of the Brothers of St John of God had allegations of child sexual abuse made against them from 1950 until 2010, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has revealed.
Really, all this suggests to me that the best system at present involves strict separation of church, where individuals' private spirituality (or not) is treated as entirely their own business.

Nick_A
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:55 am

Greta wrote:
You seem to wish for people to be indoctrinated by a paternalist state - "nourishing" us "from the top" with information to set us on our spiritual journey. Yes?

Many of us, however, do not want to state to indoctrinate us and prefer the current system of leaving it up to individuals to decide for themselves. I can't see why, as a right winger, you would want everyone's taxes to pay for the government to concern itself with people's spiritual lives. Surely this is a "user pays" situation?

Surely people should just be educated with the info they need to get by in life? Why should they not be left to their own devices when it comes to spirituality? Why do you think the state should involve itself in our spiritual lives?
How could the state which functions by mechanical indoctrination become capable of teaching spiritual values which invite conscious awareness? Conscious awareness is the enemy of mechanical indoctrination. The healthy metaxu arouses the question of wht we ARE in the context of a quality of reality greater than our own. It keeps the essential question open

You believe as do many others that the purpose of religion is to tell people what to do. This may be the purpose of secularized religion but the esoteric essence of religion opens a person to the experience of conscious awareness. Can a person benefit by a teaching telling them what to do?
The Eightfold Path of Buddhism, also called the Middle Path or Middle Way, is the system of following these eight divisions of the path to achieve spiritual enlightenment and cease suffering: Right understanding: Understanding that the Four Noble Truths are noble and true.
You can say a person can believe what they want. It really doesn’t matter. If that is the case the eightfold path of Buddhism doesn’t matter so do what you want as long as you obey the rules of the Great Beast or at least not get caught.

• Right understanding: Understanding that the Four Noble Truths are noble and true.
• Right thought: Determining and resolving to practice Buddhist faith.
• Right speech: Avoiding slander, gossip, lying, and all forms of untrue and abusive speech.
• Right conduct: Adhering to the idea of nonviolence (ahimsa), as well as refraining from any form of stealing or sexual impropriety.
• Right means of making a living: Not slaughtering animals or working at jobs that force you to violate others.
• Right mental attitude or effort: Avoiding negative thoughts and emotions, such as anger and jealousy.
• Right mindfulness: Having a clear sense of one’s mental state and bodily health and feelings.
• Right concentration: Using meditation to reach the highest level of enlightenment.

Am I really supposed to follow all this right stuff? We create our own reality so there is no such thing as right understanding. Who needs to be indoctrinated by a Buddha? The Great Beast will teach right understanding. Nothing else is necessary. Something seems missing in this conclusion.

You will say that Buddhism isn’t referring to a personal god telling you what to do. It is the same with Christianity (not Christendom) and the concept of grace. Simone Weil has been writing about conscious awakening. It is a given that we are caught up in delusion and living in contradiction so what does God have to do with it? It is through conscious awakening that a person can experience objective conscience. Then “right” is just natural. Indoctrination is replaced with conscious experienced understanding and the value of pursuing it.

The solution to the human condition begins with attempts to “know thyself” and doing this requires developing the virtually atrophied human capacity for conscious attention. The idea is repulsive to secularism which grows through a decreasing attention span leaving a person vulnerable to indoctrination

Simone Weil’s classic essay REFLECTIONS ON THE RIGHT USE OF SCHOOL STUDIES WITH A VIEW TO THE LOVE OF GOD is poison to secularism but anyone active in education not dedicated to spiritually killing the young should read how Simone explains the value of attention not just for our lower animal parts functioning in the world but for developing the capacity for conscious contemplation - an attribute highly prized in the past.

http://www.hagiasophiaclassical.com/wp/ ... e-Weil.pdf
The Key to a Christian conception of studies is the realization that prayer consists of attention. It is the orientation of all the attention of which the soul is capable towards God. The quality of attention counts for much in the quality of the prayer. Warmth of heart cannot make up for it. It is the highest part of the attention only which makes contact with God, when prayer is intense and pure enough for such a contact to be established; but the whole attention is turned towards God. Of course school exercises only develop a lower kind of attention. Nevertheless they are extremely effective in increasing the power of attention which will be available at the time of prayer, on condition that they are carried out with a view to this purpose and this purpose alone. Although people seem to be unaware of it to-day, the development of the faculty of attention forms the real object and almost the sole interest of studies. Most school tasks have a certain intrinsic interest as well, but such an interest is secondary. All tasks which really call upon the power of attention are interesting for the same reason and to an almost equal degree………………………
Secular institutions tell you what to pay attention to. Simone is referring to the forgotten value of attention as a human attribute capable of conscious development allowing for the impartial experience of the world as it is without preconception. Not only does this help life in the world and our connection to technology but also for attracting the help of grace. As valuable as this is it will be strongly rejected by all forms of secularism that need to control a person’s attention. But for anyone with an open mind in regards what human education actually is to be worthy of the name, Simone’s classic essay is food for thought regardless of the growls from the great beast.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Greta » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:35 am

Nick_A wrote:Greta wrote:
You seem to wish for people to be indoctrinated by a paternalist state - "nourishing" us "from the top" with information to set us on our spiritual journey. Yes?

Many of us, however, do not want to state to indoctrinate us and prefer the current system of leaving it up to individuals to decide for themselves. I can't see why, as a right winger, you would want everyone's taxes to pay for the government to concern itself with people's spiritual lives. Surely this is a "user pays" situation?

Surely people should just be educated with the info they need to get by in life? Why should they not be left to their own devices when it comes to spirituality? Why do you think the state should involve itself in our spiritual lives?
How could the state which functions by mechanical indoctrination become capable of teaching spiritual values which invite conscious awareness?
Then why complain about the secular education system? Kids have to be taught something. The system needs to teach us how to navigate the system - to not do that would be unfair, a denial of important information. So, if you go to school, learn what you need and then decide for yourself in your own time what to do about the state of your soul.
Nick_A wrote:
Good ole Simone (yet again) wrote:The Key to a Christian conception of studies is the realization that prayer consists of attention. It is the orientation of all the attention of which the soul is capable towards God. The quality of attention counts for much in the quality of the prayer. Warmth of heart cannot make up for it. It is the highest part of the attention only which makes contact with God, when prayer is intense and pure enough for such a contact to be established; but the whole attention is turned towards God. Of course school exercises only develop a lower kind of attention. Nevertheless they are extremely effective in increasing the power of attention which will be available at the time of prayer, on condition that they are carried out with a view to this purpose and this purpose alone. Although people seem to be unaware of it to-day, the development of the faculty of attention forms the real object and almost the sole interest of studies. Most school tasks have a certain intrinsic interest as well, but such an interest is secondary. All tasks which really call upon the power of attention are interesting for the same reason and to an almost equal degree………………………
I know what she is talking about, having had a couple of experiences far more extraordinary than any other I've had, incomparably more profound and generally wonderful.

However, I don't approve of her exclusivist claims - making out that this is such a special thing. It seems more likely to me that these experiences come to those who need them, that some strong inner need drives them. Many people strike me as either too content and balanced to need the "kick start" that mystical experiences provide. Others would simply prefer not to "stay asleep".

But what is this awakening? It's simply the pretty obvious realisation that our reality is a lot bigger than just humanity, that we are systems and our systems lie within, and are subservient to and dependent on, greater systems. We have a tendency to believe that our humans societies and their inventions are all that matters, and the objectification of non human entities leads us to see the natural reality in humans live in abstract terms. That's when people get out of touch and find themselves at the mercy of others' opinions, because that's almost their entire world. Then again, they might navigate the social arena rather better than the average philosophy buff.

The claim that there is nothing quite the same as seeking God strikes me as redundant. There's also nothing quite the same as having a peak experience while out in nature either, nor the birth of a healthy child, nor falling in love with a "soul mate", and so on. These are all special experiences for people. It's rather presumptuous to elevate one's own special experiences over those of others.

Nick_A
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:48 pm

Greta wrote:
Then why complain about the secular education system? Kids have to be taught something. The system needs to teach us how to navigate the system - to not do that would be unfair, a denial of important information. So, if you go to school, learn what you need and then decide for yourself in your own time what to do about the state of your soul.
Secular education is half an education. It teaches facts the Beast believes are important for the young to learn. However, education if it is worthy of the name must also serve to awaken the young to a “human perspective.” Without a human perspective, facts are as dangerous as they are beneficial. We have become so backwards that people will even argue theoretically about what a human perspective is much less admitting what is necessary to experientially acquire it. Yes, secularists will claim that brainwashing will lead to a human perspective. Cults will say the same. And the useless battle goes on and on as the concept of an objective human perspective gradually dies off and society eventually reverts to survival of the fittest.
But what is this awakening? It's simply the pretty obvious realisation that our reality is a lot bigger than just humanity, that we are systems and our systems lie within, and are subservient to and dependent on, greater systems. We have a tendency to believe that our humans societies and their inventions are all that matters, and the objectification of non human entities leads us to see the natural reality in humans live in abstract terms. That's when people get out of touch and find themselves at the mercy of others' opinions, because that's almost their entire world. Then again, they might navigate the social arena rather better than the average philosophy buff.


A peak experience is an indication of a conscious reality existing beyond the potential of the creature of reaction called Animal Man to sustain. Awakening means awakening to the reality of the human condition in relation to conscious human potential. Sometimes a person has the experience that they are on the second floor of a building looking down at people on the street. Before they know it they are on the street and a part of what they were looking down on. This is what people like Simone have experienced. Others like the author are attracted to the same so try to understand Simone They are no longer satisfied with living without meaning on the street. They have an inner need to be a part of conscious humanity.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Greta » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:59 pm

Nick_A wrote:Greta wrote:
Then why complain about the secular education system? Kids have to be taught something. The system needs to teach us how to navigate the system - to not do that would be unfair, a denial of important information. So, if you go to school, learn what you need and then decide for yourself in your own time what to do about the state of your soul.
Secular education is half an education. It teaches facts the Beast believes are important for the young to learn. However, education if it is worthy of the name must also serve to awaken the young to a “human perspective.” Without a human perspective, facts are as dangerous as they are beneficial. We have become so backwards that people will even argue theoretically about what a human perspective is much less admitting what is necessary to experientially acquire it. Yes, secularists will claim that brainwashing will lead to a human perspective. Cults will say the same. And the useless battle goes on and on as the concept of an objective human perspective gradually dies off and society eventually reverts to survival of the fittest.
I'm wary of the other half of education you would give young people. They would come away expecting women to be subservient, believing gays to be bad, that euthanasia and abortion are always wrong, that left wing politics is wicked and godless and so on.

Further, the "half education" that you disparage at every opportunity is essential. You seem to think that it's preferable to allow all this essential knowledge about how to live to be lost.

I am surprised at just how much you take for granted. So I again direct you to the Life of Brian's "What Have the Romans Done for Us?" skit, which I think better illustrates the way younger generations can completely disregard all the efforts and struggles prior generations endured to do the best for their offspring. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

This is common today - taking from society with a sense of entitlement, without any thought or gratitude, and offering nothing in return but judgement.
Nick_A wrote:A peak experience is an indication of a conscious reality existing beyond the potential of the creature of reaction called Animal Man to sustain. Awakening means awakening to the reality of the human condition in relation to conscious human potential. Sometimes a person has the experience that they are on the second floor of a building looking down at people on the street. Before they know it they are on the street and a part of what they were looking down on. This is what people like Simone have experienced. Others like the author are attracted to the same so try to understand Simone They are no longer satisfied with living without meaning on the street. They have an inner need to be a part of conscious humanity.
What is "conscious human potential" if it is unrelated to peak experiences, love, industry and understanding our place in nature and the cosmos?

Nick_A
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:52 am

Greta wrote:
I'm wary of the other half of education you would give young people. They would come away expecting women to be subservient, believing gays to be bad, that euthanasia and abortion are always wrong, that left wing politics is wicked and godless and so on.

Further, the "half education" that you disparage at every opportunity is essential. You seem to think that it's preferable to allow all this essential knowledge about how to live to be lost.

As Simone Weil wrote in what is now called her spiritual autobiography: “I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.”

This truth is an objective human perspective. It has nothing to do with attacking women, kicking dogs, hitting women over the head with fetuses, or any other similar delight. Can you admit that you don’t know what an objective human perspective is if it exists? Simone believed it must exist and wanted to experience it. She is scorned for it. It simply is not normal for a woman to have this calling. She should be arguing human rights, abortion rights, and gender rights appropriate for women’s philosophy.. Her calling at such a young age was definitely not PC. So the result is that only a few will pursue this calling and they will be called elitist. The nerve of these people. They actually think there is an objective quality of conscious affirmation that can be felt as a human perspective transcending the arguments of secular experts. Should the police or a psychologist be called to deal with such a person. It is hard to decide.

Again, there is nothing bad about knowledge. However without an objective perspective to place it in it is as dangerous as it is potentially beneficial
What is "conscious human potential" if it is unrelated to peak experiences, love, industry and understanding our place in nature and the cosmos?
Conscious human potential refers to the human potential to experience the wholeness of our universe both within us and in the external world as opposed to the normal human perspective based upon defending isolated fragments of potential human experience.

A conscious human perspective is our potential. It is a quality of experienced inclusion, the big picture, beyond our ability. Sometimes a person has a momentary experience of it but quickly sinks back into isolated attractions and partial truths normal for our “being” or as we are

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Greta » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:05 am

Nick_A wrote:Can you admit that you don’t know what an objective human perspective is if it exists? Simone believed it must exist and wanted to experience it.
As far as I can tell, "objective human perspective" pertains to the ideals of science and law.
Nick_A wrote: etc etc etc ... Should the police or a psychologist be called to deal with such a person. It is hard to decide.
Man, you are quite the ranter when you get going :lol:
Nick_A wrote:Again, there is nothing bad about knowledge. However without an objective perspective to place it in it is as dangerous as it is potentially beneficial
There is an assumption here, that progress is controllable. Imagine that the US, in its transition to a theocratic state, starts limiting its scientific endeavours. They will simply be outcompeted by China, Russia and other advanced nations. Sam Harris pointed out this global "tragedy of the commons" situation very clearly as it will apply to the proliferation and possible weaponisation of AI. Basically, the first country to crack advanced general AI capable of creating better AI again it is game over - that nation will control the world. The situation is a very long way past promotion of "objective human perspectives.
Nick_A wrote:
What is "conscious human potential" if it is unrelated to peak experiences, love, industry and understanding our place in nature and the cosmos?
It is a quality of experienced inclusion, the big picture, beyond our ability. Sometimes a person has a momentary experience of it but quickly sinks back into isolated attractions and partial truths normal for our “being” or as we are
That was part of my second peak experience.

Nick_A
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:53 pm

Greta wwrote: Nick_A wrote:
Can you admit that you don’t know what an objective human perspective is if it exists? Simone believed it must exist and wanted to experience it.

As far as I can tell, "objective human perspective" pertains to the ideals of science and law.
The overwhelming majority will agree with you which is why our species is headed for a self created catastrophe. People are unwilling to open to an objective human perspective and insist on arguing subjective human perspectives thinking they are the same and that their subjective human perspective is actually objective human perspective.

The Great Beast encourages this confusion calling it an ideal diversity of opinions and we all create our own reality. The Great Beast then devises a political system to keep the people in line while telling them the proper Beast version of objective reality.

It is OK to question the Beast as long as you do not become too influential. Simone questioned and even though she scored higher than others in the university they tried to get rid of her. The Director of Career Placement, Ecole Normale Supérieure said: "We shall send the Red Virgin as far away as possible so that we shall never hear of her again" The search for truth can be very annoying.

It is far too insulting to search for and actualize an objective human perspective when an institution of higher learning will tell you their subjective perspective which they assert as the same. Protesting the obvious is just intolerable and such people should be sent away.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Harbal » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:46 pm

Nick_A wrote:The nerve of these people. They actually think there is an objective quality of conscious affirmation that can be felt as a human perspective transcending the arguments of secular experts. Should the police or a psychologist be called to deal with such a person. It is hard to decide.
Neither, simply ignoring them is probably sufficient.

Nick_A
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Nick_A » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:30 pm

Harbal wrote:
Nick_A wrote:The nerve of these people. They actually think there is an objective quality of conscious affirmation that can be felt as a human perspective transcending the arguments of secular experts. Should the police or a psychologist be called to deal with such a person. It is hard to decide.
Neither, simply ignoring them is probably sufficient.
Ignoring is never sufficient for the clique. They will gather in deep philosophical discussion and the leader will proclaim that humanity is suffering a witch, Then they will carry their lighted torches to her last known address only to learn she had already died. They will bemoan the fact that they have missed their opportunity to defend the Great Beast by slaying the witch. Then after five beers proclaim an oath to be more observant so the next one doesn't get away. Peace and love must be protected from these troublemakers. Once the ruckus has subsided the snowflakes hiding in their safe spaces will be given the all clear to resume their normal activities. The world is saved.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Conversation With Simone Weil

Post by Harbal » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:35 pm

Nick_A wrote: Ignoring is never sufficient for the clique. They will gather in deep philosophical discussion and the leader will proclaim that humanity is suffering a witch, Then they will carry their lighted torches to her last known address only to learn she had already died. They will bemoan the fact that they have missed their opportunity to defend the Great Beast by slaying the witch. Then after five beers proclaim an oath to be more observant so the next one doesn't get away. Peace and love must be protected from these troublemakers. Once the ruckus has subsided the snowflakes hiding in their safe spaces will be given the all clear to resume their normal activities. The world is saved.
Please be assured, Nick, I won't do any of this.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests