Simone Weil

[Nick_A]

EOTH

I don't much like the current iconoclastic mode of political atheism..... when atheism absolutely must be a state religion prior to all others, and everyone else persecuted. It is idiotic, and most societies start to veer away from this rather sharply after a few generations, you only gotta look to the eastern block, especially Russia, or China. It plays out differently in each, but play it does. I'm a lot more respectful of the more intellectual atheism of earlier eras, when it was based on a program of principled approaches to reason and valid belief, skepticism and searching. Darwin's balance of Unitarian and CofE thinking for example, never a full atheist or committed to any creed, but rather careful watching and pondering, looking to the long term, studying the dynamic of how men approached things seems rather more enlightened. Think he represents the high tide of English intellectualism, has gone done hill ever since. Really wasn't someone possessed like many now are.

I agree with you as to the effects of political atheism. I’ve learned from personal experience that it has become emotional rather than intellectual.

You missed a good one a short while ago when I began a thread on secular intolerance and its effect of producing metaphysical repression on the young. Emotional political atheism reached its peak against me on that one. The growls were magnificent. For example: would you think this is worth discussing rather than emotionally ridiculing?

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/cu ... anism.html

………………The answer lies in their understanding of human nature. Far from having freed themselves from every kind of belief, they have merely switched from a religious faith to a secular one, from belief in a transcendant God to belief in an immanent one. They view the human person not as a creature and hence dependent upon his Creator but as an entirely autonomous self-evolving entity. Man somewhat becomes his own Creator. It all sounds very modern, but in fact it is an old story, at least as old as the Greek myth of Prometheus. And its culmination is not a more scientific age, but just the opposite, as far into the fantastic, even, as the New Age Movement popularized by Shirley Maclaine and others of the same stripe.
That secular humanism is akin to religion is reflected by the fact that it has its own set of dogmas. These include denial of any moral authority greater than the individual human will, the primacy of personal satisfaction, the relativity of moral values, etc. all unjustified assumptions most of which have been refuted time and again by the sages of human history, those men who have really thought about such things………………….

I think Simone Weil supplies part of the reason why such ideas are met with the nastiest most violent objections. She wrote

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

It is easy to see why she must be hated by those caught up in either blind belief or blind denial. Atheists re often shrewd and this is appreciated as intelligence. Yet at the same time they are closed to a more real part of their intellect that distinguishes man from animal.

That is why St. John of the Cross calls faith a night. With those who have received a Christian education, the lower parts of the soul become attached to these mysteries when they have no right at all to do so. That is why such people need a purification of which St. John of the Cross describes the stages. Atheism and incredulity constitute an equivalent of such a purification.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 418

A lot of believers do not understand how easily we can become slaves to fantasy in the egoistic need for self justification. Atheism can expose self deception.

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17

Emotional political atheism is a great danger for any society with the purpose of furthering freedom and personal responsibility as opposed to inviting statist slavery. We can be thankful for those like Simone who provide the necessary psychological awakening influence even though it is hated. We don’t have to go down with the psychological ship. We can become more human.

[EchoesOfTheHorizon]

Metaphysical Repression? Wat dat?

While I am of a background (many diverse backgrounds actually, but in this case) that does have roots in the cofnitive systems used in the west from the Muses and Hermes 3x to Caballah both Jewish and Christian, and the various mnemonic systems produced to fill the Renaissance (many are still remarkably churning out newer, more refined theories, fact checking against neurological papers) I'm not too thrilled with the efforts to make regions of the brain of a particular faith. I'm more over to particular patterns of networks, but find failings in half the attempts, too often done by "the faithful", like when they try to prove the how the Christian Trinity is generated in the mind, cross referencing it to neurological papers and other theories and biographies, and then the awkward counter response on my part being "oh.... does this apply to the Hindu trinity as well?"

Doesn't work that way with many concepts. While one can say that the main faith and the satanic version of the faith have some diametrically opposed portions (Satanist tend to try to root out something they think mainline religious thinkers won't touch, thus a cognitive void in the thought {ironically doesn't work too well with Christianity, we had a diverse early era, most aren't well read enough to know this}), most people in general are going to use many of the same brain functions in every long established faith at least on occasion. Emphasis may differ, but think they will all light up eventually in every sector. We only have 12 cranial nerves doing the heavy loads after all. You can trace regions influencing regions, but it rarely is going to stand out as unique.

But holistically, as a final product, faiths can act quite differently. The giving of alms in Islam, for example, isn't the same as a Kali cult member ambushing and murdering a passerbyer on the road. A Muslim can be a jihadish and kill on occasion, but isn't fully dedicated to the lust for surprise ambush as a way of faith, constantly. Likewise, while a member of such a death cult may give on compassionate grounds on occasion, they are hardly going to walk around doing such things on a regular basis.

As a Christian, I don't have a desire to join into either religion, but don't mind at all reading the histories of such people, the poetry or philosophers. Some might relate, some might be intriguing, but I also have to hold to God as well as the ethics of my society, as a individual operating within it. I might be very adept with a knife, but won't adopt most of the methods outside the rare war of a kali stalker. It has remarbly little room for wise adoption for someone living in the suburbs of Americana. Not ruling out no importation of ethical or philosophical concepts, but some just don't port over easily. Reason why the British hunted them down brutally in the 18th and 19th centuries. Exploring such a mysticism is only valid in my mind in the manner to hold them at bay, predict or defeat them. For a Muslim, a bit more reasonable (usually, obviously not ISIS) and I'm willing to consider them and what parallels and differs more so, on the basis of having a larger civic community. They will be around much, much longer than some of these groups (especially the antagonistic atheists, they are destined to die off rather soon).

[tbieter]

Compare Simone Weil's thought on what is sacred in every human being with the trendy Professor Zizek's disinterest in Donald Trumpy:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=22960&p=338904#p338904

[EchoesOfTheHorizon]

Sorry, it is veteran's day, can't do Zizek till Monday. If I recall, Zizek has some bizarre Hegelian fantasy of a state that kills God and only becomes a authentic Christian through athiesm or some mumbo jumbo. Watched some videos on this trying to figure out what he was talking about, but it turned out he was talking about nothing. I'm afraid to find he has a mystical side, be the biggest farce out there. He claims to be a communist, blows money not on the impoverished but on luxury rooms in Dubai and Brazilian model wives. No point in digging in deeper to find out what he really means, he merely means "buy my books dumbass, make me richer".

[Nick_A]

EOTH

Metaphysical Repression? Wat dat?

Metaphysical repression is the result of societal influences which deny the normal human attraction to eros or the relative quality of being between God and man. Jacob Needleman describes it in this excerpt from a discussion with Richard Whittaker


http://www.conversations.org/story.php?sid=1

Eros is depicted in Plato's text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy often translates the word "wonder" merely as "curiosity," the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity.
I did learn to play that game, and then to avoid it.

My students at SF State were very hungry for what most of us, down deeply, really want from philosophy. When we honor those unanswerable questions and open them and deepen them, students are very happy about it, very interested in a deep quiet way.

RW: It is really very hard to find that, I believe.

JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.

RW: Fascinating.

JN: It's what I call metaphysical repression. It's in our culture and It's much worse than sexual repression. It represses eros and I think that maybe that's where art can be of help sometimes. Some art…………………

Metaphysical repression can lead to spiritual death. It is why Jesus said to “let the dead bury their dead.”

If the Holy Trinity is a reality, perhaps each created thing is also a unity of the three elemental forces only at a lower speed of vibration and a greater density of matter. Are you open to how Simone Weil describes the third dimension of thought?

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/2 ... ve-of-god/

After a swift primer on the evolution of science from Galileo and Newton to Einstein and Planck, Weil turns to the key culprit in this major rift between classical and contemporary science — our increasing and, she admonishes, increasingly dangerous reliance on mathematical expression as the most accurate expression of reality, flattening and making artificially linear the dimensional and messy relationships of which reality itself is woven:

“What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.”

Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:

“If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.”

That third dimension is that of meaning — one concerned with notions like “the human soul, freedom, consciousness, the reality of the external world.” (Three decades later, Hannah Arendt — another of the twentieth century’s most piercing and significant minds — would memorably contemplate the crucial difference between truth and meaning, the former being the material of science and the latter of philosophy.)

Objective meaning is what unites opposites. This “third dimension” is what provides objective meaning. Atheists will say prove it. But by definition it cannot be proven scientifically. It must be experienced consciously. This is one reason why Simone has become so valuable. She can express this idea of the “hidden third” as described by Dr. Basarab Nicolescu in a way that opens a person to it. I believe that as science begins to open to the hidden third it will become what will allow science and the essence of religion – fact and objective value – to respect each other as necessary in the cause of awakening to objective human meaning and purpose.

Simone Weil wrote:

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing."

Will this mutual understanding become dominant before Man is destroyed by technology? I doubt it but it certainly is worth the effort and Simone’s is a valuable contribution

[EchoesOfTheHorizon]

That's just conflict between the Posterior and Frontal Lobes of the Right Hemisphere. It isn't something most educated atheists would scoff at either, they would know this. You gotta grasp this sort of thing before moving on to more advanced personality types like Ayn Rand, who incorporates those networks as the basis for discussing larger cognitive network issues in society.

I'm not seeing anything stunning in a amazing sense, or horrifying about her thought so far (perhaps on Monday when I look at the Zizek link). One of my favorite Christian theorists on neurology wrote extensively on these parts of the brain, but he makes a lot of the far flung presumptions I mentioned before, too focused on the minutes in his grand theory, then making leaps.

Algebra, by the way, isn't anywhere that destructive. Chinese developed it first, didn't develop the problems as discussed here. That theorist happens to be a math teacher up in Vancouver, I'll link you to his site. He make crappy covers for his books, stopicks to bad terminology he developed back in the 1980s, but other than that, is fairly solid in most brain issues. Just don't always jump on board with his theological presumptionS, feel like that board game from the movie Office Space "Jump To Conclusions" with a lot of what he says, but I have well over a decade in varied typology, and can do it in my sleep, a lot checks out. Haven't found anything really off other than what I pointed out above.

www.mentalsymmetry.com

I'm more likely to stick with a older, medieval theory though just because I like the antiquarian feel of it. They tend to relate, including in modern neurology and psychology.

And yes, I really really do get what you said, it literally is pop culture. They tried to make a TV show out of it, Star Gate Universe, where science and faith came into conflict. These themes are old. Course, Weil is old too, so in fairness, could have some influence. I'm a INTJ Contributor in his thought, so you'll see why I'm going to write off the supreme importance of this concern as a minor thing, as the root of my thought finds conscious genesis right smack in the middle of the conflict you described. I can't but help see it as a simple matter, easily resolved. The conflict would be with Mercy and Percievers in his theory. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a section on Weil by now, he is obsessed with theological writers who wrote on mind issues. If not, mention it, bet he says the exact areas as above, and provides more in depth schematics. His paper of Swedenborg will come close.

[Nick_A]

EOTH

I'm not seeing anything stunning in a amazing sense, or horrifying about her thought so far (perhaps on Monday when I look at the Zizek link). One of my favorite Christian theorists on neurology wrote extensively on these parts of the brain, but he makes a lot of the far flung presumptions I mentioned before, too focused on the minutes in his grand theory, then making leaps.

Simone is a threat to secularism. It is fashionable to consider believers as intellectually challenged so easy for secularism to become intolerant of believers. But it is hard for an intellectual secularist to consider themselves more intelligent than Simone so she is an annoyance. To make matters worse, she lived her beliefs. What philosophers do that? She is considered Plato’s spiritual child so it is easy to read his influence in her writings. Here is the essential reason why she is so hated by secular intolerants. Secularism must believe that values are a result of societal experience. She maintains that values enter man from above.

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

Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation
Profession of Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those minds whose attention and love are turned towards that reality are the sole intermediary through which good can descend from there and come among men.

Although it is beyond the reach of any human faculties, man has the power of turning his attention and love towards it.

Nothing can ever justify the assumption that any man, whoever he may be, has been deprived of this power.

It is a power which is only real in this world in so far as it is exercised. The sole condition for exercising it is consent.

This act of consent may be expressed, or it may not be, even tacitly; it may not be clearly conscious, although it has really taken place in the soul. Very often it is verbally expressed although it has not in fact taken place. But whether expressed or not, the one condition suffices: that it shall in fact have taken place.

To anyone who does actually consent to directing his attention and love beyond the world, towards the reality that exists outside the reach of all human faculties, it is given to succeed in doing so. In that case, sooner or later, there descends upon him a part of the good, which shines through him upon all that surrounds him.

The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also……………………………………..

She goes on to offer many stimulating ideas. It is intolerable for secularism to be open to the distinction between facts as arising with the world and experiential knowledge of the “good” having a higher origin a person can awaken to. Opening to this idea means the demise of secularism and the practice of acquiring conscious attention which opposes secular indoctrination.

How can Simone, a dedicated Marxist and considered one of the most intelligent women in the French Marxist Party ever become open to a reality greater than the party? It is an insult. All of a sudden people believing in the superiority of their intellect are asked to be open to what Socrates meant when he said “I know nothing.”

I’ve learned by personal experience both in real life and on the web that expressions of secular intolerance justified by a belief in the facts of the world to satisfy the needs of the heart to experience objective meaning are dominant in institutions such as secular education. Yet there is also a minority who are open to the distinction she makes between the facts of the world and the higher reality which is the source of values.

I began a thread on Einstein and the Cosmic Man which introduces Einstein’s belief that a human being can acquire a cosmic perspective and not remain limited to the cave perspective taught by society and described in Plato’s cave allegory. It is the same idea. It is the awareness of a higher reality a human perspective can evolve to reflect.

These people will always be rejected in the most hostile and insulting ways possible. They threaten what provides meaning from self justification through intellectualizing. But as Simone said, we have to be willing to annoy the Great Beast in the cause of truth. It’s not easy but when her birthday Feb 3 comes around I will raise a toast to celebrate Simone in recognition that the world has gained from her pursuit of truth regardless of the growls from the Great Beast..

[EchoesOfTheHorizon]

Yeah, this is well trodden in psychology. Your focused heavily, heavily on what he labels Mercy vs Perciever thought. Swedenborg had the most traumatic experience of this within philosophy, caused him to break from being a secular engineer to be engulfed with his visions of another realm, of heaven and earth. The movie "What Dreams May Come" is based on that.

Everyone, including Athiests, use these neural networks, unless you have drain brammage. There is absolutely no way to avoid it. But the idea of secular thinking wasn't always about a sharp contrast against religion. Many of the affairs of life barely touch upon what we categorize formal religion, and I am unaware of a religion that has managed to fully merge the civil tax code and misdemeanor laws into their concept of sin or holy obligations to abide to. Mormons take the constitution as a holy text, but don't say you are more likely for hell if you have more parking tickets than the next guy, or you go to heaven for taking your car insurance options more seriously, getting a better plan. We don't force this, and voluntarily allow for a segregation of the sacred and the secular. Most deeply religious cultures maintain places and certain actions are more sacred in spots or circumstances than others, and in the course of most long lasting religions that have gone on for a few thousand years, it changes a bit from era to era. We no longer make sacrifices to God on our barbecue pits for example. Rites and rituals morph every now and again.

There doesn't have to be a divide in a healthy individual, and one can be quite healthy in this regard as a atheist. I can't blame someone for not perceiving God if they honestly can't, if they are like the rain man, walking around counting tooth pics but unable to associate with other aspects of consciousness. If you just can't feel it, and are uninitiated as well as uninticed by mysticism, I don't hold qualms with them. At the same time however, I'm opposed to the iconoclasm that seeks to destroy, undermine and disrupt everything in society around them. It does indeed signify a rift in the mind, and while you can point to it as always being a religious vs secularism issue, and all too often we find it is, it isn't the case all are butt hurt in the same way, and that they may actually be arguing stuff form a different logic altogether, such as a utilitarian logic and wanting to hammer perceived vice, corruption or graft they see in a religious system.

The reforms of Henry VIII, of the break away form Christianity but with the preservation of the high church forms (for a while) lead to a anti-popism, a geneocide and repression against the Catholics. They call a invasion and long occupation by the Dutch as a Glorious Revolution (some of the best spin on being conquered had having half the country suppressed by military arms in history by the way). That isn't a split as you are describing, and wouldn't be a formula such as you described, one so well known in theories of how the mind works. They may very well be converting to a iconoclastic religion today, one that is bigoted and hateful, intolerant and spiteful.... but this doesn't explain how they went from a rather generic, stable catholic society into a nation of backwards, raving lunatics. That original change wasn't structured on the same basis as they are now, and some today would be quite valid in the incorporation of historical motivations (and thus different mindsets) coupled with modern thinking. They can be highly irrational and self pained in one respect, while holding in the balanced a reasoned alter-ego of history that can justify it in another mode of thought.

This exists in a lot of places, like Turkey. Turkey is very, very proud of "it's history" but it has strong taboos on certain topics, like the Armenian Genocide, or the Kurds. They get every bit as raving mad as you modern secularist. They absolutely will not accept any blame or guilt, those child hood emotions we all have that are generated in the right prefrontal lobe, and will instead concoct a theory as to why it didn't happen as well as why it had to happen, and will stretch it far, far back into history back to the beginnings of Islam if they must.

It isn't very different, and from a western perspective, we wouldn't assert a secular vs religious divide here, even though it is a parallel phenomena. Bill Nye the Science Guy's tarded crusade against Noah's ark at the Kentucky Creation Museum (and that place is silly, I've been there, bizarre, but hardly the worst I've seen of bad science and reasoning) isn't too different from a sectarian religious authority walking around in a rivals temple/church, disgusted by the blasphemy the see, or a racial superiority disgusted with the lives people live in bad neighborhoods, etc. That is a different phenomena than the mere split that happens in the right hemisphere, that leads many to depression. This is pure anger and rage, at seeing something unseemly, from A to B to C to D to E, and denouncing it all as invalid. That isn't the right hemisphere, that is the left acting out. It is logic, but one unreasonable, as it is narrow minded, motivated by disgust and hurt feelings, a sense of being betrayed and threatened by it.

We are always on a verge of a iconoclastic revolt when this brews in men. A throwing down of statues, mutilation of culture, and a growing sense of absolutism in declaring what a absolute and unyielding truth is. You either climb on board with it for just get left to die.

In the case of the English here, it must be emebered they live first and foremost in a Theocracy, the state controls both church and the education system. They've had it drilled into them, no less than any terrorists out of a madrassa, or person walking around in a not too dissimilar Iran, who likewise as well uses a mixed Democratic and a theological structure to control society. They both have a elitist class, that is authoritarian (nobles vs ayatollahs) who set the rules for discourse, and professors and entertainers who reinforce it.

In the US, we only have parts of this, so why it can only take root in a handful of places, and only when backed by political machines. How San Francisco handles it differs substantially in actual practice from Chicago, it isn't as unified as many thinks. They also lack a monopoly on violence like in the U.K. and Iran, so have limits on how far democracy can be degraded, as well as a generally revered written, well studied constitution blocking them in many areas. I don't think we can fully indulged in it as some countries in the old world can.

That rage is going to be expressed not just in the right hemisphere, but when explained and justified by them, with other modes of thinking as well. Not all are raging baboons. Many are, and a few post here, but not all.

And I would also like to point out, at no time in it's history, was the French Communist Party ever important. It was always a joke, and did more harm than good. It was a perpetual source of shitty ideas, not the least what happened with the Khmer Rogue when they adopted the ideas Marxism was floating around in France at that time. It is only because they were in general so poor at inspiring foreign revolutions that most people overlook them. People emulate Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Che across the third world. Not too many are throwing around French thinkers. When it happens, it is absolutely horrifying, like in Cambodia.... but this is thankfully rare. Outside of a few names a philosopher will recognize from the early to mid twentieth century, very few people touch that stuff. I can't take it seriously myself, and am thankful the Francophone world has so very little intellectual influence on the larger landscape of civilization, even within French speaking countries. It was getting really silly for a while with the Marxists and Freudians teaming up together.

[Nick_A]

EOTH

Everyone, including Athiests, use these neural networks, unless you have drain brammage. There is absolutely no way to avoid it. But the idea of secular thinking wasn't always about a sharp contrast against religion. Many of the affairs of life barely touch upon what we categorize formal religion, and I am unaware of a religion that has managed to fully merge the civil tax code and misdemeanor laws into their concept of sin or holy obligations to abide to. Mormons take the constitution as a holy text, but don't say you are more likely for hell if you have more parking tickets than the next guy, or you go to heaven for taking your car insurance options more seriously, getting a better plan. We don't force this, and voluntarily allow for a segregation of the sacred and the secular. Most deeply religious cultures maintain places and certain actions are more sacred in spots or circumstances than others, and in the course of most long lasting religions that have gone on for a few thousand years, it changes a bit from era to era. We no longer make sacrifices to God on our barbecue pits for example. Rites and rituals morph every now and again.

Plato describes the vertical relationship between knowledge and opinions. Knowledge begins with the GOOD and devolves down into opinions. Simone was Plato’s spiritual child so was well aware of this vertical relationship even at an early age which is why she wrote in a letter:

Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. 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……………………….

Simone was attracted to knowledge as Plato described rather than arguing opinions concerning religion vs secularism. She understood the truth of the transcendent unity of religions as explained by Frithjof Schuon in his book The Transcendent Unity Of Religions. Consider the diagram in this link:

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/

Arguments between religion and secularism are part of the exoteric level of reality. However the essence of religion and the unity of its origin enters the earth from the transcendent domain reflecting conscious knowledge. It devolves into the world and is represented by the conditioned opinions normal for the exoteric level. The transcendent and exoteric level are connected by the inner vertical or esoteric direction.

Simone wanted to become capable of transcending opinions in order to experience knowledge. But as is obvious, people prefer as a whole to argue opinions. She advises us to contemplate what is necessary for a seeker of truth to transcend opinions in order to experience knowledge that exists within the transcendent unity of religions at the transcendent level which is totally different from secular interfaith at the exoteric level? We don’t know because we are too busy arguing opinions and denying levels of reality.

[EchoesOfTheHorizon]

Yeah, I'm not going to hold to the need to unify all modes of thinking, much less all religions subsequentially doctrine by doctrine, dogma by dogma. Your imposing a presumption of a mathematical, formulaic union that takes disparate systems and make them progressively one.

That isn't going to work. Jesus' talking to the adulterous woman at the well isn't going to much match up at all with Muhammad's slaying of the Jews at Medina during his rule. These are two fundamentally different stratagems, for very different kinds of ethics, the principles of which can only at a considerable stretch be applied to them for a presumption of ends, but this is problematically still but a projection of your own nature upon God, and not actually knowing God.

You are presuming the ways and means of human thought is etiologically and telelogically the same, as viewed by any one individual. This is highly unlikely given the different personality types in existence, and the wide conflict we have. The medieval desire to unify all the cognitive styles into a more coherent, omniscient higher man has some utility, but that utility doesn't match the professed ends.

Far more likely a Godlike being isn't going to unify different faiths, contained by region and lifestyle, in such a way that it gives a hidden treasure map to understanding him, how he thinks and operates. You'll at best get a better understanding of how men think on a level of cultural anthropology. If I start a large corporation, and have the various administrative departments working to achieve a end for me.... a product and a profit, then a close analysis of the operations of the business isn't going to offer you the ultimate key to understanding me, for who I am as a individual. Studying other businesses not even owned by me isn't going to make your projections more likely to be correct in regards to knowing where I live, my hobbies, my hopes on a individual level. It might increase your insight to economics, or human nature within business.... you might learn a lot about what motivates middle management, but you wouldn't learn much about me, aloof from the day to day administration. Everything you know about me would be presumption. Neither your joy or anger would be justified towards me, gained from your gleamings.

In reference to God, we know a bit more, but not a whole lot. In regards to other religions, such as Krishna running around having orgies and chopping off heads in mass battles, it isn't going to match up too well with a pacifistic religion. They are unlikely to be sourced from the same person, and unifying them esoterically by method X is unlikely to shed great insight to God, all you did was create a new syncretic religion built on questionable foundations. You may develop a lot of concepts from the synthesis, like in comparative religion studies, but given it is esoteric and not widely published, you are unlikely to attract many to the movement, so have less eyes on the problems, less rogues debating the issues. You aren't going to delve too deep into what it could of been had far more people joined, and openly debated the issues.

I simply put can't square away the mass suicide of Heaven's Gate with worship of Ganesha. Different genesis, completely different expectations of the participants, much different ends. I'm not going to bust out the chalk and force a system of unity for them on a black board, declare it a esoteric truth from it, and preach it to the elect (anyone willing to buy into it). We have too many damn fools running about doing that, be it atheists pushing TOEs (Theories of Everything) or a cultist in on the street corner pushing second hand concepts borrowed from The Golden Dawn. The world is too full of not so clever people developing purportedly astounding, genius systems for others to follow.

[Nick_A]

EOTH

Yeah, I'm not going to hold to the need to unify all modes of thinking, much less all religions subsequentially doctrine by doctrine, dogma by dogma. Your imposing a presumption of a mathematical, formulaic union that takes disparate systems and make them progressively one.

That isn't going to work. Jesus' talking to the adulterous woman at the well isn't going to much match up at all with Muhammad's slaying of the Jews at Medina during his rule. These are two fundamentally different stratagems, for very different kinds of ethics, the principles of which can only at a considerable stretch be applied to them for a presumption of ends, but this is problematically still but a projection of your own nature upon God, and not actually knowing God.

This is what happens but isn't what I refer to. Where the purpose of linear binary thought is to reveal new relationships of facts. the purpose of the essence of religion as opposed to its secularized expression, is to enable us to remember what has been forgotten. It is a concept that must be ignored by secularism and if not successful, it must be opposed. This offensive concept is called anamnesis. It is the opposite of indoctrination.

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/words/anamnesis.htm

According to Socrates and Plato, the most important forms of knowledge come not from instruction, but by a re-awakening of already existing dormant or latent knowledge. This is called anamnesis (an- = un-, amnesis = forgetting, as in amnesia; ).

Anamnesis comes in the form of "aha!" experiences -- insights, moments of unusual clarity, peak experiences, etc.

It involves only certain forms of knowledge: moral (e.g., what is goodness?), existential (e.g., what is the authentic 'me'?), spiritual/metaphysical, and mathematical.

Truths understood by anamnesis, valuable in themselves, also serve as first principles for reasoning about oneself and ones life. Conclusions based on these truths are more certain and correct than those based on false opinion (see epoche), which is typically distorted by desires and fears.

Anamnesis, thus, leads to a genuine life, whereas false opinion promotes inauthenticity.
Anamnesis can be elicited by the practice of dialectic.

The exoteric level seeks to unite selective facts in such a way as to create and justify its conception of meaning.The esoteric level admits it knows nothing and seeks to make efforts to "know thyself" so as to "remember" latent knowledge already existing at the transcendent level. You re referring to the futility of bottom up inductive logic which is considered the path to truth for secularization including both religious and political. I am referring to striving for the experience of anamnesis so as to allow for deductive reason necessary for experiencing the world as more than just imagination governing Plato's cave. Sadly it is violently opposed by secularism so only a few have the need and courage and will to make anamnesis possible for them. Simone was one.

[Nick_A]

There is a lot of argument as to whether or not Simone Weil was a feminist. IMO it is a necessary question for saving the spiritual lives of many young women. Modern feminism furthers political indoctrination promoting a shallow mind and heart. Simone provides food for thought and even more important, the feeling of what it means to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” A woman is capable of more than an obsession with secular concepts of gender equality and approved abortions. She can feel objective value that doesn’t come from closing the mind and heart but by opening it to receive the heart felt experience of objective value. This quality makes facts meaningful.

When Julia showed the documentary in Canada it inspired a group of students to form a group to study and to try and feel the value of her ideas. It is the mind opening alternative to the obsession with gender rights and abortions and what should be the goal of feminism.

I live in NY. Next year I’ll contact some women’s clubs in Westchester and see if they are open to showing the film followed by discussion. Julia lives in Brooklyn so she may come and explain her attraction. If this can inspire some meaningful discussion on what it means to contemplate beyond the normal goals of political indoctrination so a woman can come to experience her objective value, such discussions can become useful throughout society. Hey, it’s worth a shot. Must the concept of feminism be restricted to blind indoctrination? If not, those like Simone will provide the alternatives.


http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... mone-weil/

Some have posthumously diagnosed Simone Weil as anorexic––she under ate her whole adult life. I tend to resist that diagnosis because of her strong attraction to the Christian mystics and Christian asceticism more generally. However, there’s no denying a classically “feminine” nature to her activism that led to a sacrifice of self in the interests of another or of a cause. A group of female students in Canada actually formed a group to discuss just that subject after the film screened on their campus last fall. The question of how to engage politically without denying one’s own needs is an active one for women and men alike, especially in an era characterized by increased direct action like we saw with Occupy Wall Street. I’d argue though that women are historically and culturally better positioned to theorize about it.

All this is to say that Simone Weil is an extremely complex figure, who serves as both inspiration and warning. Undoubtedly, she deserves to be read more widely and studied more thoroughly. Eight years after starting An Encounter with Simone Weil, she continues to be my most reliable and nourishing intellectual companion. My humble hope is the film will make her that to more of us, despite her complicated relationship to feminism.

[Nick_A]

How many times have you heard or read about free will? What is it? Who has it? Must it be debated superficially? How many women are capable of opening their minds and hearts to the significance of the question of free will by being aware that a woman actually contemplated these questions rather than obsessing over gender rights and abortions? For example, how did Simone explain free will and how does it relate to Dante’s Divine Comedy?

https://stanfordfreedomproject.com/2014 ... free-will/

Before we can have any meaningful discussion on the existence of free will, we must first specify what it means to have “free will.” The will, according to Simone Weil, is strictly limited to the physical, “associated with the idea of the change of position of near-by objects” (Weil, 116). We can, for instance, will to bike quickly to a class across campus or will to kick a soccer ball to a teammate down the field. We cannot, on the other hand, simply will to be just or will truth into being – the will is inadequate for dealing with these abstractions. Weil posits that objectives that extend beyond the physical, involving ideals such as justice, truth, and freedom, require something more than will, a higher motivation that Weil terms “attention.” In order to gain a comprehensive definition of freedom as it relates to free will, we should examine attention and substitute it for will. Furthermore, we can contrast Buonconte and Guido, two characters from Dante’s Divine Comedy who illustrate the role of attention in making free will possible. By understanding free will in terms of attention, we frame the question of free will in a way that more closely matches what we experience, thus providing a more realistic and concrete foundation for the debate over free will.

Instead of obsessing over abortion rights from a secular perspective how can becoming capable of free will offer a reality above the indoctrinated secular perspective? How can a woman whose life can be affected by abortion profit from opening to the potential for reason beyond what normal feminism offers with the help of women like Simone with the quality of heart and mind capable of more realistic understanding to offer the alternative?

[tbieter]

There is a lot of argument as to whether or not Simone Weil was a feminist. IMO it is a necessary question for saving the spiritual lives of many young women. Modern feminism furthers political indoctrination promoting a shallow mind and heart. Simone provides food for thought and even more important, the feeling of what it means to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” A woman is capable of more than an obsession with secular concepts of gender equality and approved abortions. She can feel objective value that doesn’t come from closing the mind and heart but by opening it to receive the heart felt experience of objective value. This quality makes facts meaningful.

When Julia showed the documentary in Canada it inspired a group of students to form a group to study and to try and feel the value of her ideas. It is the mind opening alternative to the obsession with gender rights and abortions and what should be the goal of feminism.

I live in NY. Next year I’ll contact some women’s clubs in Westchester and see if they are open to showing the film followed by discussion. Julia lives in Brooklyn so she may come and explain her attraction. If this can inspire some meaningful discussion on what it means to contemplate beyond the normal goals of political indoctrination so a woman can come to experience her objective value, such discussions can become useful throughout society. Hey, it’s worth a shot. Must the concept of feminism be restricted to blind indoctrination? If not, those like Simone will provide the alternatives. Nick, please keep me informed on the outcome of this project. Tom


http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... mone-weil/

Some have posthumously diagnosed Simone Weil as anorexic––she under ate her whole adult life. I tend to resist that diagnosis because of her strong attraction to the Christian mystics and Christian asceticism more generally. However, there’s no denying a classically “feminine” nature to her activism that led to a sacrifice of self in the interests of another or of a cause. A group of female students in Canada actually formed a group to discuss just that subject after the film screened on their campus last fall. The question of how to engage politically without denying one’s own needs is an active one for women and men alike, especially in an era characterized by increased direct action like we saw with Occupy Wall Street. I’d argue though that women are historically and culturally better positioned to theorize about it.

All this is to say that Simone Weil is an extremely complex figure, who serves as both inspiration and warning. Undoubtedly, she deserves to be read more widely and studied more thoroughly. Eight years after starting An Encounter with Simone Weil, she continues to be my most reliable and nourishing intellectual companion. My humble hope is the film will make her that to more of us, despite her complicated relationship to feminism.

[Nick_A]

There is a lot of argument as to whether or not Simone Weil was a feminist. IMO it is a necessary question for saving the spiritual lives of many young women. Modern feminism furthers political indoctrination promoting a shallow mind and heart. Simone provides food for thought and even more important, the feeling of what it means to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” A woman is capable of more than an obsession with secular concepts of gender equality and approved abortions. She can feel objective value that doesn’t come from closing the mind and heart but by opening it to receive the heart felt experience of objective value. This quality makes facts meaningful.

When Julia showed the documentary in Canada it inspired a group of students to form a group to study and to try and feel the value of her ideas. It is the mind opening alternative to the obsession with gender rights and abortions and what should be the goal of feminism.

I live in NY. Next year I’ll contact some women’s clubs in Westchester and see if they are open to showing the film followed by discussion. Julia lives in Brooklyn so she may come and explain her attraction. If this can inspire some meaningful discussion on what it means to contemplate beyond the normal goals of political indoctrination so a woman can come to experience her objective value, such discussions can become useful throughout society. Hey, it’s worth a shot. Must the concept of feminism be restricted to blind indoctrination? If not, those like Simone will provide the alternatives. Nick, please keep me informed on the outcome of this project. Tom


http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... mone-weil/

Some have posthumously diagnosed Simone Weil as anorexic––she under ate her whole adult life. I tend to resist that diagnosis because of her strong attraction to the Christian mystics and Christian asceticism more generally. However, there’s no denying a classically “feminine” nature to her activism that led to a sacrifice of self in the interests of another or of a cause. A group of female students in Canada actually formed a group to discuss just that subject after the film screened on their campus last fall. The question of how to engage politically without denying one’s own needs is an active one for women and men alike, especially in an era characterized by increased direct action like we saw with Occupy Wall Street. I’d argue though that women are historically and culturally better positioned to theorize about it.

All this is to say that Simone Weil is an extremely complex figure, who serves as both inspiration and warning. Undoubtedly, she deserves to be read more widely and studied more thoroughly. Eight years after starting An Encounter with Simone Weil, she continues to be my most reliable and nourishing intellectual companion. My humble hope is the film will make her that to more of us, despite her complicated relationship to feminism.

Tom, with your interest why not join the American Weil Society (AWS)? It is only $15 a year and if you attend a colloquy you can meet many highly intelligent people with spiritual depth. The questions raised for the colloquy are a real mind stretch.

http://www.americanweilsociety.org/