A_uk
At the age Einstein was talking about he would have meant rote learning with no play learning but we don't do that in my country anymore, maybe they do it in yours but then that'd mean your 'great beast' only applies to your country which I suspect it does as I suspect you are from the US and the 'great beast' is consumer capitalism with neo-liberalism applied to education. Although this is ironic as it's pretty much what Plato advocated, i.e. state education although it does differ wildly as he thought the early years should use the arts and play to teach and only later should reasoning be taught. However his aim was pretty much the same, to produce citizens in the service of the state with each at the level suitable for their abilities although he was far from the American system as it was to be free and based upon merit not cash.
Weil gets the term "Great Beast" from Plato. Specifically, this passage from Book VI of his Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society):
I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...
Society, the "mighty strong beast." There's the obvious power of many hands working together. But Plato points to a deeper, pseudo-moral power of the many, the group. Weil also describes this:
The power of the social element. Agreement between several men brings with it a feeling of reality. It brings with it also a sense of duty. Divergence, where this agreement is concerned, appears as a sin. Hence all returns to the fold are possible. The state of conformity is an imitation of grace.
Because of this imitation, this substitution for God, Weil says things like, "The social order is irreducibly that of the prince of this world." And connects society, the many, the crowd, with "the world" that Jesus spoke against so often. For example, in his prayer in John 17:
"I have manifested your name to the men who you gave me out of the world... I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those who you have given me...
"I have given them your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."
While people should serve the needs of the state, the state should serve the “GOOD” as described by Plato. Secularism forgets about the source of everything and adopts the role of the good and left to its own devices can only produce the results of hypocrisy. Where a philosopher King should govern a Platonic society, an anti-christ capable of projecting a charismatic image must be the ideal leader of a secular society worshiping image..
Capitalism is just a tool. The problem is the fallen human condition living by imagination which perverts the tool.
The human condition is what makes you live as a plurality often in opposition to yourself rather than as inner unity. ...
You'll have to clarify?
We receive the external world by means of intellect, emotion, and sensation. They would act as ONE, as inner unity united by consciousness for evolved individuals. They do not function as one with cave men. They are connected by imagination taking the place of consciousness. In this fallen state we can be thinking one thing while feeling another and sensing something else all at the same time. Imagination enables us to accept it as normal.
But we're not 'inhuman' are we, just human with all it's faults. Although there's an irony there as it's having a 'cosmic perspective' or a 'greater good above and beyond' that tends to lead to such actions is my opinion.
Is an acorn an oak tree or the seed of an oak with the potential for becoming an oak? Only a very small amount of acorns become oaks. The great majority are consumed by the earth and animals that dwell on the earth
Conscious evolution offers the potential for man on earth to consciously evolve into a higher quality of being much like an acorn becomes an oak mechanically. Like acorns, only a rare few men on earth reach the height of Man’s conscious evolution.
Einstein is talking about the lawlike laws of Physics, not some 'God' but if he was it'd be Spinoza's 'God' and 'intelligence' is not applicable in the way you wish it.
Since I’ve explained over and over that I believe in Plotinus’ concept of the ONE and Panentheism that asserts the source both outside of the limitations of time and space but simultaneously within the universe within time and space I can’t see why you’ve written this.
Hard to say as you are very coy about expressing it but at a guess I'd say a pantheism of the christian 'God' with a mystical telephone and a great big hierarchy where one must know their place.
Christianity doesn’t have a personal god. You are thinking of Christendom or man made Christianity which is probably the cause of your justified concern for blind obedience to an unjust god.
Of course there are the exceptions not content with secular slavery but instead insist on opening to the potential for awakening to become what they are and acquire a human perspective. ...
Let me guess! That'll be you would it?
I hope so. I don’t see the advantage of either blind belief or blind denial. What is the crime in consciously awakening to reality even if it is so annoying?
They are an annoyance as generally they can't walk their talk and given I believe in the cock-up theory and the law of unintended consequences they generally cause more harm than good as they apparently cannot get their message over in a form that is reproducible by the average pleb.
Very true. But what of those like Simone Weil who walked the talk? They lived their philosophy. She has opened many eyes not by intent but by her personal efforts. Those like T.S Eliot and Albert Camus spent their own money organizing and publishing her essays and personal letters not for profit but because they felt their value. She had the ability to transmit an awakening influence because of the purity of her writings.
Water seeks its own level. There is a minority unwilling to either blindly believe or deny but are driven to experience objective human meaning and purpose that doesn’t arise from the earth. They are open to receive from above through intuition. I support their efforts whenever possible.