I hope you don't mind me butting in but I've experienced a lot of the frustratíon that you might be feeling and have had to give it a lot of thought.
It's certainly true that Arising has failed to understand what you were saying. All his objections come from the very approach that you have seen through and left behind. While you are trying to point out new horizons, he still has his head turned in the opposite direction...nameless.. wrote:Sorry, you really don't understand what I offer, it is very clear to me by your feedback!
You are, of course, premature in your dismissal and pedantic demeanor! No problem.
He is simply bound to misunderstand you. To see, as you do, that the false is as true as the true is simply unfathomable to someone who thinks that there is truth and falsehood and that the two stand in distinction from each other. Your vision is illogical to him, and because it is illogical it must be rejected.
Even though there is a logic to what you say, in my opinion the highest possible logic, it is in direct opposition to the old laws of non-contradiction.
Arising is both the best and worst possible conversation partner. he is the best because he is at least a thinker and willing to engage with you. Most people aren't thinkers and so will simply ignore you. He is the worst because he thinks he understands you and is in a position to offer feedback. Not only is this hubris on his behalf, but it proves a considerable barrier to him ever stopping and questioning his own complacency.
Philosophical argument can't communicate what you have seen - the laws you describe yourself as stumbling upon. I don't think it is in your power, or anyone's power to pass on what you know.
You are right about this. But yet you argue vociferously for just one - your perspectivalism. It's a shame that Arising can't see what you are arguing. But in the meantime you can sit serene and know that you even transcend and see through your own argument. That your perspectivalism is just the equal and opposite to Arising's absolutism...nameless.. wrote:I find that we are simply two equal and opposite Perspectives.
Arising is, as thinkers go, a pretty good thinker. His world view is as grand and as securely rooted as world views go. He isn't some petty chauvinist but learned and reflective...nameless.. wrote:The difference is that your vision is so restricted that you can only see your Perspective as 'right' and any 'others' as 'wrong'.
The only real difference is that i accept all Perspectives as Reality, you only accept your's.
And yet you can see how restricted he is!
Even the so-called greatest minds can seem paltry and cramped to those who have seen true wisdom. I understand how you might wish to lend a hand, show them the error of their ways. It's a kind of mortification when you realise that you aren't even able to do even that. But the answer is to see the butterfly rather than the death of the caterpillar.
Ignorance has a rightness to it, ultimately. The deluded can be accepted and endorsed. The blackbird dare not eat a perfectly tasty, harmless hoverfly because it is striped like a hornet. Delusion! But what is bad for the blackbird is good for the hoverfly.
People are shaped by their delusions, their blindness. It is delusion and blindness that allows a baker to bake bread all his life. It is his passion, his consolation, but also his delusion - he does not see what else life has to offer and isn't interested.
The wisdom you have isn't for everyone. And don't go getting prideful or even embarrassed by your achievements. There are times when wisdom such as yours can feel pretty unattractive. There's a verse in the Tao Te Ching, no 20:
To enjoy the sacrificial ox fully you have to believe in what the ox was sacrificed for. The meaning and symbolism of the moment has to full you with grandeur and glory. When you gain wisdom what pleases others, and perhaps yourself once, no longer does it for you. You see through such petty superstitions and there is a part of you that might lament that.Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.
Is there a difference between yes and no?
Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsence!
Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting not knowing where I am.
Like a new-born babe before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.
Other have more than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.
Other men are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Other men are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea.
Without direction, like the restless wind.
Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.
You are unlikely to contribute to the horror of the world, but be careful not to see the horror of the world as horror. When you do you will have lost your vision and are liable to start adding to the horror...nameless.. wrote:That error has a long list of subscribers, and has treated the world to the horror that it is for most people today.
There's a danger to thinking that the world is due for some kind of future bliss once we leave behind our current ways. The wise have been in the minority in the past as they are in the present. Why think the future will be any different? Once you accept and endorse ignorance in others there will be no need to hope for its abolition in the future.
Yes, very true. The irony here is that there are huge swathes of western philosophy that Arising is unable to understand. But it is because he doesn't understand some bits that he is able to believe that he he does. For example, it is because he doesn't understand idealism that he is able to confidently assert that:..nameless.. wrote:The intelligent ones make sure that they understand before arguing. After understanding something, there is rarely a need to 'argue' in the first place.
Understanding works like that.
This isn't a given, not by any means, and there are many great philosophers: Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer who have pointed this out. But for some reason Arising hasn't heard them. He may have read them and understood them to a point. But has never actually seen with his wisdom that they are making a point as valid as what he says in his quote above. And so he continues to be stuck in opposition to them. And only those who are stuck in opposition are convinced that they know the truth and presume to educate others.Arising_uk wrote:Given that because we are a body with senses in a reality we do not perceive reality at all and if Kant is right we never can.
To be willing to understand and to be able to understand are, as you suggest, the same thing. Arising is not willing because he is not able. It takes something very remarkable, miraculous even to be able to take your deepest beliefs and see that they are, in a sense, just opinions. Where or why this ability comes who knows? It is not from logical argument even though the recipients are often expert logicians. And then following on there is the really world changing insight that actually anything we think is, of necessity, just an opinion - just one side of an intellectual coin. Everything that seem most certain is actually just an opinion, a point of view. Reality, as intellectually conceived melts before our eyes. Leaving only what...Reality...nameless.. wrote:If only you'd learned anything from the last few millennia, you would be able to understand that which you refuse (ego?) to even attempt to understand, or are incapable (is there a difference?) of understanding.
It takes intelligence, dilligence, and what feels like immense personal courage to actually take this vision seriously. If Arising has his limits then that must be accepted, what else can you do? If he has the ears to hear he would have had heard you early on, just as I did.
With my best wishes, Nikolai