Beyond Good and Evil

For the discussion of philosophical books.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Non Sum
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by Non Sum » Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:45 am

Sally: I think he's only writing for the free spirits.

NS: I don't get the sense that he desires only to preach to the choir. He's far to eager to instruct, destruct, and indicate 'a better way.' He would have us all 'become' free spirits.

Sally: he seems to be at complete opposites to the Buddhist outlook on life.

NS: He does speak against it, and mysticism in general, but then offers plenty of examples of how poorly he understands them. So, what he opposes ends up being only the errors people have regarding Buddhist and Mystical thought.

At times he comes off quite the unconscious Buddhist, himself. Such as when he mentions the "synthetic concept 'I'." He even goes further with: "our body is nothing but a social structure of many souls." The idea of a false self comprised of many distinct parts ("a happy community") (e.g. parable of the chariot) is markedly Buddhist.

Sally: It's almost like they both see the meaninglessness in universal contentment, but tackle it in opposite ways: buddhists slip out of the meaningless life, "free spirits" make life meaningful

NS: Buddhists speak a good deal about 'Liberation' (freeing of spirit) as a freedom from the delusion of suffering. They would have you Awaken from a nightmare, rather than manufacture meanings to justify your continued sufferings within it. N wisely wishes to break the slave's chains to old dogmas, but leaves them enslaved to admitted illusions. If the self concept is false, as he appears to admit ("old famous 'I' is, to put it mildly, only a supposition"), then who are we to "make life meaningful" for?
His "freedom" is an ant hill to a Buddhist mountain.

Hi S9 (good to see you again :) ,
S9: Some have said that these habitual thoughts, we love so dearly, often cloud our minds rather than facilitate the clarity necessary in order to look directly at what is.

NS: Good point. Buddhism and N are identical in this 'habit breaking.' N singles out several (e.g. dualistic morality, will, self) that Buddhism would agree with. It just goes further in its liberation efforts than he does. It's a pure pity that N did not understand transcendental metaphysics. I think he would have appreciated it as a going 'over' even the 'Overman.'

sally
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:29 pm

Post by sally » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:20 am

He would have us all 'become' free spirits.
Would even the slaves in Nietzsche's society be free spirits (because as tools for the supermen, aren't they an integral part of the system?). Maybe the book could help all people to see their proper place in society, according to Nietzsche, so they understand and accept the new structure more?
who are we to "make life meaningful" for?
Well, this is one of the parts of Nietzsche's philosophy that I don't understand (although I might be changing the context a little here). He places a huge emphasis on "greatness", and seems to value greatness for itself. I fail to see the value of greatness if it doesn't improve human emotions. You can't just say that by definition greatness is good, because Nietzsche, I think, hated that sort of grammatical proof. What is good in greatness? According to Nietzsche? Why can't happiness be greatness?

Nietzsche does talk about a higher, energetic, overwhelming happiness in the free-spirit aristocrats... I'm not sure if this is the good that he sees as justifying his means though.

On a different issue...
Nietzsche seems to see empathy as wholly negative, as dragging down our potential greatness by distracting our energies to less important matters/ people. I think empathy is really vital. It can be positive for us, because we share in other peoples' happiness, and although we also share in their suffering this impels us to try to relieve that suffering (and if we manage to do so, we feel even more happiness on their behalf because of our personal input). Nietzsche's ideal society would seemingly need a lack of empathy, but I think that without empathy we'd be missing out on so much happiness (and progressive struggle).

Your thoughts

Sally

Non Sum
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by Non Sum » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:54 pm

Hi Sally,
Has everyone else gone off to read BG&E? Hopefully, they aren't waiting until they've read it in it's entirety. :?

S: Would even the slaves in Nietzsche's society be free spirits

NS: That would seem a bit contradictory; though Epictetus may have made that work. I thought N was advocating that all of us should throw off our chains, and the old order die outright. The select few at first would only signify as the harbingers of a new age.

S: He places a huge emphasis on "greatness", and seems to value greatness for itself. What is good in greatness? According to Nietzsche?

NS: N is only calling the persons whose style he advocates as being "great." What would you have him call them, "inferior fools"? In Book Four, Chapter 5, of 'The Will to Power,' N discusses: "The Great Human Being." He goes into five pages defining just what that Being is disposed to Be. It has nothing to do with some sort of stereotypical "great man/woman," a Caesar, Sapho or Newton. N proclaims his ideal human "great" simply because they exemplify the qualities he deems "good."

I was pleased to see N was wise enough to recognize that his model human would "necessarily be a Skeptic."
(If you don't have access to a copy of 'WTP,' I can give you more details regarding specific characteristics, should you wish it.)

S: I think empathy is really vital. It can be positive for us, because we share in other peoples' happiness, and although we also share in their suffering this impels us to try to relieve that suffering

NS: Is it always the case that you wish to share empathetically? If some religious fanatic agonizes over the harm infidels bring to God's holy cause, or revels in their murder, do you wish to join them in their narrow-minded ignorance? N, not unlike Buddha, takes a good deal of human suffering, and joy, as being based upon unreasoned standards--often pure ignorance. To get down and wallow with the pigs over 'valuable' garbage only demeans you, and confuses the pigs.

N is indicating the obvious, i.e. if your standards & values are radically different from those of others (the herd), then necessarily your ability, and desire, to empathize is going to suffer. How could you help it not to be the case?

S: but I think that without empathy we'd be missing out on so much happiness (and progressive struggle).

NS: It may be significant that Buddha supposedly felt "compassion," rather than empathic sharing, for the benighted masses. It is easier to feel sorry for the religious fanatic/terrorist, or a child heartbroken over a burst balloon, than it is to get down empathetically into their unreasoned passions with them.

miss lewis
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:21 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Post by miss lewis » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:08 pm

I am here and just started reading, sorry, working too but I have been reading and reading what you all have been discussing. Will follow up with questions/comments soon. :lol:

Subjectivity9
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:27 pm

BG+E

Post by Subjectivity9 » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:44 pm

Hi Folks,

I wonder if N doesn’t differentiate between the inner man and the outer man when he speaks of free spirits, aka the fellows who allow themselves to question everything, even what they themselves might finally think of as truth?

Perhaps we are capable of far more violence, for instance, than it would be practical to carry out outwardly. Yet to deny these inclinations within our selves might make use of these energies needlessly by running away and hiding from these revelations within ourselves. Would it not be better to own these energy and redirect them into profitable endeavors?

So he says, do not be a slave to convention. Do not cut yourself off from your very self. Remain whole and thereby remain free.

What possibility for greatness do we have when cutting ourselves off at the knees? We must use all of ourselves outside of these cages that define the good.

Thanks for listening,
S9

Non Sum
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by Non Sum » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:57 pm

Hi S9,
S9: ... free spirits, aka the fellows who allow themselves to question everything, even what they themselves might finally think of as truth?

NS: Are you saying: 'Free' even from the shackles of their own best reasoning? Where would that land you, I wonder: your own 2nd best reasoning, someone else's reasoning (for better or worse). Wouldn't the end result inevitably be a rampant skepticism that must remain forever skeptical of itself and never able to come to land anywhere? Even Fred didn't pull that off.

S9: So he says, do not be a slave to convention. Do not cut yourself off from your very self. Remain whole and thereby remain free.

NS: Yes, he does say that, yet so much of our thought is conventionally conditioned and ingrained. We are largely products of our time and culture; infected carriers that are ourselves convention itself. So, how does convention detach itself from convention without doing so conventionally?

"A great man, did you say? All I ever see is the actor creating his own ideal image." (BG&E 97)

Subjectivity9
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:27 pm

bg+e

Post by Subjectivity9 » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:05 pm

Hi NS,

NS: Are you saying: 'Free' even from the shackles of their own best reasoning?

S9: Perhaps N is saying not to allow the seeming impossibility of something keep you from chipping away at our own arrogance of mind, the whole idea that we are capable of possessing ultimate truth. Of course we would have to use our own reasoning as a major tool in doing such a thing. But is this up to the task? Perhaps this is a philosophy that is meant to be self-destructive.

Can we do such a thing? Can we pull down the mind, while associating ourselves as that being who is living within the mind? Although N busily bloodies himself raw by means of his hammer, one must question if he himself is able to stand outside of the edifice he is pulling down around himself.

Where is he standing while pulling the mind down, and is he not holding on to that particular spot?

If N followed this reasoning, purely to its natural end, I believe he would end up much like an advance practitioner of Zen…in the “Don’t know mind.” Is this the end position or is it the beginning position, where he might acquaint himself with transcendence? [Is this a blind spot for him?]

Perhaps he like so many before, might see with further clarity, that the mind is not the end tool for discovering ultimate truth.


NS: Yes, he does say that, yet so much of our thought is conventionally conditioned and ingrained. We are largely products of our time and culture; infected carriers that are ourselves convention itself. So, how does convention detach itself from convention without doing so conventionally?

S9: Perhaps by scrapping everything and starting over from scratch. “What can I myself see directly?” I wonder if there are not many levels of truth? Relative truth must be used in dealing with earthly practicalities.

I find myself wondering how you might answer your own question here.

Out on a limb and foolishly sawing behind me…eek!

S9

mhoraine
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:32 pm

Post by mhoraine » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:05 pm

Non Sum wrote: "A great man, did you say? All I ever see is the actor creating his own ideal image." (BG&E 97)
Hi again

Well, I've been trying to get a fix on the Fred-man. I found Wikipedia useful in gaining a quick sense of background and main ideas.

I admit to having skipped to the 'Maxims and Interludes' part, having struggled with 'The Religious Nature'.
Funny thing, NS, but when I read the quote above, last night in bed, I immediately thought of you !

Another one which stood out for me was no.70 -
' If one has character one also has one's typical experience which recurs again and again.'

I questioned it - and yet didn't - I can see how we tend to have cycles of similar behavior but....shouldn't our reactions change in the light of experience ? Wouldn't a person of character learn and develop ?
So, what is he talking about here ?

Oh, yes...I've also been looking at my appendix...to 'Thus Spake Zarathustra'....hoping to glean more info on N's thoughts.

Non Sum, I was inspired by your quote from Thus spake Z. ( Sunday ), where can I find it ?
I'm enjoying N's wordplay. Wish I'd underlined the bits and pieces I smiled at.

Tempting attempter.

Non Sum
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by Non Sum » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:14 pm

Hi S9,
RE:NS: So, how does convention detach itself from convention without doing so conventionally?
S9: Perhaps by scrapping everything and starting over from scratch.

NS: "Starting over" isn't an option, since both the "scrapping," and the "starting," would themselves be performed by an incurably conventional infected mind.

S9: how you might answer your own question here.

NS: I thought I already suggested it, i.e. one becomes infinitely skeptical of all ideas, not excluding one's own skepticism. It's either that, or selling out to one faith or another; which is nothing more than self-delusion. As Anthony deMello put it: "Every time you cling to something to stop your self from falling, understand that it is falling too."

Hi Mhoraine,
Here we are, once again, burning another book together. Always a pleasure.

M: Funny thing, NS, but when I read the quote above, last night in bed, I immediately thought of you !

NS: I'm glad I wasn't quoting from 'The Satanic Bible.'
I'd make a poor "actor," since I still have no idea what my role is, and my lines arrive only as I speak them. I'm more of a sock puppet.

M: shouldn't our reactions change in the light of experience ? Wouldn't a person of character learn and develop ?
So, what is he talking about here ?

NS: I'd agree with you, but N has his "eternal recurrence" thing going. Perhaps, even within his present life he felt himself stuck on a treadmill, which gives him the impression that next life(s) will just continue to be more of the same; wheels within wheels, all wheeling the same round. Sort of Hindu-ish.

M: your quote from Thus spake Z. ( Sunday ), where can I find it ?

NS: 'On the Vision and the Riddle,' part 1.

M: Wish I'd underlined the bits and pieces I smiled at.

NS: Shall I send you a pencil? Books (not borrowed ones) should be marked up like mad. Then it's not just the author's book anymore, it's yours.

mhoraine
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:32 pm

Post by mhoraine » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:49 pm

Thanks Non Sum

Found the Z. quote...eventually....in my copy, Third Part, XLVI, Pt1 - the Vision and the Enigma.
I have the Thomas Common translation, I much prefer your one - which is it ?

Thanks, too, for the offer of a pencil. One with a rubber at the end, would be much appreciated. Although nibbling ain't the same without the taste of lead.

M.

Now to get back to BG&E...

Subjectivity9
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:27 pm

BG+E

Post by Subjectivity9 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:58 am

Hi Folks,

In reading the editors introduction of ‘On the Genealogy of Morals’ trans. Walter Kaufmann. Walter said that the Genealogy was meant to further explain Beyond Good and Evil. [Heaven knows I can use any help that comes along.]

I am going to give the Genealogy a look/see, because I don’t know about you all, but I find myself wishing that Fred would get into a bit more detail, instead of brushing over things a bit too quickly for my taste.

His writing makes me think of when an ancient master said, “It is because you are looking at my finger, instead of where I am pointing.”

Is Fred not coming right out and telling us everything we need to know, but rather telling us where to start looking? Just maybe this is the case. Maybe Fred isn’t writing for beginners like myself. Smile!

Hi Sally,

S: Would even the slaves in Nietzsche's society be free spirits.

S9: See this is the question right off the top. What is freedom and where does it abide? Has it got anything to do with society, and societies little dance, or is it far more intimate than that? I get the feeling that N doesn’t think of freedom as being a part of the fabric of society, so much as something we get in our teeth like a pit bull and refuse, no matter what, to let go of. In other words, we give freedom to ourselves. It's a way of being.

Hi NS,

When I said that we could scrap everything and start over from scratch, I was thinking of Lao Tzu who said, “I spent the first half of my life learning, and the second half forgetting all that I learned." I can’t begin to tell you how applicable that is within my own life.

It is not so much what travels through your mind that is the problem. It is what we hold on to and declare to be true without any thought to the why.


NS: "Starting over" isn't an option, since both the "scrapping," and the "starting," would themselves be performed by an incurably conventional infected mind.

S9: I read somewhere that 'perspective' was a favorite word of our mutual friend Fred. So maybe we don’t so much expect us to scrap convention, but just look at [re-cognize] conventional wisdom from a different perspective. In this way it becomes the stuff with which we build our new ideas. Even these however should be held lightly and looked further into. Ideas as a road, rather than a destination.


HI mhoraine,

M: Shouldn't our reactions change in the light of experience? Wouldn't a person of character learn and develop?

S9: If Fred where to answer you, I believe that he might rather do it with a question. Like he might say, "How do you even know there is such a thing as character?"

"If there is such a thing as character, would it develop by taking things on as definition or rather by throwing things off?" Maybe everything we think we know at some point actually becomes a cage, especially when held overlong.

Well enough mischief on my part, Smile,

S9

sally
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:29 pm

Post by sally » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:23 am

Hi everyone. Thanks for all your posts, they're sooo interesting and such a good distraction from all the work I'm meant to be doing... eek :o

NS
they exemplify the qualities he deems "good."
And they are good because they can do great things with society, and be great in themselves?... But does he explain why he ascribes the word “great” to certain qualities in individuals and societies? Or is he more saying- take these great people and let us see what great things they can do with society?

NS
Is it always the case that you wish to share empathetically?
I think it’s good to try to experience many emotions and thoughts, even negative ones, as long as you can also pull yourself out of them. Its good to understand how the religious fanatic feels towards infidels, but after feeling it and thinking through that position, we’d probably decide its not how we want to live all the time. It broadens your understanding to have gone through the process, I feel.

NS
if your standards & values are radically different from those of others (the herd), then necessarily your ability, and desire, to empathize is going to suffer
I don’t think you are unable to empathise well in this situation, although granted it may be considerably difficult. Empathiging should always aid your understanding, even of your own values, so should our leaders be eager to empathise? Of course, it doesn’t always take emotional empathy to understand someone’s view point, but in general the world make a lot more sense when you can empathise with people.

S9
free spirits, aka the fellows who allow themselves to question everything, even what they themselves might finally think of as truth
In order to properly question everything in this way. Wouldn’t they need considerable empathy? Without empathy they can’t experience and understand everything TO question it. (aimed more at NS)

OK enough of empathy...

S9
What possibility for greatness do we have when cutting ourselves off at the knees?
I don’t agree with the way you approach the question of wholeness and greatness. We have conflicting potentials e.g. the capacity to do great harm, and the capacity to be extremely loving and peaceful. We’re not “cutting ourselves off at the knees” if we chose the second. We are simply choosing one path in life over another. And then…

S9
We must use all of ourselves
There is no reason that just because we have a certain characteristic, it should be in any way a beneficial characteristic. Some may well be degenerative, so I don't think that overcoming them makes us less great, or even less whole. It simply changes the way we develop.

NS/N
"A great man, did you say? All I ever see is the actor creating his own ideal image." (BG&E 97)
But isn’t it better to try to find an ideal image to work towards, rather than blindly following our every instinct and inclination? Additionally, as soon as we are making a conscious, purposeful decision about how to act, we have to have SOME end aim in mind, and so in some way isn’t this always going to be our “ideal image”?

S9
Can we pull down the mind, while associating ourselves as that being who is living within the mind?... Where is he standing while pulling the mind down, and is he not holding on to that particular spot?
NS "
Starting over" isn't an option, since both the "scrapping," and the "starting," would themselves be performed by an incurably conventional infected mind.
I agree… and I would like to hear your opinion on what is “the end tool for discovering ultimate truth” if not the mind? And what sort of truth are you talking about hear?
“It is because you are looking at my finger, instead of where I am pointing.”
S9
Is Fred not coming right out and telling us everything we need to know, but rather telling us where to start looking?
I think this is in part what he’s doing. But I think his style is how it is because he doesn’t feel the need to draw a logical argument for everything- a lot of it is actually more descriptive than argumentative. I get the impression that he’s cutting away the drapes that the herd has hung in the way of the true picture of humanity, and in doing so making the "truth" available for us to see... Yes, maybe just so we know that it's there, where it was previously hidden, should we decide to look.

S9
Ideas as a road, rather than a destination.
I reckon that practically, this is realistic… but don’t we all really want to form beliefs that are true? Where is our motivation for attempting to improve our beliefs if we accept that they are never going to be valid? I realise that’s not a rational argument for not accepting that position, but is it an emotional response that we can overcome by seeing the true destination? What is that destination, in your opinion?

And please can I steal this quote for my signiture?

"Every time you cling to something to stop yourself from falling, understand that it is falling too"

Merci, sorry it's so long and unhelpful for all but me... :oops:

Sally :D

mhoraine
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:32 pm

Post by mhoraine » Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:02 am

Great questions Sally, and very helpful in moving the discussion along.
My head is fair birling with it all....but I'm really enjoying this thread.

a lot to chew over....but in the meantime I have dropped a few of N's thoughts in to the 'Philosophy of Mind' forum, under 'Slap and yell'.

M.

Subjectivity9
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:27 pm

BG+E

Post by Subjectivity9 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:12 pm

Hi Sally,

Isn’t the whole concept of ‘society’ a hybrid produced within our conceptual mind? To dedicate each individual life towards the betterment of society, [Was that what N was doing?], may just be spinning daydreams. This is especially true if we don’t consider the good of each individual as the far more important thing.

Is this where we are supposed to give up our freedom, by keeping in mind 'the good of all' as being more important than myself? Could there really be a 'great society' made up of thousands of unhappy and unfulfilled individuals?

Perhaps there is room for my good, and for your good, and that other guy over there’s good. Perhaps good isn’t the same as homogenous. Smile!

Does empathy pick up on the nuances of thought, or does it rather pick up on the feelings of emotion? So we might empathize into feeling the passions of N, but would it unravel his thought patterns for us?


RE: S9:
What possibility for greatness do we have when cutting ourselves off at the knees?
RE: S:
We have conflicting potentials e.g. the capacity to do great harm, and the capacity to be extremely loving and peaceful. We’re not “cutting ourselves off at the knees” if we chose the second. We are simply choosing one path in life over another.

S9: Let us speak about where this freedom is taking place. Is it not within the mind? It is in refusing to consider every possibility that we cut ourselves off at the knees. Every thought is not also necessarily an act.

When we define ourselves as incapable of considering any act, we are wishful thinking are we not? Is it always the other guy that is the monster, and we being “special” are always the angel? [Not withstanding the great human capacity for justification.]

RE: S9:
We must use all of ourselves
RE: S:
There is no reason that just because we have a certain characteristic, it should be in any way a beneficial characteristic. Some may well be degenerative, so I don't think that overcoming them makes us less great, or even less whole. It simply changes the way we develop.

S9: Yes, but this just begs the question about how we overcome things. Is it by putting ourselves in denial that these parts of ourselves go away? Or is it rather by embracing our anger, for instance, and resurrecting it as passion or even as creativity, that we use all of our selves.

S: As soon as we are making a conscious, purposeful decision about how to act, we have to have SOME end aim in mind, and so in some way isn’t this always going to be our “ideal image?”

S9: Wouldn’t this holding on so tightly to any idea be a form of dogmatism? I believe that N spits when he says this word. Dogma…spit! Whereas when we remain flexible and responsive to everything as it comes about, we are more able to respond to circumstances as they are and not as we have declared they should be. [Can we not trust our selves as being capable of meet fate as it happens, without the need of a previously built up arcenal?]


I, for one, like to view truth as a growing thing…as our capacity to clarify and widen takes place, so truth remains the apical growth of this plant.


S: Don’t we all really want to form beliefs that are true?

S9: Yes, that seems to be a human inclination. We want the solidness of a constant truth to hold onto. N says this is a form of seeking comfort. N also says that if you really want to seek after truth, you had better get used to the pain that comes along with such striving. Standing completely alone, and not knowing anything at/all for sure, must certainly be viable seeds for fear.


S: Where is our motivation for attempting to improve our beliefs if we accept that they are never going to be valid?

S9: It is not that they prove themselves to be invalid. It is more that they are only temporarily valid in this world of constant change. Truth is forever becoming at this reality level.


S: What is that destination, in your opinion?

S9: Perhaps our only destination is the very next step we are about to take. Should we always be out there running ahead of ourselves in this future living? Isn’t this present moment quite complicated enough to deserve our full attention?

Thanks for the good questions,
S9

Non Sum
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by Non Sum » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:37 pm

Mhoriane: I have the Thomas Common translation, I much prefer your one - which is it ?

NS: I wish I knew. :?
That particular quote, I quoted from a quote in my BG&E intro. When you asked where to find it in TSZ, I searched my Kaufmann copy (which is also a much poorer version of that quote). Sorry, but if you ever find out, please let me know too.

S9: I get the feeling that N doesn’t think of freedom as being a part of the fabric of society, ... we give freedom to ourselves.

NS: I very much agree; as would the Stoics.

S9: When I said that we could scrap everything and start over from scratch, I was thinking of Lao Tzu who said, “I spent the first half of my life learning, and the second half forgetting all that I learned."

NS: I can't argue with Master Lao's preference for selecting what suits our own tastes, rather than what was previously chosen for us; like coming of age in a restaurant. But, even Lao must realize that our early diet helped to shape (positively & negatively) "our" current tastes, and that the possibility menu we must select from is never our own creation.

Sally: Without empathy they can’t experience and understand everything TO question it. (aimed more at NS)
Empathising should always aid your understanding,

NS: The "understanding" requisite to intelligently question does not require my sharing their passion, but only their information. 'Passion' for something we are all familiar with already. So, that is not so hard to extrapolate onto another. Nor does their personal enthusiasm improve their supportive case, but is rather, irrelevant to it.

S: But isn’t it better to try to find an ideal image to work towards, rather than blindly following our every instinct and inclination?

NS: Your 'either/or' lacks reasonable options, of which their must be many. Even the choice of an 'ideal image' must ultimately be a function of our instinct and inclination, no?

S: Additionally, as soon as we are making a conscious, purposeful decision about how to act, we have to have SOME end aim in mind, and so in some way isn’t this always going to be our “ideal image”?

NS: A 'decision' need not be something so permanent or grand as creating an 'ideal image' each time we make one. A decision may only be that, a momentary 'decision.' Most of my decisions are of the nature of, 'ham or egg salad' (must be close to lunch time), not, 'Lao Tse or Confucius.' Even when I am deciding between the latter two, it too is as momentary as a ham sandwich, and just as based on simple taste.

S: And please can I steal this quote for my signature?

NS: The monk, deMello, is dead now, I believe. But, I'm sure the idea would have pleased him.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests