Born Again?

[Serendipper]

This is a very old idea constantly repeated in this way or that making it hard to miss its meaning. But for me many guru sayings are trivial and just short of meaningless. One never "dies" to an old idea, though it sounds superficially profound, because then you have nothing to proceed from. We advance from error and errors in judgement by degrees of refinement, the prior steps to the ones that follow. and not to be forgotten. We seldom proceed in leaps, though we often use that word, but from the gradient of an inclined plane. That's the reason I wrote re Gurdjieff that the sentiment remains valid though the experience may never have occurred.

Dying to an old idea is a fallacy but people are free to think or imagine as they like. Philosophy has more to with sweating out ideas than leaps of revelation!

So what do you make of the aphorism: "Knowledge progresses one funeral at a time."

That depends! What kind of knowledge? Does it refer to mystical ruminations presupposed as knowledge à la Gurdjieff and such like; does it refer to philosophy or more specifically to science. Methodologies among disciplines differ and with it how knowledge is defined from "knowing oneself" presumably to everything beyond.

I suppose it refers to any knowledge which one can hold dogmatically/stubbornly until death.

Max Planck said "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

That hearkens back to your saying "One never "dies" to an old idea", metaphorically speaking until he literally dies to the idea and then humanity proceeds in a leap of knowledge once the stumbling block is out of the way.

So, wouldn't it be good if this need not be true? What if a man could die to his dogmatic clingings before he literally died? When one wakes to the idea that it's ok to be wrong, then he can die (let go) and be born again (realize new truth). It's not one's aptitude that determines altitude, but attitude.

Howard Aiken said "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."

[Dubious]

What if a man could die to his dogmatic clingings before he literally died? When one wakes to the idea that it's ok to be wrong, then he can die (let go) and be born again (realize new truth). It's not one's aptitude that determines altitude, but attitude.

Well again, for me, the idea is a tad too simplistic and over dramatized. Where the individual is concerned there's an inherent danger in thinking that forgoing an old idea must yield truth in its replacement. Something so absolute, in fact, seldom happens in the human psyche except in some higher mystical realm when lightening flashes to eliminate all doubt according to the recipient of such divine influx.

Unless there's really no reason for it, I'll keep the old idea as a spare either as a lesson which forced itself to correct or refine but also as one I may have to reconsider, the new one belatedly discovered to be less conditioned by any probability of truth than the old idea it deflated.

Dying to old ideas is not a good idea; better to acknowledge errors as organic, entrenched in history to give us a reasonably complete record of how we got to this point. Sudden leaps & revelations are possible but I wouldn't depend on them to deliver any promised land of progress in the long run. If not actually perverted, many errors often appear containing strands of inverted truths or truth foreshortened whose proper perspectives require a re-visualization rather than being born to a new one.

Obviously, I don't expect anyone to see it the way I do. Truth remains congruent to one's personal perspectives. Whenever claimed as independent the truth of truth remains contingent on its analysis by the observer. Forever falling short, we contend with probability which never reveals a totality in either foresight, hindsight, past or future. At best we can only perceive truth as a lesser distortion of itself.

[Serendipper]

What if a man could die to his dogmatic clingings before he literally died? When one wakes to the idea that it's ok to be wrong, then he can die (let go) and be born again (realize new truth). It's not one's aptitude that determines altitude, but attitude.

Well again, for me, the idea is a tad too simplistic and over dramatized.

"Simplistic" implies Einstein's "If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough." So it would seem "simple" is a good thing, no?

"Dramatization" - I can see what you're referring to, but I suspect you're perceiving through a lens that's been slightly tinted by general disdain for religion by characterizing it as dramatic rather than an allegory that reveals meanings that can't be succinctly articulated, such as: one can't see the forest for the trees. It's not that it's decorated to be dramatized (the trees), but packaged as a template that can be applied as an analogy in many situations (the forest)... and it's easy to remember.

Where the individual is concerned there's an inherent danger in thinking that forgoing an old idea must yield truth in its replacement. Something so absolute, in fact, seldom happens in the human psyche except in some higher mystical realm when lightening flashes to eliminate all doubt according to the recipient of such divine influx.

Yes, I suppose some tools can be used dangerously. Probably what we're realistically talking about is like an epiphany rather than a total overhaul of the psyche, but as Keats said, "A proverb is no proverb until life has illustrated it", so it is what you make of it.

Unless there's really no reason for it, I'll keep the old idea as a spare either as a lesson which forced itself to correct or refine but also as one I may have to reconsider, the new one belatedly discovered to be less conditioned by any probability of truth than the old idea it deflated.

Have you ever said, "I'll never do that again!"? Formerly you believed action X was correct, but then you vowed to never do it again as it proved completely stupid. So, it's like that I reckon.

Dying to old ideas is not a good idea; better to acknowledge errors as organic, entrenched in history to give us a reasonably complete record of how we got to this point. Sudden leaps & revelations are possible but I wouldn't depend on them to deliver any promised land of progress in the long run. If not actually perverted, many errors often appear containing strands of inverted truths or truth foreshortened whose proper perspectives require a re-visualization rather than being born to a new one.

Yes, lots of grey area and I don't think the aphorism was designed to reach as far as we could stretch it. I think it simply means that when one awakens to a revelation of futility that action X was an exercise in chasing one's tail, then a sort of death and rebirth occurs. Specifically Gurdjieff is referring to the Fourth Way or Middle Way of buddhism wherein one diligently and persistently practices what is later realized to be a completely idiotic thing to do until the point futility is realized that produces the wisdom and a good laugh. William Blake said "The fool who persists in his folly will become wise." The persistence is key.

Obviously, I don't expect anyone to see it the way I do. Truth remains congruent to one's personal perspectives. Whenever claimed as independent the truth of truth remains contingent on its analysis by the observer. Forever falling short, we contend with probability which never reveals a totality in either foresight, hindsight, past or future. At best we can only perceive truth as a lesser distortion of itself.

That makes sense to me.

[GSKERN]

We might also consider Thomas Kuhn's idea of "Paradigm Shifts". He applied it to Science, but might it also be applicable to almost any New Way of Thinking that upends the current status quo? In that sense, could being "born again" include almost any new way of seeing things in a radically new light, based on discoveries and/or experiences? Can we say that Scrooge was "born again" when he woke up on Christmas morning, a changed man with a new perspective on the world?

[-1-]

so, what do you make of the aphorism: "Knowledge progresses one funeral at a time."

Meaning:
1. The validity dies. Not the theory, or its importance.
2, Strong advocates who with personal influence hindered progress die, and their role and influence diminishes.

[Dalek Prime]

Surely the sly man didn't get one over on you In order to have a new perspective/philosophy, the old one must die, but before that is possible, one must be aware. Somnambulism isn't conducive to philosophical growth.

This is a very old idea constantly repeated in this way or that making it hard to miss its meaning. But for me many guru sayings are trivial and just short of meaningless. One never "dies" to an old idea, though it sounds superficially profound, because then you have nothing to proceed from. We advance from error and errors in judgement by degrees of refinement, the prior steps to the ones that follow. and not to be forgotten. We seldom proceed in leaps, though we often use that word, but from the gradient of an inclined plane. That's the reason I wrote re Gurdjieff that the sentiment remains valid though the experience may never have occurred.

Dying to an old idea is a fallacy but people are free to think or imagine as they like. Philosophy has more to with sweating out ideas than leaps of revelation!

So what do you make of the aphorism: "Knowledge progresses one funeral at a time."

Knowledge is gathered through living, and ends with death. Of course, knowledge may be passed down through various mediums, but does a book contain knowledge if there is no one there to read it?