The Human Condition

[Dolphin42]

A related question:

What is it about human nature that makes some of us (but by no means all of us) think that questions like "what is my purpose?" or "why do I exist?" have any meaning.

[Nick_A]

A related question:

What is it about human nature that makes some of us (but by no means all of us) think that questions like "what is my purpose?" or "why do I exist?" have any meaning.

Plato called philosophy the love of wisdom. How does a person acquire wisdom? You can say who cares. Just create your own reality and argue with the rest. If wisdom doesn't get you laid, why bother? This may be true and if it is, why do you bother with a philosophy site and in particular a topic essential for seekers of wisdom?

[Dolphin42]

I asked whether questions such as "what is my purpose?" or "why do I exist?" have any meaning. You appear to have concluded from my asking that question that I have no interest in wisdom. Is it your view that, as a general rule, a person who asks such questions has no interest in wisdom?

-- Updated May 16th, 2017, 5:27 pm to add the following --

Suppose, for the sake of argument, we were to conclude that the question "what is my purpose?", as a question about a proposed objectively existing reality, is meaningless and unanswerable. Do you think that there are any other categories of philosophically interesting questions in life?

[Nick_A]

I asked whether questions such as "what is my purpose?" or "why do I exist?" have any meaning. You appear to have concluded from my asking that question that I have no interest in wisdom. Is it your view that, as a general rule, a person who asks such questions has no interest in wisdom?

-- Updated May 16th, 2017, 5:27 pm to add the following --

Suppose, for the sake of argument, we were to conclude that the question "what is my purpose?", as a question about a proposed objectively existing reality, is meaningless and unanswerable. Do you think that there are any other categories of philosophically interesting questions in life?

There are many interesting questions answered by knowledge but wisdom is more than knowledge. It is the expression of wholeness - a human perspective within which pieces of knowledge have their place. Questions like "who am I' and "Why Am I Here" lead us to open to wholeness since knowledge is always insufficient to feel the connection of the depth of our being with wholeness. When knowledge reflects wisdom it is called understanding. Interesting questions have their attraction and wisdom has its own. When a person is only interested in arguing interesting questions, it isn't philosophy - it is what has become normality.

[Dark Matter]

An earlier post stated: “There is no teleological meaning and purpose of life.” That, of course, is a philosophical position stated as though it is an indisputable fact. (It seems secularists are allowed to do that but theists are not, at least not without being accused of forcing their beliefs on others.)

As I see it, everything comes down to the premise God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.

The second premise follows from the first and is of great import to teleology: Every thing, every where, every when and their every possibility converge at the very core of our being — they are the core of our being and the core of everything else. (This is not inconsistent with quantum physics. The implications of quantum physics are open to interpretation.) This means that there is nothing to “overcome,” but everything receive. A little bit of Zen can help here. I recommend The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston.

Teleologically, convergence means that whatever the nature of the Infinite, it cannot be an unconscious mechanism because we are not unconscious mechanisms nor do we have existence independently of the Whole. In God, “we live, move, and have our being”; in us, God escapes the limitations of unqualified infinity. The “fall” has symbolic meaning that find another expression in “God became man so that man may become God.”

[Nick_A]

An earlier post stated: “There is no teleological meaning and purpose of life.” That, of course, is a philosophical position stated as though it is an indisputable fact. (It seems secularists are allowed to do that but theists are not, at least not without being accused of forcing their beliefs on others.)

As I see it, everything comes down to the premise God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.

The second premise follows from the first and is of great import to teleology: Every thing, every where, every when and their every possibility converge at the very core of our being — they are the core of our being and the core of everything else. (This is not inconsistent with quantum physics. The implications of quantum physics are open to interpretation.) This means that there is nothing to “overcome,” but everything receive. A little bit of Zen can help here. I recommend The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston.

Teleologically, convergence means that whatever the nature of the Infinite, it cannot be an unconscious mechanism because we are not unconscious mechanisms nor do we have existence independently of the Whole. In God, “we live, move, and have our being”; in us, God escapes the limitations of unqualified infinity. The “fall” has symbolic meaning that find another expression in “God became man so that man may become God.”

As I see it, everything comes down to the premise God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.

Do you read your description of God as similar if not the same as Plotinus' description of the ONE? If you do, this is a good beginning to ponder how and why ONE devolves into NOUS:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/

a. The One

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.; for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.. This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.

[Dark Matter]

This is almost identical to my understanding.

Secularists are intent on understanding our differences, thinking that by doing so our problems with ethics and morality will be solved. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is an exercise in futility, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results -- Einstein's definition of insanity. Everything converges in the Core, but "between me and thee there is chaos, else there there would be no me and thee." Trying to overcome our differences by way of thoughts emphasizes those differences and intensifies the conflict between them.

[Nick_A]

This is almost identical to my understanding.

Secularists are intent on understanding our differences, thinking that by doing so our problems with ethics and morality will be solved. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is an exercise in futility, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results -- Einstein's definition of insanity. Everything converges in the Core, but "between me and thee there is chaos, else there there would be no me and thee." Trying to overcome our differences by way of thoughts emphasizes those differences and intensifies the conflict between them.

I agree. But what is it about the human condition that prevents us from recognizing the impossiblity of developing mutual understanding from such a shallow perspective? For me, the first step is recognizing my lack of inner unity. I Am is an attribute of higher consciousness. We are many is a more accurate description of my being. This is what makes hypocrisy so natural. Inner unity is a conscious potential which the fallen human condition egoistically denies experiencing and even striving towards. The result is that we end up with a multitude of experts and a lot of platitudes. But since we are as we are, everything repeats in cycles. Is it possible to change what we are? Is conscious evolution possible through Christian rebirth? We don't know. We do know that some have felt the calling and have been condemned by society for it.

[Dark Matter]

The surest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live faithfully every moment as a tadpole. We should embrace our limitations and our faults, for they are the source of our freedom and our godward evolution.

As for childish among us, more and more I am coming to understand Jesus' words, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." They are not hungry for truth because they are not dissatisfied with themselves. They are not ready to seek help and the eyes of their minds are not open to receive light for the soul. They must be allowed more time for the trials and difficulties of life to prepare him for the reception of wisdom and higher learning.

I fully realize that the secularists among us reading the above paragraph will find it offensive and condescending and think it is a personal attack, but is it really any different than saying, "There is no teleological meaning and purpose of life"?

[Nick_A]

The surest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live faithfully every moment as a tadpole. We should embrace our limitations and our faults, for they are the source of our freedom and our godward evolution.

As for childish among us, more and more I am coming to understand Jesus' words, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." They are not hungry for truth because they are not dissatisfied with themselves. They are not ready to seek help and the eyes of their minds are not open to receive light for the soul. They must be allowed more time for the trials and difficulties of life to prepare him for the reception of wisdom and higher learning.

I fully realize that the secularists among us reading the above paragraph will find it offensive and condescending and think it is a personal attack, but is it really any different than saying, "There is no teleological meaning and purpose of life"?

I agree that we don't know ourselves enough to be dissatisfied with ourselves sufficiently to be drawn to our conscious potential. This invites the serious question: why not? There are many reasons but I believe the two main reasons correspond with with the two major sins pride and vanity.

Many people believe that sin is wrong because some deity with a white beard gets insulted. Actually sin refers to losing our aim if our aim is awakening.

Mark 7: 14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [f]

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

Even the disciples didn't understand and Jesus called them dull. But if true, the chief cause of sustaining the fallen human condition is our corrupt emotions. The body works well as does critical associative thought, However the heart which should enable the conscious connection between the head (consciousness) and the body falls to imagination and the loss of conscious potential

The primary male sin is pride. We see it all the time especially in educated circles. Men walk around with swelled heads impressed with their knowledge and feeling superior. They are your classic experts. This attitude prevents any growth in "understanding." Loss of pride leading to feelings of inferiority are no good either. Emotional impartiality is necessary but is extremely hard to acquire

The primary complimentary female sin is vanity. It is the sin of image. A woman identifies with her image. She seeks to create her own image and relies upon it at the expense of becoming able to "know thyself." To be without her image is to be naked. This is often psychologically intolerable.

Naturally when these sins are dominant, inner growth is impossible denying any growth in "understanding".

[Dark Matter]

I agree that we don't know ourselves enough to be dissatisfied with ourselves sufficiently to be drawn to our conscious potential. This invites the serious question: why not?

Inertia.

-- Updated May 17th, 2017, 4:34 pm to add the following --

[Nick_A]

I agree that we don't know ourselves enough to be dissatisfied with ourselves sufficiently to be drawn to our conscious potential. This invites the serious question: why not?

Inertia.

-- Updated May 17th, 2017, 4:34 pm to add the following --

You say inertia which is true but why is it so powerful? Thandie describes the problem. Jacob Needleman in his book "Lost Christianity" describes the problem as Acornology. IMO the grand secular collective has lost too much to profit from knowing the human condition which denies this "doing" that they speak of. From P.59 of Lost Christianity:

Acornology

I began my lecture that morning from just this point. There is an innate element in human nature, I argued that can grow and develop only through impressions of truth received in the organism like a special nourishing energy. To this innate element I gave a name - perhaps not a very good name - the "higher unconscious." My aim was to draw an extremely sharp distinction between the unconscious that Freud had identified and the unconscious referred to (though not by that name) in the Christian tradition.

Imagine, I said, that you are a scientist and you have before you the object known as the acorn. Let us further imagine that you have never before seen such an object and that you certainly do not know that it can grow into an oak. You carefully observe these acorns day after day and soon you notice that after a while they crack open and die. Pity! How to improve the acorn? So that it will live longer. You make careful, exquisitely precise chemical analyses of the material inside the acorn and, after much effort, you succeed in isolating the substance that controls the condition of the shell. Lo and behold, you are now in the position to produce acorns which will last far longer than the others, acorns whose shells will perhaps never crack. Beautiful!

The question before us, therefore, is whether or not modern psychology is only a version of acornology.

The self she refers to is the husk of the acorn. Secular society seeks to create better husks since it denies the connection of the seed to its creator. I hope I'm wrong but I believe that only a relative few will realize the human condition for what it is and strive to awaken to reality.

How would you change education of the young so that they could grasp the human condition - that our personalities are imaginary creations? It is obvious that secularism would never allow it so many of the young spiritually die. So the human condition which keeps us in psychological slavery remains dominant. Tell me how I'm wrong.

[Dark Matter]

Because mind is a personal-energy system existing around a divine spirit nucleus and functioning in and through a material environment.