Morality and Intelligence

[Belindi]

Nick_A wrote:

You missed the point. I asked if Simone is right, as an advocate of socialism what have YOU done to further the union of manual and intellectual labor for the benefit of society?

Your question is impertinent. I am not going to justify what I have done with my life to you or to anybody else.

[Fooloso4]

Nick_A:

Nietzsche is referring to the effects of morality and the fear and guilt created by aspects of Christendom in order to control people. This isn’t Christianity but rather religion which includes virtually everything.

Nietzsche is not referring to religion but Christianity/Platonism. It is a common misconception that he opposed religion. He did not. It is not a rejection of aspects of Christendom or aspects of Christianity, it is a reject of the whole of it, from claims of eternal fixed truths and order to the meaning and purpose of man and life to faith in Christ.

The camel is the result of mixing the sacred with the secular. Everything is either serving the process of involution or evolution. The sacred Ways entered our planet to awaken Man to his conscious potential in comparison to what he is. The secular cannot understand so uses the sacred influence for its advantage. Gradually the Dragon is created because of the superiority of psychological involution natural for the lack of consciousness.

You can make up your own story or repeat the stories you have been told but Nietzsche’s camel is Christianity and the lion is the rejection of Christianity. What is sacred is what men consecrates, what they venerate and revere. Nietzsche’s “sacred no” does not come from elsewhere, it is the rejection of the mythology of an otherworldly elsewhere.

And you want to blame a sacred path you don’t understand so associate it with man made interpretations.

The path would no longer be sacred if you did not have faith that it was not of man. Both Nietzsche’s ‘no’ and ‘yes’ are sacred because of faith in man. Herein lies the difference.

You can blink well and condemn what you don’t understand but offer not even a hint of a solution of what to say yes to or even how to become able to say yes.

Zarathustra says:

This is my way; where is yours? - Thus I answered those who asked me "the way." For the way - that does not exist. (Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

Now this may be a satisfactory response to those who are individuals, but man Nietzsche says, is by nature a herd animal and so there is still need for religion, for a path to be followed. Like the old religion, Platonism, it is to be invented by the philosopher:

Genuine philosophers are commanders and legislators (BGE 211)

But unlike the religion of “thou shalt” it is a religion that has as its goal “I will”:

First, peoples were creators; and only in later times, individuals. Truly, the individual himself is still the latest creation.” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra).

It is a religion for creating individuals, for the creation of creators, for self-creation, for self-mastery, for self-rule, for self-governance.

As for me: I make my way. And this meant in its double sense.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:

You missed the point. I asked if Simone is right, as an advocate of socialism what have YOU done to further the union of manual and intellectual labor for the benefit of society?

Your question is impertinent. I am not going to justify what I have done with my life to you or to anybody else.

I know it seems impertinent to ask anyone what they have personally done in support of their philosophy. Simone Weil was one of the most celebrated intellects in the Marxist party in France at the time. She supported Marxism with personal efforts. Her sincerity allowed her to experience that it was impossible in society because of the human condition. Without the help of grace, Man is governed by power and force.

Lenin knew how gullible people are so called blind believers in politics useful idiots. I've asked myself if I can be more than a useful idiot. Have you asked yourself? Simone suggested what is necessary for an individual to do in society for socialism to prosper. You find it insulting. This is the majority opinion and another reason why socialism cannot work.

[Belindi]

Nick_A wrote:

I've asked myself if I can be more than a useful idiot. Have you asked yourself? Simone suggested what is necessary for an individual to do in society for socialism to prosper. You find it insulting. This is the majority opinion and another reason why socialism cannot work.

I said "impertinent" question. What I who am a nobody with no influence whatsoever have done with my life is irrelevant. I am never insulted by some other nobody who is another philosopher in a discussion group.

I have been aware for some time that you are a sincere searcher and bedazzled by Simone Weil.

Would you be surprised that society works because most ordinary people work for others for no reward or very small rewards in small ways, simply pegging away in small ways?

[Nick_A]

F4

Nietzsche is not referring to religion but Christianity/Platonism. It is a common misconception that he opposed religion. He did not. It is not a rejection of aspects of Christendom or aspects of Christianity, it is a reject of the whole of it, from claims of eternal fixed truths and order to the meaning and purpose of man and life to faith in Christ.

Granted. Nietzsche believed Man was a creature of the earth with no further potentials than what the earth offers. To make matters worse Man was subject to eternal recurrence where everything eternally repeats. Why pick on Christianity? He must have felt that it was more guilty through its effects he experienced as Christendom than any other path. Nietzsche indeed did reject the otherworldly.

The path would no longer be sacred if you did not have faith that it was not of man. Both Nietzsche’s ‘no’ and ‘yes’ are sacred because of faith in man. Herein lies the difference.

True. The atheist has faith IN Man. The educated believer has documented the hypocrisy of the human condition proving that there is nothing to have faith in other than the psychological tendency to turn in circles resulting in both the greatest compassion and the greatest atrocities depending upon which way the wind is blowing.

Now this may be a satisfactory response to those who are individuals, but man Nietzsche says, is by nature a herd animal and so there is still need for religion, for a path to be followed. Like the old religion, Platonism, it is to be invented by the philosopher:

Yes, the majority are content to be atoms of the Great Beast living in Plato’s cave with “wretched contentment.” Jesus wasn’t a philosopher nor was Buddha. They were men. As atoms of the great beast we don’t know what that means.

But unlike the religion of “thou shalt” it is a religion that has as its goal “I will”:

Sounds like Thelema. This would open a can of worms but for anyone interested, read how Nietzsche influenced Aleister Crowley. Demonic influences is a delicate subject and should not be taken lightly.


[/quote]
It is a religion for creating individuals, for the creation of creators, for self-creation, for self-mastery, for self-rule, for self-governance.[/quote]

“IN a recent work, Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: “To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God’s people.”

This is our difference F4. You consider yourself a creature of the earth so belong strictly to the World and its concerns. I consider myself dual natured. I have a lower animal part and an undeveloped higher part capable of conscious evolution so as to become human with the help of grace. In that sense I am one of God’s people. We have chosen our paths.

-- Updated Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:16 pm to add the following --

Nick_A wrote:

I've asked myself if I can be more than a useful idiot. Have you asked yourself? Simone suggested what is necessary for an individual to do in society for socialism to prosper. You find it insulting. This is the majority opinion and another reason why socialism cannot work.

I said "impertinent" question. What I who am a nobody with no influence whatsoever have done with my life is irrelevant. I am never insulted by some other nobody who is another philosopher in a discussion group.

I have been aware for some time that you are a sincere searcher and bedazzled by Simone Weil.

Would you be surprised that society works because most ordinary people work for others for no reward or very small rewards in small ways, simply pegging away in small ways?

Have you ever been involved in road rage?

[Belindi]

Nick_A asked me:

Have you ever been involved in road rage?

Obviously Nick doesn't really want me to answer this literally. Of course I have emotional reactions Nick. I'd be clinically depressed or otherwise disabled if not, or dead.

Emotional reactions are a far cry from mystical experiences. Road rage is typical of emotional reaction which is uncontrolled by reason, whereas mystical experiences are not deprived of reason and are often euphoric as well.

You are not the only contributor to these discussions who thinks that emotions are the same as feelings. They aren't. Emotions are purely physical whereas feelings are emotions which have been changed by thinking. The more that emotions are subjected to reasoning the better, except in special circumstances such as reacting to a pain in the final stage of labour. Emotions are powerful ; there is little chance, barring gross poisoning of the public water supply, of healthy people becoming emotionally flat. There is generally a dearth of reason and educationists work hard to teach reasoned behaviour.

It's also obvious that we are social like so many other species. As social beings we need morality so as to cooperate to mutual benefit. It takes reason for cooperation to work among humans where there is such lot of fear, competition, aggression, and ignorance.

[Felix]

Belindi: Emotions are purely physical whereas feelings are emotions which have been changed by thinking.

They're certainly not purely physical, they are conditioned responses, which is why they can be refined or simply observed without reacting to them - this of course takes practice.

The most refined feelings are not influenced or altered by thinking, but experienced like sunlight. Thoughts about them, should any arise, do not affect them. This is not true of emotions.

Nick, I wouldn't call Crowley demonic, sounds like you've read the sensationalist publicity stories that he himself circulated to sell his books - worked quite well by the way. His autobiography, "The Confessions of Aliester Crowley," is fascinating. And "Magic without Tears" is an interesting and funny book. Certainly he had some unpleasant qualities, e.g., he was apparently egotistical and racist, but then nobody's perfect.

-- Updated Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:05 am to add the following --

"To make matters worse Man was subject to eternal recurrence where everything eternally repeats."

That was a thought experiment by Nietzsche, he did not mean it literally.

[Rr6]

r6--Access to more intelligence means a longer list of morals, not necessarily more moral person.

Experience precedes thought.

Experience invokes feelings that are emoted to various degrees as emotions depending on the individuals ability or desire to moderate them.

Experience includes seeing, or hearing, a communication pattern and then our moderating of the source of this communication pattern.

Always consider the source--- and tone if an auditory communication ----then moderate our responsive feelings, and resultant, emoting emotions, accordingly.

Moderation of our responses is learned pattern also. The more we respond with a specific emotion, the more that patterned emotion is enhanced in our over all set of patterns of emotion. The more we practice this or that emotion the more it becomes automatic.

r6

Morality is a resultant metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.
"U"niverse = "G"od
...see most wholistic cosmic set of a primary three-ness.....
Universe = God
...see most common views of our finite, occupied space Universe.....
Uni-V-erse = G-o-d
....see Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )(....
...another cosmic three-ness...............
123, ABC thats how easy morality and intelligence can be..sung to M. Jackson and Jackson 5 tune

r6

[Nick_A]

Nick_A asked me:

Have you ever been involved in road rage?

Obviously Nick doesn't really want me to answer this literally. Of course I have emotional reactions Nick. I'd be clinically depressed or otherwise disabled if not, or dead.

Emotional reactions are a far cry from mystical experiences. Road rage is typical of emotional reaction which is uncontrolled by reason, whereas mystical experiences are not deprived of reason and are often euphoric as well.

You are not the only contributor to these discussions who thinks that emotions are the same as feelings. They aren't. Emotions are purely physical whereas feelings are emotions which have been changed by thinking. The more that emotions are subjected to reasoning the better, except in special circumstances such as reacting to a pain in the final stage of labour. Emotions are powerful ; there is little chance, barring gross poisoning of the public water supply, of healthy people becoming emotionally flat. There is generally a dearth of reason and educationists work hard to teach reasoned behaviour.

It's also obvious that we are social like so many other species. As social beings we need morality so as to cooperate to mutual benefit. It takes reason for cooperation to work among humans where there is such lot of fear, competition, aggression, and ignorance.

Actually I meant something different

Would you be surprised that society works because most ordinary people work for others for no reward or very small rewards in small ways, simply pegging away in small ways?


Have you ever been involved in road rage?

People stuck in traffic honking and cursing at each other are not very cooperative. There are times peoplple cooperae and times they don't. Human nature.

[Fooloso4]

Nick_A:

Nietzsche believed Man was a creature of the earth with no further potentials than what the earth offers.

It is not earth’s potential but man’s potential. How great that potential is not something we should determine based on our own accomplishments or lack of accomplishments.

To make matters worse Man was subject to eternal recurrence where everything eternally repeats.

If we take it literally than it is not was but is and it only makes matters worse if you live in such a way as you would not want to live again.

Why pick on Christianity?

Because that, according to Nietzsche, is what we in our current historical situation must overcome if we are to become more than what Christianity tells us we are.

The educated believer has documented the hypocrisy of the human condition proving that there is nothing to have faith in other than the psychological tendency to turn in circles resulting in both the greatest compassion and the greatest atrocities depending upon which way the wind is blowing.

One option is to wait for a God to fix things. This was Weil’s solution. It is the solution of all who wait for the Messiah. Nietzsche’s option is based on the historical evidence of man’s ability to elevate himself, to improve his life, to improve himself, to take responsibility. He says that this is what the invention of Christianity did, but what was effective then now serves to weigh man down.

I have a lower animal part and an undeveloped higher part capable of conscious evolution so as to become human with the help of grace.

The real issue here is the notion of grace. It is, according to Nietzsche, a human creation. It is Paul’s theological poetry. Its power is solely human, the effectiveness of belief and faith. It is an example of man’s self-overcoming. The recognition of man’s responsibility includes a higher consciousness in the sense of man’s self-awareness, that he did this on his own through his own creation of powers greater than himself.

[Nick_A]

F4

It is not earth’s potential but man’s potential. How great that potential is not something we should determine based on our own accomplishments or lack of accomplishments.

The evolution for a creature of the earth is limited to the being of the planet. From dust to dust. It is the same for all creatures of the earth. Assuming Man has a potential beyond the limitations of the earth assumes an origin not of the earth

If we take it literally than it is not was but is and it only makes matters worse if you live in such a way as you would not want to live again.

Perhaps you have not really witnessed how you live. Instead you live in imagination. Suppose a demon allows you to witness reality without hope of change. Not a pleasant perspective

http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.c ... recur.html

The greatest weight.-- What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence - even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!"
Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus?... Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.341, Walter Kaufmann transl

Because that, according to Nietzsche, is what we in our current historical situation must overcome if we are to become more than what Christianity tells us we are.

We must overcome reliance on imagination telling us what we are by developing our potential for conscious attention.

One option is to wait for a God to fix things. This was Weil’s solution. It is the solution of all who wait for the Messiah. Nietzsche’s option is based on the historical evidence of man’s ability to elevate himself, to improve his life, to improve himself, to take responsibility. He says that this is what the invention of Christianity did, but what was effective then now serves to weigh man down.

“Wait” as used I the title “Waiting for God” refers to conscious attention. God doesn’t change anything. Conscious attention enables us to witness reality in ourselves and in the world free of imagination. Responding to imagination is a passive process while conscious attention is an active process which can enable a person to witness and participate in human responsibility rather than blind dictates of the Great Beast.

The real issue here is the notion of grace. It is, according to Nietzsche, a human creation. It is Paul’s theological poetry. Its power is solely human, the effectiveness of belief and faith. It is an example of man’s self-overcoming. The recognition of man’s responsibility includes a higher consciousness in the sense of man’s self-awareness, that he did this on his own through his own creation of powers greater than himself.

Simone Weil described Man as like a green plant. Its roots are nourished by the soil and its leaves by the sun. Man’s roots, our lower parts, are nourished by the quality of the metaxu a society contains. Our leaves or higher parts are nourished by grace similar to what the sun provides the plant. Lack of sun or soil of a certain quality either kills or weakens the plant. Lack of grace and a quality of metaxu psychologically cripples or kills the inner Man making him content in his personality to follow in imagination with wretched contentment in the darkness of Plato’s cave.

[Belindi]

Nick_A wrote:

People stuck in traffic honking and cursing at each other are not very cooperative. There are times peoplple cooperae and times they don't. Human nature.

True.

I am claiming that road rage affects people who are giving in to their emotional reactions and not subjecting those reactions to reason as they may otherwise do. The moral high ground in this day and age pertains to people who can control their anger and their fear so as to make for more,not less, cooperation.

-- Updated March 21st, 2017, 3:05 pm to add the following --

Felix wrote regarding emotions:

They're certainly not purely physical, they are conditioned responses, which is why they can be refined or simply observed without reacting to them - this of course takes practice.

It is a physiological fact that emotions are physical. The sensations of emoting are also physical and the physical evidence that a man is emoting can be plain to see.

Emotions might be caused by conditioned responses. Intelligence, or reason, can negate the learned response so that the emotion is less disruptive. Morality which depends upon conditioned responses can be morality which is indoctrinated. Better moral behaviour is reasoned and aware.

I do agree that emotions can be simply observed, and this is a useful technique for refining emotional reactions such as road rage (see above) so that the rage is controlled with beneficial effects on the subject of the rage and on others. Observing one's emotional reactions is not an ability that is got from indoctrination but from advanced reason/intelligence.

[Felix]

Belindi: It (emotion) is a physiological fact that emotions are physical.

The effects are physiological, but what conditioning or beliefs trigger one's emotional responses? One can either discover this for oneself or be prey to one's emotions - becoming conscious of what is unconscious.

Belindi: Morality which depends upon conditioned responses can be morality which is indoctrinated.

If it's indoctrinated it cannot be moral as morality requires free will. Does one know oneself well enough to distinguish conditioned responses from free will? That is the question.

Fooloso4: The recognition of man’s responsibility includes a higher consciousness in the sense of man’s self-awareness, that he did this on his own through his own creation of powers greater than himself.

Is that possible? To exceed oneself solely through one's own efforts? I am skeptical, Nietzsche himself appears to have been incapable of it, his philosophy was purely theoretical.

[Fooloso4]

Nick_A:

Suppose a demon allows you to witness reality without hope of change. Not a pleasant perspective

That is not Nietzsche’s perspective. If eternal recurrence is to be taken literally it does not mean that there is no hope of change here and now, it means that whatever changes I make will be the same changes I will make each time. But Nietzsche gives us plenty of reason not to take it literally. It is what the ancient philosophers called a spiritual exercise.

Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? ... Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

Have you not notices that he is pointing to two different options? It is not a pleasant perspective only if living your life as you live it is not a pleasant perspective. So, he is saying, live as if you want nothing more than to live exactly as you do for all eternity.

We must overcome reliance on imagination telling us what we are by developing our potential for conscious attention.

Yes you have said this, many, many times over and over again. And I have responded over and over again that by looking away from yourself to some transcendent reality you do not and cannot focus conscious attention to yourself, but rather attend only to what you imagine that transcendent reality must be. You have completely immersed yourself in imagination, but you are not conscious of that fact.

“Wait” as used I the title “Waiting for God” refers to conscious attention. God doesn’t change anything.

Weil’s God is an absent God that she is attentive to, but Weil was not and is not the only one waiting, and her way of waiting is only one way. The Messianic God is not an absent God, or at least not a God who will remain absent.

-- Updated March 21st, 2017, 4:56 pm to add the following --

Felix:

Fooloso4: The recognition of man’s responsibility includes a higher consciousness in the sense of man’s self-awareness, that he did this on his own through his own creation of powers greater than himself.

Is that possible? To exceed oneself solely through one's own efforts? I am skeptical, Nietzsche himself appears to have been incapable of it, his philosophy was purely theoretical.

I do not know the extent of Nietzsche’s own self transformation but do not think his influence has been purely theoretical or that the theoretical is unmixed with the practical. In other words, a change in theoretical outlook can have practical consequences. The alternatives are either that we are capable of self-improvement or we are not and any improvement must come from some non-human source.

[Nick_A]

F4

That is not Nietzsche’s perspective. If eternal recurrence is to be taken literally it does not mean that there is no hope of change here and now, it means that whatever changes I make will be the same changes I will make each time. But Nietzsche gives us plenty of reason not to take it literally. It is what the ancient philosophers called a spiritual exercise.

Granted Nietzsche did believe it dogmatically but he had an open mind to the possibility of eternal recurrence. I could provide a reasonable explanation in accordance with the concept of time as repetition. But this requires speculation as to the reality of the fourth, fifth, and sixth dimensions. Since we are limited to three dimensions eternal recurrence is an idea we can neither affirm or deny.

Have you not notices that he is pointing to two different options? It is not a pleasant perspective only if living your life as you live it is not a pleasant perspective. So, he is saying, live as if you want nothing more than to live exactly as you do for all eternity.

True but this is assuming a complete lack of consciousness capable of learning by conscious experience. In the movie Groundhog Day for example, our hero who was a complete obnoxious egoist learned through experience of the day over and over that his ego prevented him from a human experience. Mechanical repetition doesn’t deny the potential for conscious awakening. Yet some may be so attached to life like Hitler for example that they cannot open so are incapable of change.

Yes you have said this, many, many times over and over again. And I have responded over and over again that by looking away from yourself to some transcendent reality you do not and cannot focus conscious attention to yourself, but rather attend only to what you imagine that transcendent reality must be. You have completely immersed yourself in imagination, but you are not conscious of that fact.

I keep saying it and you keep missing the point. There is nothing transcendent about conscious attention. It gives a person the opportunity to see themselves as they are and external life as it is without the effects of pre-conditioned imagination. Nietzsche is writing of secular transcendence as an expression of will and riding the wheel of samsara forever. Conscious evolution of human being requires conscious attention and help from above in the form of grace.

An intelligent person for me is a person who has unified a higher quality of intellectual and emotional intelligence. This opens a person to the experience of objective conscience making morality obsolete. Nietzsche speaks of the will to power. Without emotional intelligence he can only be referring to the ultimate ego trip: “I Am God.” This is demonic.. We have chosen what appeals to us.