Was Judas the first Liberal?

[Sy Borg]

Sy Borg

You profess to be interested in philosophy but all I read from you is secular psychology. Jacob Needleman in his book "The Heart of Philosophy" describes how I understand philosophy:

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

Philosophy begins with the recognition that humanity as a whole including me is asleep in Plato's cave with the potential to awaken to and remember universal human meaning and purpose. The purpose of philosophy is to help Man remember rather then the means to curse out Donald Trump as PC secular expression and appear self important.

My question to you is what does awakening mean for you? Is it just learning more knowledge? What is a human perspective as opposed to an indoctrinated conditioned perspective?

A person interested in philosophy is concerned with why Man is asleep. Can Man awaken? If man can awaken, what prevents it.

However if your real interest is secular psychology, awakening is unimportant. All we need is more knowledge. We are already awake. All that is important is how to adjust to life in the darkness of Plato's cave. My guess is that secular psychology is your real interest rather than philosophy. Am I wrong.

I don't profess to be interested in philosophy :) Philosophy forums happen to be a space where one can chat with others about big picture perspectives. Many people are interested in better understanding reality, usually those whose jobs, family and social lives don't take up too much of their time and energies.

I too think humans that are still largely clueless about the actual nature of reality. We are not evolved with those capacities, just as long as we survive and reproduce etc. So I am not sure if humanity can "awaken", certainly not en masse. Gurdjeiff was right about that IMO.

I am not sure that anyone today knows what's really going on or, given our limited individualistic senses, whether we are capable of doing so. It may not be humans who better understand and more knowingly participate in reality but some of those who succeed humanity.

[Belindi]

Sy Borg

You profess to be interested in philosophy but all I read from you is secular psychology. Jacob Needleman in his book "The Heart of Philosophy" describes how I understand philosophy:

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

Philosophy begins with the recognition that humanity as a whole including me is asleep in Plato's cave with the potential to awaken to and remember universal human meaning and purpose. The purpose of philosophy is to help Man remember rather then the means to curse out Donald Trump as PC secular expression and appear self important.

My question to you is what does awakening mean for you? Is it just learning more knowledge? What is a human perspective as opposed to an indoctrinated conditioned perspective?

A person interested in philosophy is concerned with why Man is asleep. Can Man awaken? If man can awaken, what prevents it.

However if your real interest is secular psychology, awakening is unimportant. All we need is more knowledge. We are already awake. All that is important is how to adjust to life in the darkness of Plato's cave. My guess is that secular psychology is your real interest rather than philosophy. Am I wrong.

I don't profess to be interested in philosophy Philosophy forums happen to be a space where one can chat with others about big picture perspectives. Many people are interested in better understanding reality, usually those whose jobs, family and social lives don't take up too much of their time and energies.

I too think humans that are still largely clueless about the actual nature of reality. We are not evolved with those capacities, just as long as we survive and reproduce etc. So I am not sure if humanity can "awaken", certainly not en masse. Gurdjeiff was right about that IMO.

I am not sure that anyone today knows what's really going on or, given our limited individualistic senses, whether we are capable of doing so. It may not be humans who better understand and more knowingly participate in reality but some of those who succeed humanity.

Humanity can't 'awaken' to absolute knowledge of truth , beauty and goodness; but humanity and individuals progress towards more inclusive knowledge of the transcendent, especially when the hard work of learning a great many of other mens' perspectives has been done. And sometimes an individual has an intuitive leap of understanding. I say "other mens' perspectives" and a lot can be accomplished with empathy ; but it is impossible to know the complete gestalt of another person' experience. Which is why the subject of experience, human or other, is important and more so than the animal looked upon objectively as a biological machine.

[Nick_A]

“There do exist enquiring minds, which long for the truth of the heart, seek it, strive to solve the problems set by life, try to penetrate to the essence of things and phenomena and to penetrate into themselves. If a man reasons and thinks soundly, no matter which path he follows in solving these problems, he must inevitably arrive back at himself, and begin with the solution of the problem of what he is himself and what his place is in the world around him.” G. I. Gurdjieff

Philosophy begins with the question "Who am I?" We prefer to speak about what humanity does from the cave perspective but how many seriously question "Who am I?"

What happens to the young ones who have this question and also question God and are bothered by the questions of the heart. Who can they turn to? Jacob Needleman suggests:

As to how I would guide someone who is confused about the idea of God, I would suggest that he or she begins identifying what one might called "philosophical friends," - people with whom one could seriously examine our thought about God through listening to each other, reading important and useful books together and trying to think for oneself while familiarizing oneself with the ideas of some of the world's great thinkers. Cultivate openness without gullibility and skepticism without cynicism.

It doesn't seem that adults can "Cultivate openness without gullibility and skepticism without cynicism." Perhaps the young not yet perverted by education and societal conditioning can find each other and form groups of philosophical friends in which they can share on the questions of the heart what society as a whole rejects in favor of indoctrination.

If nothing else there is nothing wrong with those who do understand this need to leave the cave. They strive to keep the path open for potential philosophical friends to find.

[Sy Borg]

Sy Borg

You profess to be interested in philosophy but all I read from you is secular psychology. Jacob Needleman in his book "The Heart of Philosophy" describes how I understand philosophy:

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

Philosophy begins with the recognition that humanity as a whole including me is asleep in Plato's cave with the potential to awaken to and remember universal human meaning and purpose. The purpose of philosophy is to help Man remember rather then the means to curse out Donald Trump as PC secular expression and appear self important.

My question to you is what does awakening mean for you? Is it just learning more knowledge? What is a human perspective as opposed to an indoctrinated conditioned perspective?

A person interested in philosophy is concerned with why Man is asleep. Can Man awaken? If man can awaken, what prevents it.

However if your real interest is secular psychology, awakening is unimportant. All we need is more knowledge. We are already awake. All that is important is how to adjust to life in the darkness of Plato's cave. My guess is that secular psychology is your real interest rather than philosophy. Am I wrong.

I don't profess to be interested in philosophy :) Philosophy forums happen to be a space where one can chat with others about big picture perspectives. Many people are interested in better understanding reality, usually those whose jobs, family and social lives don't take up too much of their time and energies.

I too think humans that are still largely clueless about the actual nature of reality. We are not evolved with those capacities, just as long as we survive and reproduce etc. So I am not sure if humanity can "awaken", certainly not en masse. Gurdjeiff was right about that IMO.

I am not sure that anyone today knows what's really going on or, given our limited individualistic senses, whether we are capable of doing so. It may not be humans who better understand and more knowingly participate in reality but some of those who succeed humanity.

Humanity can't 'awaken' to absolute knowledge of truth , beauty and goodness; but humanity and individuals progress towards more inclusive knowledge of the transcendent, especially when the hard work of learning a great many of other mens' perspectives has been done. And sometimes an individual has an intuitive leap of understanding. I say "other mens' perspectives" and a lot can be accomplished with empathy ; but it is impossible to know the complete gestalt of another person' experience. Which is why the subject of experience, human or other, is important and more so than the animal looked upon objectively as a biological machine.

Belinda, as far as I can tell, the future of empathy depends on whether humanity can transcend its animal nature. That is, to physically transcend it. While we can only live by killing and exploiting other beings, our capacity for empathy will always be limited.

[Nick_A]

Sy Borg

You profess to be interested in philosophy but all I read from you is secular psychology. Jacob Needleman in his book "The Heart of Philosophy" describes how I understand philosophy:



Philosophy begins with the recognition that humanity as a whole including me is asleep in Plato's cave with the potential to awaken to and remember universal human meaning and purpose. The purpose of philosophy is to help Man remember rather then the means to curse out Donald Trump as PC secular expression and appear self important.

My question to you is what does awakening mean for you? Is it just learning more knowledge? What is a human perspective as opposed to an indoctrinated conditioned perspective?

A person interested in philosophy is concerned with why Man is asleep. Can Man awaken? If man can awaken, what prevents it.

However if your real interest is secular psychology, awakening is unimportant. All we need is more knowledge. We are already awake. All that is important is how to adjust to life in the darkness of Plato's cave. My guess is that secular psychology is your real interest rather than philosophy. Am I wrong.

I don't profess to be interested in philosophy Philosophy forums happen to be a space where one can chat with others about big picture perspectives. Many people are interested in better understanding reality, usually those whose jobs, family and social lives don't take up too much of their time and energies.

I too think humans that are still largely clueless about the actual nature of reality. We are not evolved with those capacities, just as long as we survive and reproduce etc. So I am not sure if humanity can "awaken", certainly not en masse. Gurdjeiff was right about that IMO.

I am not sure that anyone today knows what's really going on or, given our limited individualistic senses, whether we are capable of doing so. It may not be humans who better understand and more knowingly participate in reality but some of those who succeed humanity.

Humanity can't 'awaken' to absolute knowledge of truth , beauty and goodness; but humanity and individuals progress towards more inclusive knowledge of the transcendent, especially when the hard work of learning a great many of other mens' perspectives has been done. And sometimes an individual has an intuitive leap of understanding. I say "other mens' perspectives" and a lot can be accomplished with empathy ; but it is impossible to know the complete gestalt of another person' experience. Which is why the subject of experience, human or other, is important and more so than the animal looked upon objectively as a biological machine.

Belinda, as far as I can tell, the future of empathy depends on whether humanity can transcend its animal nature. That is, to physically transcend it. While we can only live by killing and exploiting other beings, our capacity for empathy will always be limited.

Humanity as a whole is the Great Beast; a creature of reaction. It cannot manifest other then the hypocrisy normal for its nature.

However, even though the Beast is limited, it doesn't mean that individuals cannot change within the Beast. Simone was compelled to strive consciously to become more than a creature of reaction in Plato's Cave and become part of evolved conscious humanity. Is it possible and was she successful? Who knows?

This incident happened shortly before she entered the hospital.

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon

[Belindi]

I don't profess to be interested in philosophy Philosophy forums happen to be a space where one can chat with others about big picture perspectives. Many people are interested in better understanding reality, usually those whose jobs, family and social lives don't take up too much of their time and energies.

I too think humans that are still largely clueless about the actual nature of reality. We are not evolved with those capacities, just as long as we survive and reproduce etc. So I am not sure if humanity can "awaken", certainly not en masse. Gurdjeiff was right about that IMO.

I am not sure that anyone today knows what's really going on or, given our limited individualistic senses, whether we are capable of doing so. It may not be humans who better understand and more knowingly participate in reality but some of those who succeed humanity.

Humanity can't 'awaken' to absolute knowledge of truth , beauty and goodness; but humanity and individuals progress towards more inclusive knowledge of the transcendent, especially when the hard work of learning a great many of other mens' perspectives has been done. And sometimes an individual has an intuitive leap of understanding. I say "other mens' perspectives" and a lot can be accomplished with empathy ; but it is impossible to know the complete gestalt of another person' experience. Which is why the subject of experience, human or other, is important and more so than the animal looked upon objectively as a biological machine.

Belinda, as far as I can tell, the future of empathy depends on whether humanity can transcend its animal nature. That is, to physically transcend it. While we can only live by killing and exploiting other beings, our capacity for empathy will always be limited.

Humanity as a whole is the Great Beast; a creature of reaction. It cannot manifest other then the hypocrisy normal for its nature.

However, even though the Beast is limited, it doesn't mean that individuals cannot change within the Beast. Simone was compelled to strive consciously to become more than a creature of reaction in Plato's Cave and become part of evolved conscious humanity. Is it possible and was she successful? Who knows?

Nick wrote

This incident happened shortly before she entered the hospital.

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon

Few men have it in them in them to become saints like Simone Weil and others who successfully deny their 'animal' nature. If most people could do so this world would undoubtedly be a lot less evil.

Sy Borg wrote:

While we can only live by killing and exploiting other beings, our capacity for empathy will always be limited.

That is implied by Nick's "Humanity as a whole is the Great Beast; a creature of reaction. It cannot manifest other then the hypocrisy normal for its nature" .

I think both of these claims are true but insufficient. We can and must move further and further towards good humoured self denial . At the same time it would not be too difficult for most people to be able to view humanity as "The Great Beast" i.e. an ecological plague. When individuals and societies can view human moral weaknesses without hypocrisy , but instead with authenticity then it will be a little easier to act authentically and without hypocrisy.

I do however disagree that hypocrisy is man's permanent nature. Man has enormous capacity for change via cultural change. Great cultural changes involve wars and suffering because there are many who resist cultural changes. Simone did self denial her way. There are other ways to be inclusive, which leads us to politics.

[Nick_A]

Belindi

That is implied by Nick's "Humanity as a whole is the Great Beast; a creature of reaction. It cannot manifest other then the hypocrisy normal for its nature" .

I think both of these claims are true but insufficient. We can and must move further and further towards good humoured self denial . At the same time it would not be too difficult for most people to be able to view humanity as "The Great Beast" i.e. an ecological plague. When individuals and societies can view human moral weaknesses without hypocrisy , but instead with authenticity then it will be a little easier to act authentically and without hypocrisy.

I do however disagree that hypocrisy is man's permanent nature. Man has enormous capacity for change via cultural change. Great cultural changes involve wars and suffering because there are many who resist cultural changes. Simone did self denial her way. There are other ways to be inclusive, which leads us to politics.

Who studies the causes of human hypocrisy? Yet we know it exists and governs the quality of the life of our species. I can admit that St Paul describes me in Romans 7. It is part of admitting our hypocrisy. It is possible that our hypocrisy can be reconciled through the Law of the Included middle. Such ideas are very new in human culture and it is still normal to respond with binary logic which supports Man's being as based on hypocrisy. So the first problem is finding those willing to admit their hypocrisy rather than rationalizing it with ideas of dualistic resistance to human nature.

Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

Those who can admit the human condition within their own being without labeling it as good or bad have an advantage over most. Is an addict either good or bad or just a person suffering a condition? But how many admit the condition much less how to deal with it rather than rationalize it by some imagined maturity? Do some admit to being the wretched man as step one

[Belindi]

Belindi

That is implied by Nick's "Humanity as a whole is the Great Beast; a creature of reaction. It cannot manifest other then the hypocrisy normal for its nature" .

I think both of these claims are true but insufficient. We can and must move further and further towards good humoured self denial . At the same time it would not be too difficult for most people to be able to view humanity as "The Great Beast" i.e. an ecological plague. When individuals and societies can view human moral weaknesses without hypocrisy , but instead with authenticity then it will be a little easier to act authentically and without hypocrisy.

I do however disagree that hypocrisy is man's permanent nature. Man has enormous capacity for change via cultural change. Great cultural changes involve wars and suffering because there are many who resist cultural changes. Simone did self denial her way. There are other ways to be inclusive, which leads us to politics.

Who studies the causes of human hypocrisy? Yet we know it exists and governs the quality of the life of our species. I can admit that St Paul describes me in Romans 7. It is part of admitting our hypocrisy. It is possible that our hypocrisy can be reconciled through the Law of the Included middle. Such ideas are very new in human culture and it is still normal to respond with binary logic which supports Man's being as based on hypocrisy. So the first problem is finding those willing to admit their hypocrisy rather than rationalizing it with ideas of dualistic resistance to human nature.

Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

Those who can admit the human condition within their own being without labeling it as good or bad have an advantage over most. Is an addict either good or bad or just a person suffering a condition? But how many admit the condition much less how to deal with it rather than rationalize it by some imagined maturity? Do some admit to being the wretched man as step one

History is now being retold from other perspectives than that of the victors. This is a great advance.For instance we can now read African history especially recent African history without glorification of colonialism.
Informed people in fact do now admit all men are selfish and greedy. It is not enough to feel virtuous now that we are closer to historical and psychological truth; we must act to stop what injustices are happening right now. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing the other thing.

[Nick_A]

Belindi

History is now being retold from other perspectives than that of the victors. This is a great advance.For instance we can now read African history especially recent African history without glorification of colonialism.
Informed people in fact do now admit all men are selfish and greedy. It is not enough to feel virtuous now that we are closer to historical and psychological truth; we must act to stop what injustices are happening right now. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing the other thing.

You are assuming choice for Man exists on earth. Suppose it doesn't? What if collective Man is the Great Beast reacting to cosmic and earthly influences? What good are platitudes when the great beast lacks choice?

The OP is about two possibilities. The first assumes that Man has the conscious potential to experience wholeness or what Plato describes as the Forms represented by the Christ. The second assumes that the power to be drawn to forms has been forgotten so a person remains mechanically attracted to opinions. This tendency is represented by Judas.

If people are content to argue opinions they have their future decided by the energies of cosmic influences And earthly needs. But what of this minority who are attracted to the ONE and the forms or the source of devolved opinions?

Do they have a quality of education which can help them to remember what has been forgotten? Is it possible that there is a quality of education which doesn't teach what to do and how to critically think but instead strives to awaken the students to what they ARE and what is needed to "remember?"

Of course it isn't PC so rejected by society defending opinions but what if it does exist?

[Belindi]

Belindi

History is now being retold from other perspectives than that of the victors. This is a great advance.For instance we can now read African history especially recent African history without glorification of colonialism.
Informed people in fact do now admit all men are selfish and greedy. It is not enough to feel virtuous now that we are closer to historical and psychological truth; we must act to stop what injustices are happening right now. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing the other thing.

You are assuming choice for Man exists on earth. Suppose it doesn't? What if collective Man is the Great Beast reacting to cosmic and earthly influences? What good are platitudes when the great beast lacks choice?

The OP is about two possibilities. The first assumes that Man has the conscious potential to experience wholeness or what Plato describes as the Forms represented by the Christ. The second assumes that the power to be drawn to forms has been forgotten so a person remains mechanically attracted to opinions. This tendency is represented by Judas.

If people are content to argue opinions they have their future decided by the energies of cosmic influences And earthly needs. But what of this minority who are attracted to the ONE and the forms or the source of devolved opinions?

Do they have a quality of education which can help them to remember what has been forgotten? Is it possible that there is a quality of education which doesn't teach what to do and how to critically think but instead strives to awaken the students to what they ARE and what is needed to "remember?"

Of course it isn't PC so rejected by society defending opinions but what if it does exist?

I expect you have quite a lot of choices you are empowered to make. You will be subject to your opinions the same as everyone else. Al you can know is what you have experienced or have been told by reliable others. There is no way anyone can understand eternity. You can of course, believe Plato if you choose to do so.I suspect that people who think they can know eternal Forms are deceiving themselves.

What is the point of worrying about mankind's being the great beast? Even if it were a rearguard action but we can still fight for a better world.

[Nick_A]

From "Infinite Potential", a movie bout David Bohm

We all find that the groups to which we belong function really well sometimes … and then there are those other times, the ones when it’s hard to see through the clashes or to avoid the landmines. Why do those clashes happen? How do we mend the tears in the fabric of our groups or societal world once they have been torn?
Bohm thought about that a lot. Why is it that inevitably we seem to get into such societal muddles? He worried – or as David Peat describes it he agonized – over the state of the world in conflict, feeling that as a scientist he had responsibility to help find the way to patch the world back together. The idea of wholeness became his mantra, his life search, whether in physics or in society.
In the realm of physics, Bohm had discovered the essential role that wholeness plays in the universe. His mind’s eye pictured what this wholeness was like. In a vast space were many bubbles of light, each connected to the other and each reflecting back the image of the whole. So each was individual but each also contained the whole which had been reflected to him and which was then within him and re-reflected back out to all others.
That’s rather astounding: We all contain the whole universe within us as well as being individual. We are both whole and part. While we are uniquely ourselves, we are also inseparable from the whole.
If that is so, then why is it that we tend to get into such muddles? There’s a hint in something he once said. The universe is always coherent if we take a great enough view. The reason things appear to be fragmented is that we are looking too low; we fail to raise our sights to the level at which the fragmentation is only a part of a greater whole. As a result, we mistakenly see things as separate, as fragmented. Were he to speak to us today, he might say, “Raise your sights. Look at a higher level for the greater whole.”

The universe is always coherent if we take a great enough view. The reason things appear to be fragmented is that we are looking too low; we fail to raise our sights to the level at which the fragmentation is only a part of a greater whole. As a result, we mistakenly see things as separate, as fragmented. Were he to speak to us today, he might say, “Raise your sights. Look at a higher level for the greater whole.

Jesus represents the inner path to wholeness while Judas supports the descent into fragmentation. Can Man both experience the forest without becoming lost in the tress which is happening now?

David Bohm was a man both of science and religion and understood how they both had the same objective but approached it from different parts of the psych. He suggested "raising our sights" when we are content to argue with the shadows on the wall. The result is arguing fragments and becoming more oblivious of wholeness or the forms. Perhaps Man's future survival depend on the influence of those like Bohm, Einstein, Plato, Nicolescu, Gurdjieff and yes even Simone Weil. They remind us of what it means raise our sights rather than expressing platitudes. Will Man remember wholeness and experience human meaning and purpose or Will the Great Beast be encouraged to further descend into fragmentation?

[Sy Borg]

Jesus represents the inner path to wholeness while Judas supports the descent into fragmentation.

Not at all.

Jesus and Judas were not a double act, diametric opposites. Jesus and Satan is the correct match up. Judas was just a patsy for the Romans, a dupe. The morals behind the myth of Jesus and Judas relate to trust, loyalty and how fear can lead to betrayals.

Also, liberalism has nothing to do with fragmentation. Exactly the opposite, it's about inclusiveness and freedom.

I appreciate that you dislike how science chunks nature so as to make it more understandable. It's true that taking scientific silos too seriously will stand in the way of broader understandings, leaving us with weakly connected islands of facts that fail to tell a coherent story. There are many gaps. Growth can occur both individually and as collectives.

You appear to advocate more emphasis on growth through revelation. That is, attempting to induce spiritual experiences, to learn about that which cannot be expressed in words. Sounds good to me.

And such a focus on spiritual practice has nothing at all to do with conservatism or liberalism. Those who enjoy spiritual experiences tend to have no truck with the standard "tribal" church or materialist biases, preferring to follow their own path. Because that's what a spiritual experience is - an ineffable experience that points the way to greater peace and understanding, certainly not to tribal hostilities.

[Sy Borg]

Sy Borg wrote:

While we can only live by killing and exploiting other beings, our capacity for empathy will always be limited.

That is implied by Nick's "Humanity as a whole is the Great Beast; a creature of reaction. It cannot manifest other then the hypocrisy normal for its nature" .

I think both of these claims are true but insufficient. We can and must move further and further towards good humoured self denial . At the same time it would not be too difficult for most people to be able to view humanity as "The Great Beast" i.e. an ecological plague. When individuals and societies can view human moral weaknesses without hypocrisy , but instead with authenticity then it will be a little easier to act authentically and without hypocrisy.

I do however disagree that hypocrisy is man's permanent nature. Man has enormous capacity for change via cultural change. Great cultural changes involve wars and suffering because there are many who resist cultural changes. Simone did self denial her way. There are other ways to be inclusive, which leads us to politics.

Yes, Nick and I seem to be speaking about the same thing - the unsatisfactory nature of life's current schema and the hope that the situation will become less inherently harsh - but we largely access different bodies of knowledge. The "tribes" behind those repositories are at war, so the logical reflex action is to snipe at those deemed as "other". I'm too old and tired for such reflex actions.

"Good humoured self denial". That was once an ideal. Now there's growing ill humour and fear of missing out. It's a reminder that growth is not smoothly linear, that sometimes it's a matter of three-steps-forward-two-steps-back.

We can be hypocritical because we wish to be good, but we must cause much death and suffering in other living beings so as to survive. How can we see ourselves as good while being directly responsible for so much horror? The same as as any group of predators manages to bond with each other while ruthlessly killing.

Objectification. Once we objectify another species (or political opponent) we give ourselves permission to act unconscionably by deluding ourselves that the suffering is not real or, worse, does not matter.

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:

While we can only live by killing and exploiting other beings, our capacity for empathy will always be limited.

That is implied by Nick's "Humanity as a whole is the Great Beast; a creature of reaction. It cannot manifest other then the hypocrisy normal for its nature" .

I think both of these claims are true but insufficient. We can and must move further and further towards good humoured self denial . At the same time it would not be too difficult for most people to be able to view humanity as "The Great Beast" i.e. an ecological plague. When individuals and societies can view human moral weaknesses without hypocrisy , but instead with authenticity then it will be a little easier to act authentically and without hypocrisy.

I do however disagree that hypocrisy is man's permanent nature. Man has enormous capacity for change via cultural change. Great cultural changes involve wars and suffering because there are many who resist cultural changes. Simone did self denial her way. There are other ways to be inclusive, which leads us to politics.

Yes, Nick and I seem to be speaking about the same thing - the unsatisfactory nature of life's current schema and the hope that the situation will become less inherently harsh - but we largely access different bodies of knowledge. The "tribes" behind those repositories are at war, so the logical reflex action is to snipe at those deemed as "other". I'm too old and tired for such reflex actions.

"Good humoured self denial". That was once an ideal. Now there's growing ill humour and fear of missing out. It's a reminder that growth is not smoothly linear, that sometimes it's a matter of three-steps-forward-two-steps-back.

We can be hypocritical because we wish to be good, but we must cause much death and suffering in other living beings so as to survive. How can we see ourselves as good while being directly responsible for so much horror? The same as as any group of predators manages to bond with each other while ruthlessly killing.

Objectification. Once we objectify another species (or political opponent) we give ourselves permission to act unconscionably by deluding ourselves that the suffering is not real or, worse, does not matter.

Even Jesus did not claim to be good.

KJ21
And Jesus said unto him, “Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God.

But we can be more knowledgeable which includes self knowledge ,and also empathy.

Sy Borg wrote:

Objectification. Once we objectify another species (or political opponent) we give ourselves permission to act unconscionably by deluding ourselves that the suffering is not real or, worse, does not matter.

The former attitude is illustrated by Descartes' attitude to animals which he said were automata The latter attitude is Lady Macbeth who deliberately stopped her "milk of human kindness".

Shakespeare in Macbeth (1:5), where Lady Macbeth complains that her husband “is too full of the milk of human kindness” to kill his rivals.

Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood;
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature's mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,
To cry 'Hold, hold!' (1.5.45-61)(Lady Macbeth)

Africans were turned into commodities . They still are, where in the present day commerce trades mineral wealth for their suffering. But we need our flat screen TVs.

[Belindi]

From "Infinite Potential", a movie bout David Bohm

We all find that the groups to which we belong function really well sometimes … and then there are those other times, the ones when it’s hard to see through the clashes or to avoid the landmines. Why do those clashes happen? How do we mend the tears in the fabric of our groups or societal world once they have been torn?
Bohm thought about that a lot. Why is it that inevitably we seem to get into such societal muddles? He worried – or as David Peat describes it he agonized – over the state of the world in conflict, feeling that as a scientist he had responsibility to help find the way to patch the world back together. The idea of wholeness became his mantra, his life search, whether in physics or in society.
In the realm of physics, Bohm had discovered the essential role that wholeness plays in the universe. His mind’s eye pictured what this wholeness was like. In a vast space were many bubbles of light, each connected to the other and each reflecting back the image of the whole. So each was individual but each also contained the whole which had been reflected to him and which was then within him and re-reflected back out to all others.
That’s rather astounding: We all contain the whole universe within us as well as being individual. We are both whole and part. While we are uniquely ourselves, we are also inseparable from the whole.
If that is so, then why is it that we tend to get into such muddles? There’s a hint in something he once said. The universe is always coherent if we take a great enough view. The reason things appear to be fragmented is that we are looking too low; we fail to raise our sights to the level at which the fragmentation is only a part of a greater whole. As a result, we mistakenly see things as separate, as fragmented. Were he to speak to us today, he might say, “Raise your sights. Look at a higher level for the greater whole.”

The universe is always coherent if we take a great enough view. The reason things appear to be fragmented is that we are looking too low; we fail to raise our sights to the level at which the fragmentation is only a part of a greater whole. As a result, we mistakenly see things as separate, as fragmented. Were he to speak to us today, he might say, “Raise your sights. Look at a higher level for the greater whole.

Jesus represents the inner path to wholeness while Judas supports the descent into fragmentation. Can Man both experience the forest without becoming lost in the tress which is happening now?

David Bohm was a man both of science and religion and understood how they both had the same objective but approached it from different parts of the psych. He suggested "raising our sights" when we are content to argue with the shadows on the wall. The result is arguing fragments and becoming more oblivious of wholeness or the forms. Perhaps Man's future survival depend on the influence of those like Bohm, Einstein, Plato, Nicolescu, Gurdjieff and yes even Simone Weil. They remind us of what it means raise our sights rather than expressing platitudes. Will Man remember wholeness and experience human meaning and purpose or Will the Great Beast be encouraged to further descend into fragmentation?

I read David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" about forty years ago. I didn't understand the actual physics chapter but no matter.His ideas impressed me I think permanently.
Here is a brief extract from Bohm's introduction:

I would say that in my scientific and philosophical work, my
main concern has been with understanding the nature of reality
in general and of consciousness in particular as a coherent
whole, which is never static or complete, but which is in an
unending process of movement and unfoldment. Thus, when I
look back, I see that even as a child I was fascinated by the puzzle,
indeed the mystery, of what is the nature of movement. Whenever one thinks of anything, it seems to be apprehended either as
static, or as a series of static images. Yet, in the actual experience
of movement, one senses an unbroken, undivided process of flow,
to which the series of static images in thought is related as a
series of ‘still’ photographs might be related to the actuality of a
speeding car.

The "implicate order" is a deterministic image which is more like an ever-changing but ordered fountain than a series of stagnant ponds.The "fragmentation" that Nick writes of is really an undivided flow of events. It is the undivided flow that is true, not the fragmented image.