Objective vs Subjective meaning of life

[Sy Borg]

Maybe in about 100 million years ... again, there's no rush. The universe is an infant. Do you expect an infant to perform calculus?

The Earth is also evolving and our species on it evolves at this same rate. A day for the Earth can be equivalent to a generation for humanity. However a person has the chance for "accelerated evolution" which is why the Christ allowed himself to experience the Cross and open a path for humanity



A horse is a horse. Are we now supposed to identify them as stallions and mares so the mares won't be insulted? Does everyone have to bend over for PC silliness?



The tendency, as the universe cools, is the opposite - ever more particulation and complexification.

At this stage we depart because you are referring to a schema I simply don't believe. Besides, plenty of people integrate their rationality, emotionalism and appetites in a balanced way, especially with life experience. I don't buy the idea that certain (religious) people with a particular life hack (religious practice) have a future of growth in the universe while other people, with different approaches to life, are essentially pointless beasts.

There are many fine people living in Plato's cave. They are called good householders. They are responsible people and good to others. A good householder evolves more quickly than experts in BS. But again, there are these few questioning what it means and why there is such a struggle between the lower and higher parts of ourselves and are willing to endure self knowledge to find out. My interest in philosophy encourages me to support this minority struggling for individuality: to BE.

Is there a quality of objective meaning a person can experience above the human ability to interpret and devolve it into transient subjective meaning? Some say yes while the majority say no. At least we have established that.

I recognise your householder views from Gurdjieff. I think G was simply doing what a lot of mystics do, he was trying to discourage opposition. "Householders" are no threat, so he gives them a lukewarm gong - still nowhere near the level of him and his most obedient followers. I note that,m in religions, the most "lost" are always their opposition, not the neutrals. Scientology does the same. Ditto Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam and Catholicism. All of these belief systems reserve their biggest slams for the main opponents and speak rather less harshly about the masses so as to not galvanise an otherwise neutral majority against them. It's pretty standard politics really. I'm surprised people still swallow it.

People struggle with all manner of learning during their lives, both extrinsic and intrinsic. I do not think the struggles you speak of are unique to Gurdjieff's cult any more than they are unique to any self-regarding esoteric group. Further, people not aligned to your kind of thinking have all manner of extraordinary experiences and insights. How can they possible do that without special teaching in overcoming the tripartate soul?

I agree with Sy Borg. If I may paraphrase, Mysticism is sometimes a gateway to elitism. This is why the old churchmen voted for Irenaeus instead of Valentinus. The Gospels are overwhelmingly NOT elitist. True, churches must have some system of governance but that ought not to imply spiritual superiority among the governors.

Mystics may be the sort of people who have intuitions of God, gods, or eternal truths. That sort of mystic has natural, not supernatural, powers and that sort of mystic may be an artist, a musician, a scientist, or a mathematician, i.e. completely this-worldly .There is no short cut to true mysticism ; professed knowledge of supernatural goings-on is a sign of either charlatanism or superstition.

Yes, the spiritual marketplace is as competitive as any other, be it sporting, business, real estate, or selling used cars. More so; they sometimes fight to the death over their differences.

That, to me, is an issue. If there is any field that would ideally eschew worldly competitiveness, it's spirituality. So I baulk at spiritual elitism. Maybe I'm just idealistic, but the focus should be on "flocks" being better people than they were yesterday, as opposed to being better than some reviled other. Playing a zero sum game is religious but not spiritual.

[Nick_A]

Sy

Yes, the spiritual marketplace is as competitive as any other, be it sporting, business, real estate, or selling used cars. More so; they sometimes fight to the death over their differences.

That, to me, is an issue. If there is any field that would ideally eschew worldly competitiveness, it's spirituality. So I baulk at spiritual elitism. Maybe I'm just idealistic, but the focus should be on "flocks" being better people than they were yesterday, as opposed to being better than some reviled other. Playing a zero sum game is religious but not spiritual.

You don't realize that what you are calling spiritual is really secular indulging in the war of opinions

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/

Frithjof Schuon, a scholar and an authority on Comparative
Religion and the Sophia Perennis, has written a book called
The Transcendent Unity Of Religions. As its title
indicates, the book is about the unity of religious wisdom.
And as the use of the definite article indicates, this unity
is unique. But it is essential to observe that this unity is
also transcendent, i.e., the unity is in the spirit and not
in the letter............................

..............As Huston Smith writes in the Introduction to Schuon’s book,
“the defect in other versions of this
[esoteric/exoteric] distinction is that they claim unity in
religions too soon, at levels where, being exoteric, true
Unity does not pertain and can be posited only on pain of
Procrusteanism or vapidity.” Once we identify any
particular thought system, no matter how comprehensive, as
the truth, then we have excluded other thought
systems and denied the Truth its unity and its infinite
possibilities for expression. The unity of Truth must
therefore be a Transcendent Unity. “The fact that it
is transcendent,” Smith writes, “means that it
can be univocally described by none.” Thus, while
there is one and only one Truth, there are many expressions
of it.

The point is that we live at the exoteric level or Plato's cave. People call themselves many things including spiritual but at the exoteric level they are just imagination. A person can consciously ascend to the transcendent level through the esoteric path.

Of course there is a great deal of imagination in secularized spirituality but that is not to say a person cannot consciously transcend the secular and approach the transcendent or the level in which truth abides.

It is dangerous and the world does not approve:

If the perfectly just (i.e., righteous) man were to come into the world…“He will be scourged, racked, bound. He will have his eyes burned out. And at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled.” Plato's Republic

Dangerous or not, the world needs this minority who seek to transcend dependence on the subjective meaning of the exoteric level in need of the transcendent level and the quality of meaning it offers the human heart.

[Sy Borg]

Sy

Yes, the spiritual marketplace is as competitive as any other, be it sporting, business, real estate, or selling used cars. More so; they sometimes fight to the death over their differences.

That, to me, is an issue. If there is any field that would ideally eschew worldly competitiveness, it's spirituality. So I baulk at spiritual elitism. Maybe I'm just idealistic, but the focus should be on "flocks" being better people than they were yesterday, as opposed to being better than some reviled other. Playing a zero sum game is religious but not spiritual.

You don't realize that what you are calling spiritual is really secular indulging in the war of opinions

Including Gurdieff's groups. G was intensely spiritually competitive, always decrying others as "asleep". As I say, it's always about being better than "them" rather than better than one's old self.

The unity of Truth must therefore be a Transcendent Unity. “The fact that it is transcendent,” Smith writes, “means that it can be univocally described by none.” Thus, while there is one and only one Truth, there are many expressions of it.

Well, there's Minkowski space and our perception of the passage of time.

If the perfectly just (i.e., righteous) man were to come into the world…“He will be scourged, racked, bound. He will have his eyes burned out. And at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled.” Plato's Republic

Dangerous or not, the world needs this minority who seek to transcend dependence on the subjective meaning of the exoteric level in need of the transcendent level and the quality of meaning it offers the human heart.

There is no such thing as a perfectly righteous human. It doesn't even make sense. As soon as they bite into a piece of meat, they stop being perfectly righteous. Good people are as often ignored as they are spurned. Obviously anyone who does not tolerate cronyism cannot survive in politics or business.

[Nick_A]

Sy

Including Gurdieff's groups. G was intensely spiritually competitive, always decrying others as "asleep". As I say, it's always about being better than "them" rather than better than one's old self.

“Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words, thoughts, feelings, convictions, opinions, and habits are the results of external influences, external impressions. Out of himself a man cannot produce a single thought, a single action. Everything he says, does, thinks, feels—all this happens. Man cannot discover anything, invent anything. It all happens.
“To establish this fact for oneself, to understand it, to be convinced of its truth, means getting rid of a thousand illusions about man, about his being creative and consciously organizing his own life, and so on. There is nothing of this kind. Everything happens—popular movements, wars, revolutions, changes of government, all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as everything happens in the life of individual man. Man is born, lives, dies, builds houses, writes books, not as he wants to, but as it happens. Everything happens. Man does not love, hate, desire—all this happens.” ~ George Gurdjieff

“Man is a machine, but a very peculiar machine. He is a machine which, in right circumstances, and with right treatment, can know that he is a machine, and having fully realized this, he may find the ways to cease to be a machine.
First of all, what man must know is that he is not one; he is many. He has not one permanent and unchangeable “I” or Ego. He is always different. One moment he is one, another moment he is another, the third moment he is a third, and so on, almost without end.” ― P.D. Ouspensky

When the Buddha started to wander around India shortly after his enlightenment, he encountered several men who recognized him to be a very extraordinary being. They asked him: "Are you a god?" "No," he replied. "Are you a reincarnation of god?" "No," he replied."Are you a wizard, then?" "No." "Well, are you a man?" "No." "So what are you?" They asked, being very perplexed. Buddha simply replied: "I am awake." Buddha means “the awakened one.” How to awaken is all he taught.

Who is the better man? This is really silly as soon as a person realizes humanity is living a mechanical life with me as a part of it with the potential for consciousness. Concerning oneself with who knows a better way and who is a better machine is foolish until a person realizes they are asleep; they are a machine and feel the need to awaken to the truth of what human being is. The question of who is better only refers to secular politics. How to awaken is a question for those needing the path to objective truth.. How to transcend imagination which our species has come to idolize?

When a person begins to awaken it becomes obvious that Man is unable to DO and how far we are from it. Before being able to DO a person needs to BE.

[Sy Borg]

Nicko, you probably haven't seen the threads where I strongly disagree with anyone who takes the machine metaphor for life too seriously. Humans too are not machines, and not at all like machines. Nor is my dog, nor the birds around me, nor the lizards, trees, weeds or microbes.

If you look at life and see a machine, all that shows is you are either failing to empathise, not looking closely enough or you are physically unable to (distant and very small organisms). At a distance, everything seems machinelike, including humanity.

Calling any organism is like a machine is akin to saying a Rembrandt masterpiece is like a rough sketch. In fact, the machine analogy itself is a rough sketch of the situation - accurate in a very rough, general sense but entirely lacking all the most critical aspects.

I have no problem with people engaging in personal growth in any way that feels right for them individually. I don't much care for one-size-fits-all solutions. There may come a time in the future when individuality will quashed to a point where broad-brush approaches to personal growth are logical, but not at this time. As I keep saying, horses for courses.

[Nick_A]

Nicko, you probably haven't seen the threads where I strongly disagree with anyone who takes the machine metaphor for life too seriously. Humans too are not machines, and not at all like machines. Nor is my dog, nor the birds around me, nor the lizards, trees, weeds or microbes.

If you look at life and see a machine, all that shows is you are either failing to empathise, not looking closely enough or you are physically unable to (distant and very small organisms). At a distance, everything seems machinelike, including humanity.

Calling any organism is like a machine is akin to saying a Rembrandt masterpiece is like a rough sketch. In fact, the machine analogy itself is a rough sketch of the situation - accurate in a very rough, general sense but entirely lacking all the most critical aspects.

I have no problem with people engaging in personal growth in any way that feels right for them individually. I don't much care for one-size-fits-all solutions. There may come a time in the future when individuality will quashed to a point where broad-brush approaches to personal growth are logical, but not at this time. As I keep saying, horses for courses.

Consider interacting life in a jungle. Is it an expression of conscious life or of mechanical life reacting in accordance with worldly or comic laws we call nature's laws.

A machine is something that has been made in order to accomplish a given task or tasks. It is programmed to do a task or series of tasks as efficiently as possible.

Is a horse a machine? Is it a material expression of conscious life so in reality is a living machine. A machine cannot observe itself but Man is a plurality. He lives between two worlds. We are not one but actually many. The higher part of our collective essence has conscious awareness of what Man is. But it is weak and only a small part of our collective being so comes and goes and the person's essence remains the same.

IMO if people had a sincere interest in philosophy and religion, they would strive to learn the reality of the human essence and why humanity is as it is. But in reality only a small minority have such an interest so nothing changes and the cycles continue to repeat.

When the Christ was on the cross he said forgive them for they know not what they do. Is this weakness or teaching his followers that reacting machines cannot be objectively responsible. If Man is a plurality with no I or inner unity, but just a small part which can become capable of self observation or to Know Thyself. What if he or she becomes aware of their situation? Then a person's higher side can struggle with the demands of the lower side and eventually allow reason to rule over appetites for the purpose of striving TO BE.

But until a person begins to understand the difference between conscious doing and a mechanical happening, the only thing assured is that collective Man as the Great Beast will turn in cycles along with the rest of animal life serving nature's purpose.

We can argue philosophy and its myriad of opinions or we can open our minds to the reality Socrates did when he said "I Know Nothing" for the purpose of remembering what the being of Man always knew: objective meaning

[Sy Borg]

Nicko, you probably haven't seen the threads where I strongly disagree with anyone who takes the machine metaphor for life too seriously. Humans too are not machines, and not at all like machines. Nor is my dog, nor the birds around me, nor the lizards, trees, weeds or microbes.

If you look at life and see a machine, all that shows is you are either failing to empathise, not looking closely enough or you are physically unable to (distant and very small organisms). At a distance, everything seems machinelike, including humanity.

Calling any organism is like a machine is akin to saying a Rembrandt masterpiece is like a rough sketch. In fact, the machine analogy itself is a rough sketch of the situation - accurate in a very rough, general sense but entirely lacking all the most critical aspects.

I have no problem with people engaging in personal growth in any way that feels right for them individually. I don't much care for one-size-fits-all solutions. There may come a time in the future when individuality will quashed to a point where broad-brush approaches to personal growth are logical, but not at this time. As I keep saying, horses for courses.

Consider interacting life in a jungle. Is it an expression of conscious life or of mechanical life reacting in accordance with worldly or comic laws we call nature's laws.

A machine is something that has been made in order to accomplish a given task or tasks. It is programmed to do a task or series of tasks as efficiently as possible.

Is a horse a machine? Is it a material expression of conscious life so in reality is a living machine. A machine cannot observe itself but Man is a plurality. He lives between two worlds. We are not one but actually many. The higher part of our collective essence has conscious awareness of what Man is. But it is weak and only a small part of our collective being so comes and goes and the person's essence remains the same.

A machine cannot observe anything. It's a machine. Horses observe, as do humans. Horses' hearing and sense of smell are better than humans, while humans' vision and time perception are better.

The reason animals and people seem mechanical to you is that you don't empathise with them. Rather than really try to understand what's happening with other entities, you simply judge them from a distance, satisfied that your own superficial impressions are correct.

Not sure if you are interested, but if you try to empathise with others - and I mean to try hard to put yourself in their shoes - you will not see any kind of machine, but a personality, a being.

IMO if people had a sincere interest in philosophy and religion, they would strive to learn the reality of the human essence and why humanity is as it is. But in reality only a small minority have such an interest so nothing changes and the cycles continue to repeat.

Ah phooey. So if people don't share your interests then they aren't true S̶c̶o̶t̶s̶m̶e̶n̶ philosophers?

I could just easily say that people who don't display a deep interest in nature are only fiddling around the edges, and that would be just as wrong as your statement.

But until a person begins to understand the difference between conscious doing and a mechanical happening, the only thing assured is that collective Man as the Great Beast will turn in cycles along with the rest of animal life serving nature's purpose.

We can argue philosophy and its myriad of opinions or we can open our minds to the reality Socrates did when he said "I Know Nothing" for the purpose of remembering what the being of Man always knew: objective meaning

Again, you mistake your lack of attention for a machine. Over time, many become ever better at being conscious and deliberate in thought and deed, which comes from experience and simply being in less of a rush, taking more time to notice.

Don't worry about the Great Beast, Nicko. You were a part of it from the day you were born and you will never, ever escape it. Rather, you will do its bidding in some small ways like most others until you provide it with either fertiliser or noxious gases. If you did ever escape the GB, you'd soon perish (without being an expert survivalist).

So it goes.

[Belindi]

The Great Beast is the same as what Sartre implied when he urged people to be authentic. Sartre, like our Nick, was Cartesian as regards Free Will.

[Nick_A]

Nicko, you probably haven't seen the threads where I strongly disagree with anyone who takes the machine metaphor for life too seriously. Humans too are not machines, and not at all like machines. Nor is my dog, nor the birds around me, nor the lizards, trees, weeds or microbes.

If you look at life and see a machine, all that shows is you are either failing to empathise, not looking closely enough or you are physically unable to (distant and very small organisms). At a distance, everything seems machinelike, including humanity.

Calling any organism is like a machine is akin to saying a Rembrandt masterpiece is like a rough sketch. In fact, the machine analogy itself is a rough sketch of the situation - accurate in a very rough, general sense but entirely lacking all the most critical aspects.

I have no problem with people engaging in personal growth in any way that feels right for them individually. I don't much care for one-size-fits-all solutions. There may come a time in the future when individuality will quashed to a point where broad-brush approaches to personal growth are logical, but not at this time. As I keep saying, horses for courses.

Consider interacting life in a jungle. Is it an expression of conscious life or of mechanical life reacting in accordance with worldly or cosmic laws we call nature's laws.

A machine is something that has been made in order to accomplish a given task or tasks. It is programmed to do a task or series of tasks as efficiently as possible.

Is a horse a machine? Is it a material expression of conscious life so in reality is a living machine. A machine cannot observe itself but Man is a plurality. He lives between two worlds. We are not one but actually many. The higher part of our collective essence has conscious awareness of what Man is. But it is weak and only a small part of our collective being so comes and goes and the person's essence remains the same.

A machine cannot observe anything. It's a machine. Horses observe, as do humans. Horses' hearing and sense of smell are better than humans, while humans' vision and time perception are better.

We create machines to mimic our senses and some see and hear far better than we do. But a machine cannot observe itself. It cannot see itself walking down the street. But a human being can awaken to see itself sitting at the computer even though it got into the room and into a chair mechanically. Man is dual natured. Its lower parts are a machine but its higher parts have the potential for sustained consciousness The machine lacks this quality of consciousness since it was made by Man. But what pumped life into a living machine making it a living being rather than artificial intelligence?

The reason animals and people seem mechanical to you is that you don't empathise with them. Rather than really try to understand what's happening with other entities, you simply judge them from a distance, satisfied that your own superficial impressions are correct.

I know you like Star Trek. Data offers food for thought. Does the crew empathize with him or forget he isn't human. We empathize with the outer Man or personality. With Data, there is no inner Man even though the outer man has a personality.

What do we know of the inner Man we can empathize with?

Not sure if you are interested, but if you try to empathise with others - and I mean to try hard to put yourself in their shoes - you will not see any kind of machine, but a personality, a being.

IMO if people had a sincere interest in philosophy and religion, they would strive to learn the reality of the human essence and why humanity is as it is. But in reality only a small minority have such an interest so nothing changes and the cycles continue to repeat.

Ah phooey. So if people don't share your interests then they aren't true S̶c̶o̶t̶s̶m̶e̶n̶ philosophers?

I could just easily say that people who don't display a deep interest in nature are only fiddling around the edges, and that would be just as wrong as your statement.

Yes, Man fiddles around with nature. Plato writes, quoting Socrates, “Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.” Suppose a person begins to wonder what this marvelous machine called life on earth is doing and why it does it? We observe that it eats itself and reproduces but why? What purpose does it serve and should we play a part in supporting this purpose? This isn't my question but a natural question for anyone experiencing nature

But until a person begins to understand the difference between conscious doing and a mechanical happening, the only thing assured is that collective Man as the Great Beast will turn in cycles along with the rest of animal life serving nature's purpose.

We can argue philosophy and its myriad of opinions or we can open our minds to the reality Socrates did when he said "I Know Nothing" for the purpose of remembering what the being of Man always knew: objective meaning

Again, you mistake your lack of attention for a machine. Over time, many become ever better at being conscious and deliberate in thought and deed, which comes from experience and simply being in less of a rush, taking more time to notice.

Slowing down and becoming more attentive is good to make a better machine but what of those who feel the potential to be less a machine and more a conscious being to acquire "choice." They see they are dual natured and have this continuous struggle between their higher and lower parts. Hypocrisy has become a natural expression of human nature. A person wonders why it is so and all the modern platitudes do not answer the question of what we are. Socrates says we must know ourselves but we prefer to imagine ourselves. What is a seeker of truth concerned with objective knowledge rather than subjective societal justifications to do? Can we know ourselves in response to what our heart calls us to do; see ourselves rather than imagine ourselves and satisfy our lower natures?

Don't worry about the Great Beast, Nicko. You were a part of it from the day you were born and you will never, ever escape it. Rather, you will do its bidding in some small ways like most others until you provide it with either fertiliser or noxious gases. If you did ever escape the GB, you'd soon perish (without being an expert survivalist).

So it goes.

From dust to dust. Is it the same for everyone?

[Sy Borg]

Sy Borg: Again, you mistake your lack of attention for a machine. Over time, many become ever better at being conscious and deliberate in thought and deed, which comes from experience and simply being in less of a rush, taking more time to notice.

Nick: Slowing down and becoming more attentive is good to make a better machine but what of those who feel the potential to be less a machine and more a conscious being to acquire "choice." They see they are dual natured and have this continuous struggle between their higher and lower parts. Hypocrisy has become a natural expression of human nature. A person wonders why it is so and all the modern platitudes do not answer the question of what we are. Socrates says we must know ourselves but we prefer to imagine ourselves. What is a seeker of truth concerned with objective knowledge rather than subjective societal justifications to do? Can we know ourselves in response to what our heart calls us to do; see ourselves rather than imagine ourselves and satisfy our lower natures?

Nick, your solipsism reminds me of this passage by the fictitious author, Kilgore Trout:

Dear sir, poor sir, brave sir: You are an experiment by the Creator of the Universe. You are the only creature in the entire Universe who has free will. You are the only one who has to figure out what to do next — and why. Everybody else is a robot, a machine.

Some persons seem to like you, and others seem to hate you, and you must wonder why. They are simply liking machines and hating machines.

You are pooped and demoralized. Why wouldn’t you be? Of course it’s exhausting, having to reason every time in a universe which wasn’t meant to be reasonable.

You are surrounded by loving machines, hating machines, greedy machines, unselfish machines, brave machines, cowardly machines, truthful machines, lying machines, funny machines, solemn machines. Their only purpose is to stir you up in every conceivable way, so the Creator of the Universe can watch your reactions. They can no more feel or reason than grandfather clocks.

The Creator of the Universe would now like to apologize not only for the capricious, jostling companionship he provided during the test, but for the trashy, stinking condition of the planet itself. The Creator programmed robots to abuse it for millions of years, so it would be a poisonous, festering cheese when you got here. Also, He made sure it would be desperately crowded by programming robots, regardless of their living conditions, to crave sexual intercourse and adore infants more than almost anything.

He also programmed robots to write books and magazines and newspapers for you, and television and radio shows, and stage shows, and films. They wrote songs for you. The Creator of the Universe had them invent hundreds of religions, so you would have plenty to choose among. He had them kill each other by the millions, for this purpose only: that you be amazed. They had commited every possible atrocity and every possible kindness unfeelingly, automatically, inevitably, to get a reaction from Y-O-U. [...]

.............

Don't worry about the Great Beast, Nicko. You were a part of it from the day you were born and you will never, ever escape it. Rather, you will do its bidding in some small ways like most others until you provide it with either fertiliser or noxious gases. If you did ever escape the GB, you'd soon perish (without being an expert survivalist).

From dust to dust. Is it the same for everyone?

That is not the point. You rail against the Great Beast without appreciating that you are inextricably a part of it. When you rail against the GB, you are a part of the GB railing against parts of the GB.

You are the Great Beast and the Great Beast is you, and you have no more choice in the matter than your cells have of being part of you. Still, when you die you go to heaven but when the rest of us die we simply return to dust with the other machines, right? Do you have the extra vertebra that Gurdjieff claims grows in the necks of those who have achieved an astral body? Hmm, my neck has been really sore in recent years ......

[Nick_A]

Sy

You support attempts to express a subjective meaning for life. I know that the scientific method reveals a portion of truth. I also know the essence of religion reveals a portion of truth. When they appear in contradiction I am missing the point since objective truth cannot contradict itself. Only subjective truth or meaning does. Can I abandon the defense of subjective meaning long enough to experience objective truth and meaning? Not so easy

That is not the point. You rail against the Great Beast without appreciating that you are inextricably a part of it. When you rail against the GB, you are a part of the GB railing against parts of the GB.

You are the Great Beast and the Great Beast is you, and you have no more choice in the matter than your cells have of being part of you. Still, when you die you go to heaven but when the rest of us die we simply return to dust with the other machines, right? Do you have the extra vertebra that Gurdjieff claims grows in the necks of those who have achieved an astral body? Hmm, my neck has been really sore in recent years ......

My advantage over you is my willingness to admit I am an atom of the Great Beast. If that is all there is, why admit it? Just create your own fantasies. Some like Plato suggested it is possible to leave Plato's Cave to discover and feel objective human meaning.

What good does it do to rail against the Great Beast? Why not become capable of outgrowing it and become the individual nature intended rather than an atom of the Great Beast. But how? If we refuse through self awareness to admit that we are not one but many, how can a person begin? Exchanging one subjective concept of human meaning for another just turns us in circles.

What do you want? What does your heart need? Maybe all it needs is the security to turn in circles. Those like Simone are different. Turning in circles to appease the Great Beast was never enough for her. She needed to become one with objective truths and universal meaning.

[Sy Borg]

That is not the point. You rail against the Great Beast without appreciating that you are inextricably a part of it. When you rail against the GB, you are a part of the GB railing against parts of the GB.

You are the Great Beast and the Great Beast is you, and you have no more choice in the matter than your cells have of being part of you. Still, when you die you go to heaven but when the rest of us die we simply return to dust with the other machines, right? Do you have the extra vertebra that Gurdjieff claims grows in the necks of those who have achieved an astral body? Hmm, my neck has been really sore in recent years ......

My advantage over you is my willingness to admit I am an atom of the Great Beast.

It's poor form to simply ignore what someone says and then imply they said the opposite. More oddly, you claim my stance for yourself, as if you are the only one here who can see.

It's strangely dishonest behaviour, given there is no attempt to hide the lie, as if no one will notice. It reminds me of how toddlers hide behind their hands, believing that makes them invisible. Seemingly this stems from the objectification of those seen as "other".

[Nick_A]

That is not the point. You rail against the Great Beast without appreciating that you are inextricably a part of it. When you rail against the GB, you are a part of the GB railing against parts of the GB.

You are the Great Beast and the Great Beast is you, and you have no more choice in the matter than your cells have of being part of you. Still, when you die you go to heaven but when the rest of us die we simply return to dust with the other machines, right? Do you have the extra vertebra that Gurdjieff claims grows in the necks of those who have achieved an astral body? Hmm, my neck has been really sore in recent years ......

My advantage over you is my willingness to admit I am an atom of the Great Beast.

It's poor form to simply ignore what someone says and then imply they said the opposite. More oddly, you claim my stance for yourself, as if you are the only one here who can see.

It's strangely dishonest behaviour, given there is no attempt to hide the lie, as if no one will notice. It reminds me of how toddlers hide behind their hands, believing that makes them invisible. Seemingly this stems from the objectification of those seen as "other".

No, I'm not the only one here who can see it. I'm one of the few who admits it. One of the primary qualities that keeps our species as the Great Beast is hypocrisy. It prevents a person from seeing themselves. I am wiling to admit that I am a hypocrite

For example you support nature and oppose eating meat. However you are also in favor of killing a fetus for convenience justifying it as a woman's choice. Could this question of respect for life be discussed in relation to objective meaning? No, it can only be discussed in relation to a person's subjective definition of the meaning of life. But if this is true humanity is destined to turn in circles unable to deal with its acquired hypocrisy.

People can talk about respect for life but apparently only a rare few understand it so everything repeats and the platitudes become more eloquent

This is not an attack but an invitation to discuss hypocrisy and how it governs our lives as we argue about it within Plato's cave and discover that we cannot do it and quickly descend into arguments about subjective beliefs.

[Sy Borg]

But I had just said we were all part of the Great beast and you replied with, "My advantage over you is my willingness to admit I am an atom of the Great Beast".

What's with that??

[Belindi]

Plato was a very clever man but Plato was not the angel Gabriel direct from God. Plato was in the Cave too.