Objective vs Subjective meaning of life

[Nick_A]

"Most all" means objective truth? I believe you are being too lenient in your understanding of objective. If you are objectively taller than I am, you are always taller than me, not most all of the time.

If you include those practicing sacrifice as doing so to seek happiness, then either your understanding of sacrifice is atypical or you are diluting the meaning of happiness to be: whatever motivates someone. Whatever word you use for: doing something for a reason unrelated to oneself, will have to suffice.

I'm comfortable with using "all" instead of "most all". In that case, excluding pathology and the like, all humans seek happiness/purpose.

As far as height, depending on one's vantage point of time/space and perception, what you see isn't always what you get... yet another paradox of sorts.

The concept or activity of sacrifice can certainly become selfishly pleasurable just like acts of altruism when used as a means/method in achieving some end-goal... .

Maybe a more intriguing question could be whether we can escape our need to seek 'things' (metaphysical things from consciousness) like pleasure, purpose and happiness? And if we can escape those needs, is it objectively wrong to seek same as a kind of axiom to the meaning of life?

Don't get me wrong, your comments are factually correct. However, they happen to not meet the common definitions of the words you are using. For example "all" doesn't typically allow exclusions. Similarly while folks practicing sacrifice can have a secondary selfish motivation, in cases where they don't, they are examples of violations of your premise, and the definition of objective requires no exclusions.

Sure. It may be yet another grey area where the only 'logical' explanations would be something transcendent of bivalence or pure reason. Perhaps then, 'induction' v. 'deduction' would be a better way to 'objectively' describe the basic human need for purpose/happiness. However, I'm thinking another problem rears its head there because the concept of purpose/happiness itself involves subjectivity and consciousness (metaphysics). Unless of course, you wish to analogize pure reason to metaphysics (a priori objective truths/mathematics).

How do escape from this 'logic' (or paradox) of these descriptions of conscious phenomena? It seems normal for humans to seek meaning, but how do we go about objectively describing the concept of meaning nd/or happiness?

Jacob Needleman wrote in "money and the meaning of life"

https://www.spiritualityandpractice.com ... view/17927

" 'Money can buy everything,' I said, not being inclined to mitigate the paradox of human life on earth. 'Money can buy everything. The only thing it cannot buy is meaning. The ultimate source of every human activity, every human function, is something, some force, beyond the ego. Money can't touch that, but it touches everything else."

Money serves our subjective needs and desires of the secular world. Meaning serves our objective meaning but how many in the world are only concerned with subjective needs and desires so no longer are concerned with this essential something which touches everything else. They are considered the same. But are they?

[Sy Borg]

Jacob Needleman wrote in "money and the meaning of life"

https://www.spiritualityandpractice.com ... view/17927

" 'Money can buy everything,' I said, not being inclined to mitigate the paradox of human life on earth. 'Money can buy everything. The only thing it cannot buy is meaning. The ultimate source of every human activity, every human function, is something, some force, beyond the ego. Money can't touch that, but it touches everything else."

Money serves our subjective needs and desires of the secular world. Meaning serves our objective meaning but how many in the world are only concerned with subjective needs and desires so no longer are concerned with this essential something which touches everything else. They are considered the same. But are they?

Nick, you are always in such a rush. Don't worry about so much about people; they grow at their own pace.

When we are young, most of us are self-obsessed as we try to navigate the tumult of early growth.

As adults we focus on survival and thrival, generally materially, socially, mentally and physically.

When we age and tire, many start to strive less externally and focus more on existential concerns.

By the time the Reaper comes a' knocking, most of us become enthusiastic philosophers, thoroughly focused on the deepest aspects of life and existence.

Ideally, we take lessons from those who have taken the journey before us, but it's not compulsory. Those who simply follow the above pattern seem to do just fine, even if they were somewhat "asleep" for most of their lives.

In fact, I'm not sure there's an advantage for healthy, happy, thriving young and middle-aged people to deal much with existential concerns. That's an advantage of religion (aside from networking); believers can put all existential concerns to bed and confidently get on with life. Alas, I question too much to take advantage of that particular life hack.

[Nick_A]

Jacob Needleman wrote in "money and the meaning of life"

https://www.spiritualityandpractice.com ... view/17927

" 'Money can buy everything,' I said, not being inclined to mitigate the paradox of human life on earth. 'Money can buy everything. The only thing it cannot buy is meaning. The ultimate source of every human activity, every human function, is something, some force, beyond the ego. Money can't touch that, but it touches everything else."

Money serves our subjective needs and desires of the secular world. Meaning serves our objective meaning but how many in the world are only concerned with subjective needs and desires so no longer are concerned with this essential something which touches everything else. They are considered the same. But are they?

Nick, you are always in such a rush. Don't worry about so much about people; they grow at their own pace.

When we are young, most of us are self-obsessed as we try to navigate the tumult of early growth.

As adults we focus on survival and thrival, generally materially, socially, mentally and physically.

When we age and tire, many start to strive less externally and focus more on existential concerns.

By the time the Reaper comes a' knocking, most of us become enthusiastic philosophers, thoroughly focused on the deepest aspects of life and existence.

Ideally, we take lessons from those who have taken the journey before us, but it's not compulsory. Those who simply follow the above pattern seem to do just fine, even if they were somewhat "asleep" for most of their lives.

In fact, I'm not sure there's an advantage for healthy, happy, thriving young and middle-aged people to deal much with existential concerns. That's an advantage of religion (aside from networking); believers can put all existential concerns to bed and confidently get on with life. Alas, I question too much to take advantage of that particular life hack.

“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.”
― Soren Kierkegaard

It isn't a matter of rushing but of appreciating the paradox or the contradiction. When I experience it without lying it leads to a greater truth. Most people that I read prefer to condemn Trump or get involved with all sorts of secular causes to make things better. They live in duality and call it philosophy. Plato provides us with an ancient paradox. Is it absurd or does the paradox reveal the path to objective meaning the depth of our being calls us to experience?

The argument known as “Meno’s Paradox” can be reformulated as follows:

If you know what you’re looking for, inquiry is unnecessary.
If you don’t know what you’re looking for, inquiry is impossible.
Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.

An implicit premise:
Either you know what you’re looking for or you don’t know what you’re looking for.

[Tegularius]

An implicit premise:
Either you know what you’re looking for or you don’t know what you’re looking for.

If you don't know what you're looking for, what it is or what it could be, only a fool keeps looking; not finding anything eventually defaults to what one's yearning is willing to accept as fulfillment or partially so.

The situation is the same when you know what you're looking for but doesn't exist. This usually resolves into nothing more than what you're again willing to accept as a premise. Anyone who is fervently looking seldom returns with nothing. What reality has never endorsed, imagination fabricates.

[Sy Borg]

Jacob Needleman wrote in "money and the meaning of life"

https://www.spiritualityandpractice.com ... view/17927

" 'Money can buy everything,' I said, not being inclined to mitigate the paradox of human life on earth. 'Money can buy everything. The only thing it cannot buy is meaning. The ultimate source of every human activity, every human function, is something, some force, beyond the ego. Money can't touch that, but it touches everything else."

Money serves our subjective needs and desires of the secular world. Meaning serves our objective meaning but how many in the world are only concerned with subjective needs and desires so no longer are concerned with this essential something which touches everything else. They are considered the same. But are they?

Nick, you are always in such a rush. Don't worry about so much about people; they grow at their own pace.

When we are young, most of us are self-obsessed as we try to navigate the tumult of early growth.

As adults we focus on survival and thrival, generally materially, socially, mentally and physically.

When we age and tire, many start to strive less externally and focus more on existential concerns.

By the time the Reaper comes a' knocking, most of us become enthusiastic philosophers, thoroughly focused on the deepest aspects of life and existence.

Ideally, we take lessons from those who have taken the journey before us, but it's not compulsory. Those who simply follow the above pattern seem to do just fine, even if they were somewhat "asleep" for most of their lives.

In fact, I'm not sure there's an advantage for healthy, happy, thriving young and middle-aged people to deal much with existential concerns. That's an advantage of religion (aside from networking); believers can put all existential concerns to bed and confidently get on with life. Alas, I question too much to take advantage of that particular life hack.

“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.”
― Soren Kierkegaard

It isn't a matter of rushing but of appreciating the paradox or the contradiction. When I experience it without lying it leads to a greater truth. Most people that I read prefer to condemn Trump or get involved with all sorts of secular causes to make things better. They live in duality and call it philosophy. Plato provides us with an ancient paradox. Is it absurd or does the paradox reveal the path to objective meaning the depth of our being calls us to experience?

... An implicit premise:
Either you know what you’re looking for or you don’t know what you’re looking for.

Your implicit Trump defence was an example of the politicisation you decried in the same sentence. You cannot judge others in this until you can resist the temptation to politicise your posts yourself.

Whatever, you missed my point. You treat everyone as if they are completed items, as if they have no more growth, no more change, no maturing or deepening understandings ahead. You seem to treat change as paradoxical, as if it was unexpected.

As I said above, people tend to adopt different mentalities at different stages of life. Thus, it's illogical to expect young people to think like the old, or for middle-aged people trying to raise families and keep their jobs to be as philosophical as a retiree or a dying person. Some people are flat out working to pay the rent, so you can't judge them for not seeking. People find their own depths in their own time, in their own ways. If someone dies without ever leading an "examined life", so it goes. We can't all lead the same lives.

Whatever, I think you redefine the terms "subjective" and "objective" to mean something like "worldly" and "godly" respectively.

To me, at a basic level, objective reality is outside and subjective reality is inside. Then there is another level, because the inside and outside are part of a containing whole. The layers build like a Russian doll - humanity, biosphere, planet Earth, the solar system, the Milky Way, the Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea.

If you contemplate the scale of events as Laniakea is being drawn into the Shapley Supercluster it will 1) show how tiny and insignificant humans are and 2) how extraordinary humans minds are to be able to even contemplate such a scale of reality.

Paradoxical? Maybe. Or it might simply reflect an aspect of the relationship between energy/matter and information/mind.

[Nick_A]

Sy

Whatever, you missed my point. You treat everyone as if they are completed items, as if they have no more growth, no more change, no maturing or deepening understandings ahead. You seem to treat change as paradoxical, as if it was unexpected.

As I said above, people tend to adopt different mentalities at different stages of life. Thus, it's illogical to expect young people to think like the old, or for middle-aged people trying to raise families and keep their jobs to be as philosophical as a retiree or a dying person. Some people are flat out working to pay the rent, so you can't judge them for not seeking. People find their own depths in their own time, in their own ways. If someone dies without ever leading an "examined life", so it goes. We can't all lead the same lives.

A person changes during their life. Nothing stays the same and existence moves in cycles. Howe3ver the being of Man remains the same. It doesn’t evolve but only changes. Sheakespear profound expression in “All th World’s a Stage” is a profound example of this.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/ ... ds-a-stage

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin’d,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav’d, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

This is life in Plato’s cave. It lacks objective meaning and continues to function by subjective meaning pertaining to parts within the great cycle. Each part offers subjective meaning created by society but as technology advances and humanity becomes enchanted with fragmentation, loss of the big picture and the need for objective meaning essential for the growth of Man’s being is also lost.

There is a big difference between the maturation of a person’s personality within the great cycle and the development of a person’s being. Man is a plurality. You’ve written of how you understand levels of reality. A small part of your plurality has a feeling for levels of reality but the majority like all of us, lives in Plato’s cave. We live in opposition with ourselves. When a person sees and admits it within themselves they strive to change, to become unity rather than a plurality; in short to be master of themselves. Philosophy worthy of its name reminds us of what we are in the context of human potential. It isn’t that humanity is bad. It is just asleep with the potential for awakening.

Meno’s Paradox seems absurd until a person sees that it refers to remembrance. It isn’t about learning anything new but remembering what has been forgotten.

Science deals with facts. It teaches us new facts and about reality But when we ask what it means, only a few are open to the question. Factual reality is one thing and meaning is another.

Do you remember in Star Trek the Motion Picture where Vger knew everything but at the same time knew nothing. It knew facts but not why it existed. For Vger to learn this it must blend with higher consciousness which it did with the woman representing Man’s being. Very deep ideas which is why it was panned by ignorant critics.

We are at the stage now in which man’s knowledge is far ahead of Man’s being. Man knows facts but does not know what to do with them. Some are interested in the growth of man’s being to allow machines to serve man rather than man serving machines. I like to meet such people and learn from them to feel in my conscience the objective meaning of life.

[Bradskii]

An implicit premise:
Either you know what you’re looking for or you don’t know what you’re looking for.

If you don't know
What you're looking for,
What it is or what it could be,
Only a fool keeps looking;

Sounds like a U2 track...

[Sy Borg]

Sy

Whatever, you missed my point. You treat everyone as if they are completed items, as if they have no more growth, no more change, no maturing or deepening understandings ahead. You seem to treat change as paradoxical, as if it was unexpected.

As I said above, people tend to adopt different mentalities at different stages of life. Thus, it's illogical to expect young people to think like the old, or for middle-aged people trying to raise families and keep their jobs to be as philosophical as a retiree or a dying person. Some people are flat out working to pay the rent, so you can't judge them for not seeking. People find their own depths in their own time, in their own ways. If someone dies without ever leading an "examined life", so it goes. We can't all lead the same lives.

A person changes during their life. Nothing stays the same and existence moves in cycles. However the being of Man remains the same. It doesn’t evolve but only changes. ...

There is a big difference between the maturation of a person’s personality within the great cycle and the development of a person’s being. Man is a plurality. You’ve written of how you understand levels of reality. A small part of your plurality has a feeling for levels of reality but the majority like all of us, lives in Plato’s cave. We live in opposition with ourselves. When a person sees and admits it within themselves they strive to change, to become unity rather than a plurality; in short to be master of themselves. Philosophy worthy of its name reminds us of what we are in the context of human potential. It isn’t that humanity is bad. It is just asleep with the potential for awakening.

I don't understand the various "levels of reality", but I am at least aware of them - from atomic, to molecular, to cellular, organismal, societal, biospheric, planetary, solar, galactic, etc. Don't you find that inspiring and mind-blowing? I do, far more so than any ancient writings.

It seems to me that people find their own conduits to growth. You choose complex societal and esoteric schemas and art. I choose nature, art and technology. Horses for courses, I say.

I disagree with your parsing of maturation and "development of being". It does not make sense for a perfect soul to come down to Earth to suffer and be a jerk for about eighty years, and then return to the astral or causal dimension (or whatever it is that you believe in) to be perfect again. If your speculative cosmic schema is true, then imperfect souls would logically come and live on Earth to learn lessons, returning somewhat wiser. Thus, maturation would form part of the larger development of "being" / soul / archetype / whatever you believe in.

[Nick_A]

Sy

I don't understand the various "levels of reality", but I am at least aware of them - from atomic, to molecular, to cellular, organismal, societal, biospheric, planetary, solar, galactic, etc. Don't you find that inspiring and mind-blowing? I do, far more so than any ancient writings.

Very much so. The interactions of Nature’s laws are awe inspiring

It seems to me that people find their own conduits to growth. You choose complex societal and esoteric schemas and art. I choose nature, art and technology. Horses for courses, I say.

Our difference is that you are drawn to linear growth through expansion and I am drawn to experience vertical growth through the relative quality of a moment. From the world’s perspective it is perfectly natural for a caterpillar to become a moth or a higher level of being. From a universal perspective it is possible for animal Man to consciously become spiritual Man; a higher level of being.

I disagree with your parsing of maturation and "development of being". It does not make sense for a perfect soul to come down to Earth to suffer and be a jerk for about eighty years, and then return to the astral or causal dimension (or whatever it is that you believe in) to be perfect again. If your speculative cosmic schema is true, then imperfect souls would logically come and live on Earth to learn lessons, returning somewhat wiser. Thus, maturation would form part of the larger development of "being" / soul / archetype / whatever you believe in.

You are describing a mistake of secular Christendom. As I understand it there is no ready made soul. Man is born with the seed of a soul. The soul is the potential for the seed:

The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God. Meister Eckhart

The soul of Man when it exists is in the image of our source but much lower in scale. The three parts of the tripartite soul can evolve from a plurality to become ONE. This isn’t linear adaptation of Man’s being but rather the conscious evolution of Man’s of Man’s being from plurality into unity: ONE

[Sy Borg]

It seems to me that people find their own conduits to growth. You choose complex societal and esoteric schemas and art. I choose nature, art and technology. Horses for courses, I say.

Our difference is that you are drawn to linear growth through expansion and I am drawn to experience vertical growth through the relative quality of a moment. From the world’s perspective it is perfectly natural for a caterpillar to become a moth or a higher level of being. From a universal perspective it is possible for animal Man to consciously become spiritual Man; a higher level of being.

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

I also wish you'd stop referring the humans and "Man". In the 21st century this is simply a deliberate snub to women, as though you believe women are incapable of a "higher level of being". Are women lesser, mere animals that are grounded without hope of ascension by their infernal wombs?

I disagree with your parsing of maturation and "development of being". It does not make sense for a perfect soul to come down to Earth to suffer and be a jerk for about eighty years, and then return to the astral or causal dimension (or whatever it is that you believe in) to be perfect again. If your speculative cosmic schema is true, then imperfect souls would logically come and live on Earth to learn lessons, returning somewhat wiser. Thus, maturation would form part of the larger development of "being" / soul / archetype / whatever you believe in.

You are describing a mistake of secular Christendom. As I understand it there is no ready made soul. Man is born with the seed of a soul. The soul is the potential for the seed:

The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God. Meister Eckhart

The soul of Man when it exists is in the image of our source but much lower in scale. The three parts of the tripartite soul can evolve from a plurality to become ONE. This isn’t linear adaptation of Man’s being but rather the conscious evolution of Man’s of Man’s being from plurality into unity: ONE

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.

[Nick_A]

It seems to me that people find their own conduits to growth. You choose complex societal and esoteric schemas and art. I choose nature, art and technology. Horses for courses, I say.

Our difference is that you are drawn to linear growth through expansion and I am drawn to experience vertical growth through the relative quality of a moment. From the world’s perspective it is perfectly natural for a caterpillar to become a moth or a higher level of being. From a universal perspective it is possible for animal Man to consciously become spiritual Man; a higher level of being.

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

I also wish you'd stop referring the humans and "Man". In the 21st century this is simply a deliberate snub to women, as though you believe women are incapable of a "higher level of being". Are women lesser, mere animals that are grounded without hope of ascension by their infernal wombs?

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?

I disagree with your parsing of maturation and "development of being". It does not make sense for a perfect soul to come down to Earth to suffer and be a jerk for about eighty years, and then return to the astral or causal dimension (or whatever it is that you believe in) to be perfect again. If your speculative cosmic schema is true, then imperfect souls would logically come and live on Earth to learn lessons, returning somewhat wiser. Thus, maturation would form part of the larger development of "being" / soul / archetype / whatever you believe in.

You are describing a mistake of secular Christendom. As I understand it there is no ready made soul. Man is born with the seed of a soul. The soul is the potential for the seed:

The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God. Meister Eckhart

The soul of Man when it exists is in the image of our source but much lower in scale. The three parts of the tripartite soul can evolve from a plurality to become ONE. This isn’t linear adaptation of Man’s being but rather the conscious evolution of Man’s of Man’s being from plurality into unity: ONE

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.

[Sy Borg]

It seems to me that people find their own conduits to growth. You choose complex societal and esoteric schemas and art. I choose nature, art and technology. Horses for courses, I say.

Our difference is that you are drawn to linear growth through expansion and I am drawn to experience vertical growth through the relative quality of a moment. From the world’s perspective it is perfectly natural for a caterpillar to become a moth or a higher level of being. From a universal perspective it is possible for animal Man to consciously become spiritual Man; a higher level of being.

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

I also wish you'd stop referring the humans and "Man". In the 21st century this is simply a deliberate snub to women, as though you believe women are incapable of a "higher level of being". Are women lesser, mere animals that are grounded without hope of ascension by their infernal wombs?

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?

I disagree with your parsing of maturation and "development of being". It does not make sense for a perfect soul to come down to Earth to suffer and be a jerk for about eighty years, and then return to the astral or causal dimension (or whatever it is that you believe in) to be perfect again. If your speculative cosmic schema is true, then imperfect souls would logically come and live on Earth to learn lessons, returning somewhat wiser. Thus, maturation would form part of the larger development of "being" / soul / archetype / whatever you believe in.

You are describing a mistake of secular Christendom. As I understand it there is no ready made soul. Man is born with the seed of a soul. The soul is the potential for the seed:

The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God. Meister Eckhart

The soul of Man when it exists is in the image of our source but much lower in scale. The three parts of the tripartite soul can evolve from a plurality to become ONE. This isn’t linear adaptation of Man’s being but rather the conscious evolution of Man’s of Man’s being from plurality into unity: ONE

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?

[Belindi]

Our difference is that you are drawn to linear growth through expansion and I am drawn to experience vertical growth through the relative quality of a moment. From the world’s perspective it is perfectly natural for a caterpillar to become a moth or a higher level of being. From a universal perspective it is possible for animal Man to consciously become spiritual Man; a higher level of being.

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

I also wish you'd stop referring the humans and "Man". In the 21st century this is simply a deliberate snub to women, as though you believe women are incapable of a "higher level of being". Are women lesser, mere animals that are grounded without hope of ascension by their infernal wombs?

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?

You are describing a mistake of secular Christendom. As I understand it there is no ready made soul. Man is born with the seed of a soul. The soul is the potential for the seed:

The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God. Meister Eckhart

The soul of Man when it exists is in the image of our source but much lower in scale. The three parts of the tripartite soul can evolve from a plurality to become ONE. This isn’t linear adaptation of Man’s being but rather the conscious evolution of Man’s of Man’s being from plurality into unity: ONE

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.

[Nick_A]

Sy

Socrates’ words, “Know thyself” remain for all those who seek true knowledge and being.“ — G. I. Gurdjieff All and Everything: Views from the Real World (1973) Context:

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. For without this knowledge, he will have no focal point in his search. Socrates’ words, “Know thyself” remain for all those who seek true knowledge and being.

Cults like Scientology are easy to get into and hard to get out of. Gurdjieff teaching which has a lineage are authentic regardless of the swarms of charlatans it attracts. Is the idea of awakening a means for politicians to put people asleep? Is Plato's cave an analogy for awakening as opposed to putting people asleep in psychological slavery.

Gurdjieff's purpose was to unite the knowledge of the West with the wisdom of the East. But it begins with the question of "who am I"? Without this beginning which can be verified through impartial self knowledge, there is no foundation and the charlatans are quick to take over.

Is there much of a difference between Plato's balanced Man and Gurdjieff's good householder. Do you consider them weak for their lack of emoting like arguing about Trump or strong since they realize what is lost in themselves by supporting the shadows on a wall in their need for meaning?

[Nick_A]

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.

Does the path to meaning the heart of humanity is drawn to stop at where our senses limit us or begin by a quality of reason beyond what our senses are capable of which opens for us?