Lindaland
  Lindaland Central 2.0
  Thoughts On God, Philosophy, History, Action, Society and Conformity

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Thoughts On God, Philosophy, History, Action, Society and Conformity
Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1404
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 01, 2009 02:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

"You Can't See The Forest Through The Trees."


Someone said this to me recently, and I especially appreciated his substituting the word "through", in place of the more traditional "for". It helped me to see this old cliche in a fresh light. In life, in the world, we are the traveller lost in a maze of trees. How can we see the grand design from inside it? But then I thought: What if there is no outside. I mean, what if everything is the forest? If we here, in the trees, are each seeing this grand design from various, unique perspectives, then our respective impressions of the world will always be partial, fragmentary, and subjective, however individualistic they may be... But, if there is no objective perspective, -- if there can be no objective perspective, -- what then? Consider that perspective is subjective by nature. And objectivity can be nothing if not the reconcilliation, and sum total, of all perspectives. Then, what could an objective view of things be, but a blackout? The blending of all colors together makes black. And all perspectives, taken at once, are no perspectives. So, in order for anything to be, -- or to appear, -- it must be separate, -- or must appear separate, -- from the whole. Subjectivity, space, and time, are then necessary for the design to manifest. It must be stretched out, unfurled, and entered into from some obscure angle, in order to be seen at all. And God, if He/She/It exists, would exist only in relation to us; to a subjective observor. The entirety, the grand design, and God Him/Her/Itself, would always remain obscure; hovering somewhere between the unseen and the nonexistent; the intuited and the imagined; the happening and the never was.

God and Creation, for us, would always be something that happens, and not something of which it may ever be said, "It happened', or even "It is"; for, in some sense (the only sense that appears, and perhaps the only sense there is or can be) He/She/It/They is/are still becoming, still unfinished, and never to be or to be completed. And yet, if there is and can be no completion, then, what can we say of this "incompleteness", but that it is, in a sense (the only sense that appears, or perhaps can be) complete? The life work of an artist is his complete contribution, whether or not he died young, and never lived to paint his masterpiece. The unpainted masterpiece, or the imagined and ideal completion of his art, never having materialized, must be, for us (and for all practical purposes), irrellevant. Just so, the supposed entirety of God, and the corresponding realization of God's design in its entirety, remains irrellevant. And in a very real sense, -- in a practical and actual sense, -- God and Creation are complete, though incomplete; finished, though unfinished; realized, though intuited; discovered, though dreamt; possessed, though sought... And the tree that stands before us, like the present moment, is the forest; since it is the only aspect of the forest that may be seen, or experienced, or felt to exist at all. Which brings us back down to earth, and to the purpose of my little essay.*
* http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum25/HTML/000531.html

I do not know if these flights into philosophy are healthful, or the useless products of a diseased consciousness (at best, a juvenile diversion, -- at worst, a terrible affliction). Perhaps philosophy is the runny nose that signals both the presence of illness, and its purge. While I mean to provoke the philosopher into living from his instincts, his gut, or intuition, and less cerebrally, I can hardly deny the difficulty, and potential impossibility, this poses for him or her. Some are born predisposed to philosophy, but the influence of their environment is sufficient to correct, or redirect, this natural leaning. I suspect that some are born so dramatically predisposed that no prompting by their environments will suffice to alter or augment their natures. What then? They are outcasts, and either they become ineffectual where society is concerned, or, by the obstinacy of their natures, they fundamentally alter society in the direction of the reflective intellect. As G.B. Shaw put it, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Though I would say progress or decline, and stipulate that it is only abrupt progress or decline that is signified by the deviant, or divergent, individual. The philosopher is, perhaps more than any other type, a natural and blatant nonconformist. His/Her deviance appears to exceed that of all other types because it is not limited by what may be enacted, or even by what may be thought; his/her deviance extends as far as may be deeply thought, and this is a notable distinction.

So, why is it so difficult for a natural-born philosopher to conform? Or to take action, in a world where all roads lead to Norm? (Who's Norm? Whose Norm?) Why is it so difficult for him/her to follow a beaten path, or to carve a new path where there was none? The common response is that he/she thinks too much. But, then, the common response is always simple, and often much too simple. What does the philosopher have to say for him/herself? Only that the world appears complex, and that questions and ambiguities arise where others see merely answers and surety. If action is not to be coerced, it must be honest; but the honesty of philosophers demands that they reflect upon the complexities they perceive. A simple man may be honest enough in taking the wide and common road, but a philospher never.

A philosopher is one whose instincts run counter to the established trend, or flow. Whether he/she philosophizes naturally, or only because the environment runs counter to his/her instincts, thereby forcing him/her to puzzle it all out, remains mysterious. It may be that the philosopher is prompted to philosophize only in an effort to dismantle the familial and cultural conditioning imposed upon him/her, in order to uncover and liberate his/her true instincts. But if the conditioning is so utterly at variance with the philosopher's instincts, that he/she may spend a lifetime unravelling it all, and never arrive at his/her true instincts, -- what then? A full life, for such a one, would never include action, but would always be endeavoring, honestly, to discover a course of action which does not betray his/her instincts, -- or, more directly, the intellect that speaks for them, struggling to reveal and free them. But no such life is offered. Society is unsympathetic to his/her quest, and makes demands on him/her without compunction. Society is a thing already manifested; settled on its answers, and hostile to questions, which can only infringe upon it. Society, by definition, is hostile to philosophy and philosophers.

Have I spun myself around with all this thinking? Am I lost? Assuredly. But no more lost than I was when I began. If I cannot find the way, it is only because I have left the beaten path to discover myself. And am I really so lost, if I am lost inside myself? Or am I, perhaps, not so lost as I was, when I tried to follow the common road? And those who follow the common road... are they not lost, as well? Are they not more lost than I am, when they imagine they are not lost, but on the way to themselves? When they labor to actualize the plans of other men, of dead men, or of nobody at all; plans written by no one, but which seem to be drawn by the unconscious hand of history; the by-products of a blind momentum, grown far beyond expectation or control? Heine wrote: "The men of action are, after all, only the unconscious instruments of the men of thought." But if each is the instrument, not of one mind, reconciled with itself, but, of many minds, confounded with one another, then each is the instrument of something altogether chaotic, formless, and inhuman; the herculean impetus of history. This common road... what is it, if not a flood of many rivers, that each endeavors to find its own way to the sea, and ends up swamping the land? I would rather be a thin and lonely stream, that seeks the ocean and finds the dry heart of the desert; forgotten by history, and not appropriated to her unconscious, schizophrenic, and swampy ends. That path which runs to action, and seems to sure and straight, is a wrestless chattering of minds, deluded into an impossible whole. But the one who wanders off, thinks for him/herself and knows he/she does not know. And if this one acts, or philosophizes forever, what difference does it make? What matters is that history, that whited sepulchre of dead men's bones, has not been followed, in dim parade, to its final resting place; -- but, rather, truth has been sought courageously in the untrammeled feilds and margins of eternity.

IP: Logged

Yin
Knowflake

Posts: 630
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 01, 2009 02:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Yin     Edit/Delete Message
This painting speaks to me in many ways... but that's beside the point.

Isn't it beautiful, just the way it is? Unfinished and all?

It was his last painting before he died.

The Family by Egon Schiele - 1918
unfinished

IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1404
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 01, 2009 04:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 1481
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 01, 2009 04:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
I think a natural philosopher could find their way in the regular world. I think it's a matter not only of being reasonable, but also of deciding on a focus.

Sometimes conformity isn't conformity. When an action is inspired by ambition that is not born of observation of others but rather observation of one's own talents (and pursuit of goals these talents can accomplish), then it's not conformity, because it's not what I would call "selling out." It's not doing something because it's expected. It's not doing something because it fulfills a need. Doing something that fulfills a genuine want and desire, and putting that above concerns for security or status is a noble action I think. I think that's separate from the Plan B people whose existence may hang on obligations they've acquired.

IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1404
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 01, 2009 04:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

I agree, that may be possible for many philosophers. And such conformity is not necessarily a betrayal of one's true self. But, like Nietzsche, "I speak for the exception, so long as he does not wish to become the rule,". People need to understand that there are philosophers who cannot find their way in the world, and were never intended to. People need to understand that there are philosophers so deeply allied to philosophy that they can have no other vocation but to think, and think aloud. People need to believe in the existence of such men and women, because, believe me, they do exist. For them, philosophy is not a choice, but a calling, and a compulsion. Archimedes says, "Just give me a lever and tell me where to stand, and I can move the whole world." Well, the philosopher wants to take a stand where he/she may move the whole world, and, to the extent that he/she is a true philosopher, will not be satisfied, and will not take a stand, until finding that auspicious place. So, if these philosophers you speak of take a stand in society, it will either be on the place where they may move the whole world, or, they will not be true philosophers. If the genuine wants and desires they pursue in the world have no firm relation to ultimate truth, they have surely ceased to be philosophers.

IP: Logged

pire
Knowflake

Posts: 643
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 02, 2009 07:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for pire     Edit/Delete Message
"Consider that perspective is subjective by nature. And objectivity can be nothing if not the reconcilliation, and sum total, of all perspectives."

that is a subjective statement that i disagree with. i think there is an objective truth, beyond subjective perspective (pleonasm)

question:

if the physical universe exist, there has to be a principle/motor behind it. (or, creation is random, but i leave this option out mys lf and i believe that most of us in this comunity do too).
so if there is something behind the physical universe, i would be inclined to think that it is of a positive nature (the evidence in everyday's life shows it)

therefore, by "something of a positive nature" u can see a principle of Love or a principle of justice, or whatever perspective u can have subjectively; but whatever principle we choose, was it there because i realised its existence or was it there regardless?

therefore can we argue that there is objectively, independently of subjective perspectives, an essential truth that is beyond, or simply not dependent of the sum of different perspectives?

IP: Logged

pire
Knowflake

Posts: 643
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 02, 2009 08:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for pire     Edit/Delete Message
AG,

yin @ the painting

valus, go and get a job
seriously, i hope you remain on of the second category, who adapt the world to their modes. good luck in your endeavours


IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1404
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 02, 2009 10:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

pire,

I'm not sure if I should edit that to read "the sum total of all possible perspectives", or if only the actual perspectives should be counted. You write: "i think there is an objective truth, beyond subjective perspective" and maybe you are right, but I have difficulty reconciling it with what is going on. Look around. How many enlightened people do you see? The overwhelming evidence is that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark". You say that everything testifies to a benevolent design, but I'd call that highly subjective. I see rape, abuse, starvation, neglect, selfishness, etc. So, where's the higher truth that explains how necessary, positive, and negligible these things are? Because, from my perspective, these appear to be the norm, like meat-eating. Whereas empathy and the expression of a compassion which extends beyond our immediate circle of relatives and acquaintances is more of a rarity, like veganism. Good people die alone in the gutter every day. Great people die on crosses, ignorant abuses ringing in their ears. People who deeply question their societies and honestly contemplate the noblest mysteries of the universe are frequently disenfranchised and called "losers". You say "get a job". I have a job. I perform a service far more valuable than those services performed by most people in my country. But the man who spends eight hours a day making or advertising Coca Cola (and, consequently, poisoning his neighbors) has a socially approved occupation. Nobody demands that he do something else. Here I am, encouraging deep reflection and the contemplation of eternal truths. People who can't understand or appreciate it say, "You think too much. Get a job. Do something useful." Well, to the man who makes processed foods, and to many others in our society who perform occupations which are downright harmful to the public, I say, "You don't think enough. Quit your job. Do something useful." There are people getting paid handsomely for sending young men and women to kill and die for no good reason. We should save our criticism for them, but instead we direct it at the artists, dreamers, and philosophers. The ones who reveal beauty, mystery, and truth. Medical doctors are accorded the highest respect, while they're mostly poisoning, cutting up, discouraging and killing people with their so-called treatments. Meanwhile, the ones who are curing people almost overnight (beginning with cleansing the colon), without recourse to dangerous drugs or surgeries, are called "quacks" and have to look over their shoulders for the long arm of the law. This is the society we live in. And, while most people defend it automatically and unthinkingly, others spend their time peeling back the curtain, and finding more progressive things to say. We should listen when they speak, and not tell these people, who are dispensing invaluable knowledge for free, to "get a job". If you catch my drift.

quote:

seriously, i hope you remain one of the second category, who adapt the world to their modes. good luck in your endeavours

Thanks.


IP: Logged

pire
Knowflake

Posts: 643
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 02, 2009 11:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for pire     Edit/Delete Message
"How many enlightened people do you see?"

i'm not looking if other are enlightened, i learn from enlightened and not enlightened alike. a world with "enlightened only" is not on this side of the fence. and enlightened used to not be enlightened before

"You say that everything testifies to a benevolent design, but I'd call that highly subjective. I see rape, abuse, starvation, neglect, selfishness, etc. So, where's the higher truth that explains how necessary, positive, and negligible these things are?"

do you see god in these acts? or do you see egotistical desires ?
they are definitly not necessary but they are made to be useful, they are not positive But they lead to an understanding of positivity, they are not negligible only because the hurt and damage but in the end, they can only reinforce faith

"Whereas empathy and the expression of a compassion which extends beyond our immediate circle of relatives and acquaintances is more of a rarity"

to say that is not showing much compassion to others who have their own life script i think

"Good people die alone in the gutter every day"

while we talk about it, other (may be, may be not less well intentioned ) actually do something about it.

"Here I am, encouraging deep reflection and the contemplation of eternal truths."

"We should listen when they speak, and not tell these people, who are dispensing invaluable knowledge for free, to "get a job"."

if they are honest, these people must accept that they do it benevolently, and can't force others nor blackmail them if they don't honour them rightfully, cause they don't do it to be acclaimed, but for love sake. me think

IP: Logged

pire
Knowflake

Posts: 643
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 02, 2009 11:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for pire     Edit/Delete Message
"How many enlightened people do you see?"

i'm not looking if other are enlightened, i learn from enlightened and not enlightened alike. a world with "enlightened only" is not on this side of the fence. and enlightened used to not be enlightened before

"You say that everything testifies to a benevolent design, but I'd call that highly subjective. I see rape, abuse, starvation, neglect, selfishness, etc. So, where's the higher truth that explains how necessary, positive, and negligible these things are?"

do you see god in these acts? or do you see egotistical desires ?
they are definitly not necessary but they are made to be useful, they are not positive But they lead to an understanding of positivity, they are not negligible only because the hurt and damage but in the end, they can only reinforce faith

"Whereas empathy and the expression of a compassion which extends beyond our immediate circle of relatives and acquaintances is more of a rarity"

to say that is not showing much compassion to others who have their own life script i think

"Good people die alone in the gutter every day"

while we talk about it, other (may be, may be not less well intentioned ) actually do something about it.

"Here I am, encouraging deep reflection and the contemplation of eternal truths."

"We should listen when they speak, and not tell these people, who are dispensing invaluable knowledge for free, to "get a job"."

if they are honest, these people must accept that they do it benevolently, and can't force others nor blackmail them if they don't honour them rightfully, cause they don't do it to be acclaimed, but for love sake. me think

everyone has something to teach to others, and that is a good thing, a proof that the force behind life is def benevolent, but some can see it, others can't

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2008

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a