It is possible to get carried away with these myths but it does present a radical alternative way of seeing than we are accustomed to and it does give some hint of a possibility of conscious evolution. It is hard to know what the idea of conscious evolution does mean exactly. I have read a little of Henri Bergson. — Jack Cummins

Jack, I remember reading once that rat poison is 98% good corn. It is that 2% that gets them. Many worthwhile ideas begin with good intentions but natural laws designed to turn actions in circles and sustain creation will turn a lot of ideas including new age thought into its opposite. How could Christianity be corrupted into the Spanish Inquisition? It is the result of animaIistic reacting to natural laws.

You've mentioned your interest in what the Devil means.

Revelations 13: 11-18
11. And I beheld another beast rising out of the earth;
it had two horns like a lamb, and spoke as a dragon.

[12. And he exercises all the power of the first beast before him,
and causes the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast,
whose deadly wound was healed.]
13. And he did great wonders, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of all,
14. By the wonders it had power to do in behalf of the beast,
it deceived the inhabitants of the earth,
telling them to make an image to the beast,
which had the wound by a sword, and yet lived.

15. And it had power to give breath to the image of the beast,
that the image of the beast should both speak,
and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

16. And it caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave,
to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17. That none could buy or sell, who did not have the mark:
the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding calculate the number of the beast:
for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

If the number of the Beast is a Man's number 666, it makes the Beast Man. What is this power which gives breath to the Beast assuring none could buy and sell without it? Is this the effect of the personality of the Beast created by technology and the internet? Those who do not worship the image of the Beast could be killed. Is society moving closer to losing itself and demanding worship of the Beast?

Conscious evolution begins with acquiring the ability for conscious attention as opposed to directed attention. This enables a person to become free of unnecessary laws and habits and open to receive help from above to awaken. Absolute conscious attention is prayer. It requires getting out of our own shallow way and asking from the depth of our being.

↪Tom Storm Quite true. In my own case part of the reason was that I considered that Christian morality was not good enough or detailed enough for me. — Ken Edwards

It could be tht you are commenting on what Kierkegaard called Christendom or man made Christianity. Christianity as I understand it is a perennial tradition meaning its essence always was. Naturlly secular influences devolves it into its opposite.

The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian. -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones

For Christianity to retain its value and avoid being secularized, it must be discussed in private for those who have already begun to "remember." Othewise it devolves and becomes a part of secular society.

↪Nikolas
You suggest that conscious evolution is not possible for society but for the individual. Perhaps what may be true is that in past times it was only possible for rare individuals to explore conscious evolution. It could be that with education and technology, that it is becoming possible for more and more people to begin and pursue this possibility. Of course, it is far more than just a matter of having information. It requires a lot of time and energy. I do wonder if the period of self-isolation for great numbers at the present time could give rise to many going in that direction, as a possibility. — Jack Cummins

Do you accept the possibility that perennial philosophy has always existed? Those who do believe that conscious evolution is not the result of learning anything new but rather remembering what has been forgotten. Why it has been forgotten and why the world struggles against remembering is another question. The seeker of truth defies the world by making the necessary efforts for remembering.

The education and technology of the world actually increases the acquired tendency to forget since they are not included within a conscious perspective but just the mechanical reactions normal for organic life on earth responding to earthly and cosmic influences. Life in the jungle for example is not a conscious action but rather an orderly mechanical reaction following the cycles of life supporting the earth. It is the same with society as a whole explained in Ecclesiastes 3.

The needs of the earth supplied by the transformation of substances along with acquired habits including those of animal Man sustain the acquired needs of the earth.

Yet there is something in Man which didn't arise from the earth but rather has descended from above. It has the need to live and to consciously evolve. It is this seed of the soul so to speak that the energy or essence or unsecularized religion is directed at. Only a few in the modern age of technology and education can have a need strong enough to "remember" and question imaginary progress while remembering and opening to the human potential for conscious evolution

Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas? Plato defined Man as " - a being in search of meaning"

What gives us meaning differs between people. Most are happy with what the world provides since IMO they repress the deeper needs of the heart and often find themselves winning the world but losing their souls. As a result, they age feeling empty. Can we admit that meaning is relative and our God is meaning. But suppose meaning is not found in the world; can a person with the help of society awaken to the needs of the heart? Is the purpose of modern society to indoctrinate or to awaken? How can it help us to awaken? Can philosophy help us to realistically feel what is called the human condition and why we are as we are?

Simone Weil wrote "The Need for Roots" as she was in the hospital with TB. France was recovering from the war and was concerned how it can recover.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html

Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation
Profession of Faith

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.

That reality is the unique source of all the good that can exist in this world: that is to say, all beauty, all truth, all justice, all legitimacy, all order, and all human behaviour that is mindful of obligations.

Those minds whose attention and love are turned towards that reality are the sole intermediary through which good can descend from there and come among men..................................

She offers a beginning. We must distinguish between the facts of science and the values which enter the essence of Man from a higher conscious source beyond the limitations of Plato's cave. She suggests that it is through the influence of certain minority already able to receive from above which makes it possible, They make it possible for the being of Man and scientific knowledge to become balanced and complimentary

Can Man open to receive this influence or is he doomed to lose it as his being deteriorates into fragmentation and becomes lost in the trees forgetting the needs and reality of the forest?

This is the human problem as I understand it. Can society become able to serve the normal urge for conscious evolution or is it doomed to further the devolution of the being of Man? Perhaps conscious evolution is not possible for society but only possible for individuals.

↪Nikolas
I am certainly in favour of the experiential domain. I didn't know about Simone Weil's teenage experience, probably because until you pointed her out to me, I was not really familiar with her. She definitely seems to be your spiritual mentor. Mine is Carl Jung as I discovered him when I was a teenager and he definitely had an inner struggle in encountering the lived experience of the 'divine'. This is most evident in his autobiography, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections.'

I am certainly in favour of exploring the transcendent and that also includes the existence of the diabolical, often called the devil. Perhaps the more one searches for God, one is brought to face the devil, or inner demons, too. The main difference of where I come from to most religious people is that I don't really frame my experience in one clear box. I do believe that the questions and areas of exploration of religion are of central importance though. Probably, the people who do partake within a specific religion rather than go outside it have an easier path. The individual quests can be hazardous. — Jack Cummins

We are not that far apart. Years ago when I had my first mystical experience I was a musician who drank too much. I assumed life was meaningless. Then I had the good fortune to discover a book which answered my questions to such a degree that it changed my life. The world wasn't meaningless but just responding to natural laws as it must. Imagine how it felt to realize that the world and the universe it functions within makes perfect sense but I was just too blind to the vertical psychological experience to see it. Before this in college I knew I was surrounded by idiots but now I saw that i was an idiot not to see it. It dawned on me that I needed help and an influence in the form of a book appeared when it was necessary to help me open to the vertical direction. Coincidence? No, not with that intensity.

I don't speak of this influence on a casual internet forum but do so privately because of all the negativity. A person can read a word like "God" for example and acquire negative connotation to it. So why hurt people?

Discussing Simone is easy. There is no Simone tradition or school. There is just Simone. People like Albert Camus and T.S. Eliot felt the value in her letters and essays so compiled them into books for no money. Simone Weil is an individual who cannot be classified. Leon Trotsky praised her when she was a Marxist and later she became an intellectual influence on Pope Paul VI. She was "Plato's spiritual child." and someone I can learn from who offers experiential verification far more valuable than opinions.


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

True? Who knows. We cannot judge these people by social standards. They are individuals and beyond classification.

↪Nikolas
I have always found the esoteric traditions of religion more interesting than the exoteric ones. Within Christianity, there are the ideas of Celtic Christianity as well as the whole tradition of Gnosticism. The early Church was hostile towards Gnostic thinking but, nevertheless, it seems likely that a lot of Gnostic thinking did get incorporated into Christianity on some level, as the Gospel of St John and the Book of Revelation seem to be part of that tradition. There is even speculation that one of the founding fathers had some affinity with Gnostic thinking.

Of course, esoteric ideas have a whole history, as expressed in the Rosucrucian movement, alchemy and, more recently, as well as the ideas of Emmanuel Swedenborg and Rudolf Steiner. More recently, drawing upon the ideas of Eastern thinking, we have the whole movement of theosophy. I have been to a few meetings run by The Theosophical Society. One particular thing that I was impressed by within that organisation is the whole idea of recognizing the truth underlying all religions and creeds. Religion understood on that level makes more sense in some cases than just confining ideas to one viewpoint. The reason I say this is because many people adopt the religious beliefs which they are brought up with as children. That seems to make it all seem too relative and I am in favour of understanding the religious quest on a universal level of meeting the human need for understanding and truth.

The role of the devil in Christianity is interesting. Having been brought up as a Catholic, I had immense fear of the devil, sin and hell. This was the point at which psychology stepped into the picture for me. I found the ideas of Carl Jung extremely important. In particular, his book 'Answer to Job' looks at the whole problem of evil within Christianity, and the whole idea of the devil critically. Jung is controversial in his approach because he sees the idea of the image of God as a Trinity as inadequate and suggests that psychologically the idea of a quarternity is more consistent with the needs of the human psyche. The fourth aspect which he suggests is the the devil, and, or the feminine principle because he thinks that these have been repressed and suppressed within Christianity. In particular, he thinks that we need to become aware of our own dark side, the shadow, which if not faced cconsciously can result in evil being unleashed in a horrific way. Rather than seeing the devil outside of us, he sees it arising within us as destructiveness, especially in the possibility of nuclear devastation which could be carried out. Jung was writing this in the 1950s and I am sure that there are other threats, including terrorism. — Jack Cummins

Plato distinguished between knowledge and opinion. Socrates said "I Know Nothing." What then is knowledge and what does it mean "to know?"?

Knowledge is a mental faculty/power that allows us to apprehend "being" (i.e., reality).

Ignorance is the opposite of knowledge.

Conclusion from 1 & 2:
Opinion is subject to error, but knowledge is not.

Can the essence of religion offer an influence that helps us to grow to experience knowledge of the transcendent level rather than remaining lost in a world of opinions at the exoteric level? Does knowledge exist for Man on earth or is Man doomed to the struggle between competing opinions?


Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin as she was near death:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

Was Simone a misguided teen caught up in fantasy and in dire need of professional help or was she one of these rare ones drawn to the transcendent level and willing to risk everything in order to experience it? If the transcendent level is real how can we respect it while acknowledging that we know nothing?

↪Nikolas
Yes, I think that we do need to consider the whole question of what it means to turn 'inwardly towards the light'. However, I come also with many questions. Even within the more esoteric part of Christianity, we have the whole question of the Luciferan emphasis on light and how this led to the 'fall' of the angelic and human kingdoms. We can also consider to what extent is this symbolic, but this does lead to the larger question as to what extent are all religious perspectives mythic representations. Even the non religious and scientific paradigms can be seen as models, so, even those, are representations. — Jack Cummins

As I understand it, there are levels of religious understanding beginning at the exoteric level or the Man of opinion. Once a person experiences the futility of opinion they can begin the vertical esoteric path that can lead to transcendent understanding. This is only for a small minority because the world is governed at the exoteric level. Discussing philosophy requires being open to the vertical ascent which unites the exoteric with the esoteric in all the major traditions to experience the transcendent

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1993/01/01/on-the-transcendent-unity-of-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.

Schuon uses the terms esoteric and exoteric to distinguish
the transcendent spirit of religions from their diverse
formal expressions. A useful diagram can be made which helps
illustrate the essence of this idea:

The purpose of religion can be based on imagination and fear or the calling from the center of the heart.

How can we contemplate evil and lucifer from a theoretical transcendent perspective as opposed to typical exoteric opinions? Is the Devil necessary? If there was only our source there would be no room for fragments and these levels of fragments create the universal machine. The friction from interacting fragments create the purpose of our universe. The Devil is a necessary part of sustaining the interaction of fragments or the body of God.

Where do people go to meet others they can learn from who have felt what enables freedom from Plato's cave rather than turning in circles which feels "spiritual" and invites all the charlatans?

↪Nikolas
I do believe that it is essential that we hold on to the need to be able to hold onto the search for truth, wherever it takes us, into the rocky banks of seas of uncertainty. For some, it may lead into an abyss of nihilistic uncertainty and, for others to a spiritual paradise of knowing. I journey in between the two and embrace existentialist perspectives alongside aspects of Western and Eastern spiritual philosophies. I suppose one question is to what extent is it about objective searching and knowing and how much is it about psychological need? Personally, I admit that I have a certain amount of searching for what I wish to find, but objective questions about truth matter as well, in a very deep sense. — Jack Cummins

Can the seeker of objective truth through science and/or religious psychology make progress without first experiencing either satori in Zen, Metanoia in Christianity, or inwardly turning towards the light described by Plato? If it is necessary to open to reality beyond the limitations of our senses. The question becomes what it means to inwardly turn towards the light with the whole of ourselves to experience the essential truths beyond what our senses are capable of.?

However, I am aware that ideas about religion, including the philosophy questions about the existence of God are so bound up with our lives as human beings. I wonder how this all connects together and even if the need for religious experience is innate. I do think that my topic might be seen as a bit complicated for the forum and I apologise if this is the case, but it is the whole area which I grapple with and seek to explore in my own life. So, I am interested in exploring this with anyone else who is also interested in this too. — Jack Cummins

We are fortunate that there are some in the world who have a similar need though at different intensities. Yet there are some with a great need for truth that is stronger than the need for pleasure and consolation

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

Something at the depth of our being feeds on truth. Modern society and its dominant secular intolerance makes us suppress it in favor of becoming fixated indoctrinated societal goals. But there is this minority like Simone who keep it alive in the world when exposed to it. This is the goal of philosophy and the essence of religion; to inspire a person to experience truth over pleasure. Then God, as the energy of the Spirit, can be received by Man. I'm glad you seem to feel the need for truth rather than being consumed by the need for pleasure and consolation. IMO It is a worthwhile minority group.

Simone Weil. The patron saint of outsiders

I am inclined to think that there are cycles but that we cannot see this fully because they are gradual and, as a result appear deceptively as being part of a linear process. — Jack Cummins

Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.

The cycles of time as we know in "levels of reality" I believe are genuine. The cycle of time or birth to death for a galaxy is less for example than the the cycle of birth to death for a solar system. Yet what is time. Is it the breath of Brahma?

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Before creation the light and the actuality of day and night came into existence. These are the questions I believe philosophy can lead us to experience by noesis when free from arguing secularized partial truths

↪Nikolas It's the question at the heart of philosophy and you think it's best avoided. Good job! — Bartricks

Of course. Most questions invite all sorts of BS to avoid controversy and invite peace and love.. Seriously discussing the implications of Plato's Cave can even get you killed. Stick with BS. It is safer. From Plato's Cave allegory

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

Perhaps you want more, though. You ask "but what's the purpose of this - the purpose of our being here?" — Bartricks

This question is better avoided. It is both disruptive and corrupts the youth of Athens. It is asking why we are in Plato's Cave. It is too insulting to even consider much less ponder. It is better to imagine a glorious future of world peace. It avoids conflicts.

Is human thought in decline or once again entering a logistical domain within which it cannot sustain competency? I ponder whether we could have invented computers a thousand years ago if thought was uninhibited by deterministic and irrational factors. Many crises seem to be capable of overpowering thought completely. Is modernity more attributable to a few centuries of favorable climactic conditions than human nature? On how many occasions during history has the course of reasoned advancement been derailed by unfavorable conditions, and what does this imply about the probable consequences of our current ecological and social dilemmas? If institutions publicize a positive message and work towards solidarity despite all the hardships hundreds of millions are facing, will this be enough to get a globalized humanity through catastrophes of a severity that earlier epochs of less integration could not surmount? — Enrique

From Book VI of Plato's Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society):

I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

Is society as a whole really the Great Beast described by Plato? Can the Great Beast become less beastly and begin to consciously evolve and become human? What could cause it? Right now I can's see it happening. The Beast is too strong and like a powerful tiger, demands to get its way.

"Why do human interactions on the internet tend to skew negative, as opposed to positive? What does this say about human behaviour?" — GLEN willows

The closer deeper philosophical ideas are to being objectively true, the more they will be hated. Consider why Jesus and Socrates had to die. They revealed the human condition and the path to freedom for what it is so had to be hated. From the Cave allegory:

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

If you stimulate real negativity, it may be that you are on the right track.

↪Nikolas
The way you are viewing eternal recurrence in the movie based on repeated patterns until one becomes less egoist sounds similar to the idea of karma. Do you think that the underlying truth of the two principles is the same? — Jack Cummins

Why time can be defined as the repetition of a moment is really another deep topic but I do believe that karma describes what takes place below Plato's divided line.

The universe as I understand it is governed by mechanical laws assuring everything turns in cycles as well as consciousness which makes conscious evolution beyond mechanical evolution possible.

Our hero in Groundhog Day gradually freed himself from the effects of imagination through eternal repetition of the day so was no longer prisoner of karma and a creature of reaction but could become a conscious human being

Good thing you're here to enlighten everyone with your insufferable pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Keep talking in circles, by all means. Just do it without me (or anyone else, apparently). This thread isn't worth giving any more attention to -- and neither are you. — Xtrix

Many years go a group of intellectuals formed a committee to learn which is the most hated of all machines. After weeks of deliberations it was finally decided the most hated of all machines is the alarm clock. It was hated in the same way those like Jesus and Socrates were also condemned to death.

These most hated machines did not exist as individuals but rather existed in packs attacking several homes simultaneously with the intent of disturbing the peace of ones slumber. Their actions were considered even more insidious since they were protected as necessary evils.

Real philosophy like contemplation of the forms is also like this. It is hated as both an awakening influences for individuals but survives as an essential awakening influence for humanity as a whole.

Xtrix
1.3k
↪Nikolas

:yawn: — Xtrix

Quite true. The whole meaning of Plato's cave analogy is that Man is asleep in the Cave and attached to the shadows on the wall with the potential to turn towards the light. The concept is both annoying and insulting for sleeping man so the normal reaction is yawning assuring that nothing changes. Well done.

There is good movie on this idea called Groundhog Day" In this move our hero is an obnoxious weatherman. For some reason he is forced to relive Groundhog day again and again while gradually beginning to see the external world more realistically and less egoistically. Naturally his attitude gradually changes. Lots of inner meanings in this movie

No way to tell, until someone explains what this "identical thought" is. Personally, I find Heidegger to be more compelling in this vein. What's thought is "being," which gets interpreted in various ways throughout history, with varying consequences for culture through history.

If this is what is meant, fine. But I don't see what the big deal is. Seems to me like a truism. Heidegger gets into exactly why its important, but he goes through a mountain of historical and linguistic evidence. It's not just assertion and re-arranging or re-defining of words.

I'll skip the rest.

Honestly, though, you sound like someone very similar who was posting gibberish on here not long ago. I see you have only 61 posts, so I wouldn't be surprised if you were the same person. That same level of unresponsive numbness is evident. If you want to rattle on with definitions while capitalizing various words, you're welcome to.

But don't expect to be taken too seriously. — Xtrix

The purpose of philosophy is to enable a person to experience the path to meaning that otherwise mindlessly accepts absurdity. I like to find people who are attracted to the purpose of philosophy since I learn from them.

Thomas Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

This is gibberish and insulting to many philosophers. Who is this woman to challenge the intellect of Man and assert they are not human? Maybe she is right and science and religion can become complimentary in the philosophical quest to become human and experience human meaning. Perhaps the law of the included middle in addition to the law of the excluded middle is a step on the ladder leading to human meaning. It does give hope for the future of our species

We're not interested in simply defining things. If you want to make something a technical notion, then explain what it means and how it fits into a larger theoretical structure, gives evidence and examples, show why it's an improvement on other theories, etc. But here we simply have baseless assertions. — Xtrix

Can modern civilization become able to accept the complimentary rather than the divisive relationship of science and the essence of religion? That would be a new theoretical structure.


I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Is this just wishful thinking? can the duality of science accept the triund nture of our universe which intuition is sensitive to? Maybe so if Dr. Basarab Nicolescu is right as he explains the laws of the INCLUDED middle

https://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c3.php

2. The logic of the included middle

Knowledge of the coexistence of the quantum world and the macrophysical world and the development of quantum physics has led, on the level of theory and scientific experiment, to the upheaval of what were formerly considered to be pairs of mutually exclusive contradictories (A and non-A): wave and corpuscle, continuity and discontinuity, separability and nonseparability, local causality and global causality, symmetry and breaking of symmetry, reversibility and irreversibility of time, etc.

For example, equations of quantum physics are submitted to a group of symmetries, but their solutions break these symmetries. Similarly, a group of symmetry is supposed to describe the unification of all known physical interactions but the symmetry must be broken in order to describe the difference between strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions.

The intellectual scandal provoked by quantum mechanics consists in the fact that the pairs of contradictories that it generates are actually mutually contradictory when they are analyzed through the interpretative filter of classical logic. This logic is founded on three axioms:

1. The axiom of identity : A is A.

2. The axiom of non-contradiction : A is not non-A.

3. The axiom of the excluded middle : There exists no third term T which is at the same time A and non-A.

According to the hypothesis of the existence of a single level of Reality, the second and third axioms are obviously equivalent. The dogma of a single level of Reality, arbitrary like all dogma, is so embedded in our consciousness that even professional logicians forget to say that these two axioms are in fact distinct and independent from each other.

If one nevertheless accepts this logic which, after all, has ruled for two millennia and continues to dominate thought today (particularly in the political, social, and economic spheres) one immediately arrives at the conclusion that the pairs of contradictories advanced by quantum physics are mutually exclusive, because one cannot affirm the validity of a thing and its opposite at the same time: A and non-A.

Since the definitive formulation of quantum mechanics around 1930 the founders of the new science have been acutely aware of the problem of formulating a new "quantum logic." Subsequent to the work of Birkhoff and van Neumann a veritable flourishing of quantum logics was not long in coming [4]. The aim of these new logics was to resolve the paradoxes which quantum mechanics had created and to attempt, to the extent possible, to arrive at a predictive power stronger than that afforded by classical logic.

Most quantum logics have modified the second axiom of classical logic -- the axiom of non-contradiction -- by introducing non-contradiction with several truth values in place of the binary pair (A, non-A). These multivalent logics, whose status with respect to their predictive power remains controversial, have not taken into account one other possibility: the modification of the third axiom -- the axiom of the excluded middle.

History will credit Stéphane Lupasco with having shown that the logic of the included middle is a true logic, formalizable and formalized, multivalent (with three values: A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictory [5]. Stéphane Lupasco, like Edmund Husserl, belongs to the race of pioneers. His philosophy, which takes quantum physics as its point of departure, has been marginalized by physicists and philosophers. Curiously, on the other hand, it has had a powerful albeit underground influence among psychologists, sociologists, artists, and historians of religions. Perhaps the absence of the notion of "levels of Reality" in his philosophy obscured its substance. Many persons believed that Lupasco's logic violated the principle of non-contradiction -- whence the rather unfortunate name "logic of contradiction" -- and that it entailed the risk of endless semantic glosses. Still more, the visceral fear of introducing the idea of the included middle , with its magical resonances, only helped to increase the distrust of such a logic.

Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle -- there exists a third term T which is at the same time A and non-A -- is completely clarified once the notion of "levels of Reality" is introduced.

In order to obtain a clear image of the meaning of the included middle, we can represent the three terms of the new logic -- A, non-A, and T -- and the dynamics associated with them by a triangle in which one of the vertices is situated at one level of Reality and the two other vertices at another level of Reality. If one remains at a single level of Reality, all manifestation appears as a struggle between two contradictory elements (example: wave A and corpuscle non-A). The third dynamic, that of the T-state, is exercised at another level of Reality, where that which appears to be disunited (wave or corpuscle) is in fact united (quanton), and that which appears contradictory is perceived as non-contradictory.

It is the projection of T on one and the same level of Reality which produces the appearance of mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs (A and non-A). A single level of Reality can only create antagonistic oppositions. It is inherently self-destructive if it is completely separated from all the other levels of Reality. A third term, let us call it T', which is situated on the same level of Reality as that of the opposites A and non-A, can accomplish their reconciliation.

The entire difference between a triad of the included middle and an Hegelian triad is clarified by consideration of the role of time . In a triad of the included middle the three terms coexist at the same moment in time . On the contrary, each of the three terms of the Hegelian triad succeeds the former in time. This is why the Hegelian triad is incapable of accomplishing the reconciliation of opposites, whereas the triad of the included middle is capable of it. In the logic of the included middle the opposites are rather contradictories : the tension between contradictories builds a unity which includes and goes beyond the sum of the two terms.

One also sees the great dangers of misunderstanding engendered by the common enough confusion made between the axiom of the excluded middle and the axiom of non-contradiction [6]. The logic of the included middle is non-contradictory in the sense that the axiom of non-contradiction is thoroughly respected, a condition which enlarges the notions of "true" and "false" in such a way that the rules of logical implication no longer concerning two terms (A and non-A) but three terms (A, non-A and T), co-existing at the same moment in time. This is a formal logic, just as any other formal logic: its rules are derived by means of a relatively simple mathematical formalism.

One can see why the logic of the included middle is not simply a metaphor like some kind of arbitrary ornament for classical logic, which would permit adventurous incursions and passages into the domain of complexity. The logic of the included middle is perhaps the privileged logic of complexity, privileged in the sense that it allows us to cross the different areas of knowledge in a coherent way, by enabling a new kind of simplicity.

The logic of the included middle does not abolish the logic of the excluded middle: it only constrains its sphere of validity. The logic of the excluded middle is certainly valid for relatively simple situations. On the contrary, the logic of the excluded middle is harmful in complex, transdisciplinary cases.

The law of the included middle provides the logical means to connect above and below or our Source and Creation. The law of the INCLUDED middle describes how Man can connect reality above and below Plato's divided line. It offers hope for the future.




.

You asked what it means for humanity to consciously die. Personally, I would view this as a means of people being lacking in self awareness. I am not sure that we are awake enough, in the sense of being able to always see beyond the conditioning we have experienced and how we are taught to see in the way institutions try to program us. I would say that it is about reflective consciousness and, often, this is not triggered unless people suffer to the point where they need to question and think.

I am not sure that it is just about formal philosophy, because even that can be about reading and regurgitating the ideas of others. Also, some of the most philosophical approaches to life may not be come under the strict definition of philosophy but within other disciplines, as free thinking. — Jack Cummins

Are you referring to self awareness or being self conscious? For me self awareness is the conscious experience that the human organism has a mechanical lower part of the collective essence as well as the potential higher parts of the collective human essence. Ideas like the forms opens the mind to the vertical inner direction giving us practice in the contemplation of reality greater than ourselves When we have this awareness we also become aware that there is higher consciousness that looks down on the quality of our consciousness that allows us to see ourselves: our mechanical nature.

Self consciousness is being governed by the fears and imaginary opinions of ourselves. To die to ourselves means to die to imagination which keeps us as prisoners in Plato's cave. Since imagination makes up the great majority of our lives, we don't want to die.

Freedom for Plato as with Christianity means inwardly turning towards the light with the whole of ourselves rather than being fixated on the shadows on the wall. In Christianity it is called metanoia

↪Nikolas
I am in England, not America, but I presume that the same principles apply. How do you believe that the idea of 'might makes right' as a replacement for the idea of liberty will translate in practice? — Jack Cummins

From the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”

Liberty requires receiving Grace from above. When it is denied, the natural tendency to establish animal superiority takes over leading to "might makes right."

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

Simone was highly regarded Marxist admired by leon Trotsky. Her strict dedication to truth made allowed her to experience its weaknesses. She died a Christian mystic.

When liberty becomes impossible for a society due to the human condition and the absence of grace, it must devolve into the struggle for prestige which can only be resolved by tyranny

I see valuing liberty is on the way out in favor of the promises of socialism for three main reasons. The first is the different ways society values equality. Society is increasingly favoring equality in servitude

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

Liberty requires voluntary conscious obligations to sustain it. But society demands rights. How long can liberty sustain itself with this mindset? Simone Weil wrote:

The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations.

We read all the time of women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, etc but how often do you read of women's obligations, gay obligations, and minority obligations etc? The fight over rights can only lead to tyranny to establish order. Appreciating obligations requires a spiritual mindset discouraged by secularism.

"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

Unless some catastrophic unseen event takes place, America is doomed to eventually live under the philosophy that "might makes right" replacing the goal of liberty.

Before deciding on the purpose of human life it seems we have to decide if the universe is here to serve Man's needs or does Man exist to serve the universal necessity of our universe?

Logic itself, inductive or deductive, has a long history and is itself a human construction. You seem to be hung up on it, take it as an absolute, and want to privilege it. This is very common in Western philosophy, but in my view is a huge waste of time. If you want to reduce things to some "oneness" or "source" or "God" or anything else, fine -- that's been done many times before. What's more interesting for me is the psychology which leads people to interpret things this way, or even has a desire to.

You're not going to settle upon some ultimate truth just by re-arranging and re-organizing words. Nor are you going to get anywhere with mere assertions, free of any citations of the texts of which you refer (in this case, Plato's).

Also, to say deductive reason "creates" our universe is so ridiculous it's barely worth discussing. You might as well write a New Age book. Perhaps re-think your entire notion of "creation" or causality. — Xtrix

Human psychology interests you. You want to understand the human condition as it exists in the world and why you are as you are and can believe any old thing. This is basic inductive reason and supports the Socratic axiom "Know Thyself."

But what of those others who are driven to know the purpose of our universe and humanity within it? It requires beginning with our source. Can understanding leading to meaning be built on it? If they are all nuts then the pursuit of philosophy defined as a being in search of meaning is really just futile since life is meaningless

I consider Plotinus' conception of the ONE as our source beyond time and space and Nous as its first expression within creation or within the isness of ONE

The Intelligence (Nous) is the true first principle — the determinate, referential ‘foundation’ (arkhe) — of all existents; for it is not a self-sufficient entity like the One, but rather possesses the ability or capacity to contemplate both the One, as its prior, as well as its own thoughts, which Plotinus identifies with the Platonic Ideas or Forms (eide). The purpose or act of the Intelligence is twofold: to contemplate the ‘power’ (dunamis) of the One, which the Intelligence recognizes as its source, and to meditate upon the thoughts that are eternally present to it, and which constitute its very being..................

It may be meaningless for you but for others consciously contemplating how the self sufficiency of the ONE can produce the PROCESS of Nous from the ISNESS of the ONE are really practicing philosophy rather than psychology. It reveals the inner direction which answers our questions concerning "meaning."

↪Nikolas
One book I am reading, relevant to the idea of imagination and Plato's idea of forms is, 'The Physics of Transfigured Light: The Imaginal Realm and the Hermetic Foundation of Science', by Leon Marvell (2016). In this book, the author is exploring the whole dimension of ideas.

In it he says,'a disciplined imagination leads one to a more accurate picture of reality, and an unfettered imagination leads one more astray.' I think that this distinction is important because we are looking at the difference between seeing subjective truths and more objective ones, although I am not sure that this distinction is clearcut.

He also suggests a,
'notion of ideal objects existing in fourth-dimensional space. Rather than a world of physical objects, however, it is a "problem space. Of central importance is the notion that ideas and conceptions possess a logical dimension outside of time, such that the force of certain ideas will become apparent to certain individuals outside of material, causal factors.'

I am aware that this quote does refer to it as a 'logical dimension', but nevertheless it is one which involves the imagination in order to enter into it. This is the way I see imagination, as not just being about mere personal fantasy, but of connecting to a dimension in its own right, and I believe that belief in Plato's idea of forms is dependent on this. So, the way in which imagination is involved is as a means of tapping into this source. It is a way of knowing which does involve reason and logic, but the point which I would stress is that it does suggest a realm or objective dimension, and this also involves imagination in the true sense of the word, as in conjuring up images. — Jack Cummins

You've raised several question important if philosophy can have any higher meaning other than the secular. First of all do you agree with the four modes of thinking described by Plato"

noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

It seems that much of modern philosophy rejects noesis and relies on discursive thought as the highest form of reason. Plato speaks of remembrance in which a higher level of reality you allude to can be temporarily experienced by a lower and interpreted by dianoia loosing its meaning. Dianoia is a double edged sword. It is essential to classify facts yet useless to experience "meaning" the origin for humanity is above Plato's divided line and beyond the limits of our senses.

The next question is why bother with philosophy if it is only good for arguing and indoctrinating? For this I'll quote from Jacob Needleman's book "The Heart of Philosophy"

Chapter 1

Introduction

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

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

So my question to you is what it means for humanity to consciously die? Can Man inwardly die and eventually lose its conscious potential without the awakening influence of philosophy to stimulate our conscious potential and remember through noesis what has been forgotten?

I believe Einstein is stressing the importance of the role of creative imagination in scientific discovery. However, he did not mean this to exclude the importance of the necessity of empirical testing of the hypotheses predicted by the scientific theory. — charles ferraro

Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. — Nikolas

Searching for and combining related facts is the process of inductive reason. Einstein is referring to the value of deductive reason or combining unrelated facts under one law.

The trouble is that deductive reason requires a person to intuitively feel the value of the forest and not sacrifice it to argue over the value of trees. Such people are increasingly few and far between.

I subscribe only to the ongoing development of better, more comprehensive, empirically testable scientific theories about the physical universe in which we live. However, I wish you success with your pursuit of anamnesis. — charles ferraro

Since Einstein and others seemed to agree with Plato and the value of noesis, at least I'm not alone in a world dominated by inductive reason.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

What do you mean by "come from"? Where does that idea come from?

The Forms (or Ideas) arise in the human being, and are described by the human being. It's like asking "where does language come from" or "where does abstraction come from"? Where do numbers and words "come from"? They arise in the human being, often called the "mind" or "reason," and there's little else to say about it. If you want to make up a story about their arising from some supernatural or mystical realm, or "nothingness," or anything else -- fine. But it's not interesting. — Xtrix

Interpretation normal for the visible realm we experience through our senses are not the forms. The forms are universal ideals. A perfect circle would still be a universal idea even if Man on earth were destroyed by a meteor.

Protagoras said that "Man is the measure of all things." From this point of view Man creates the ideas which manifest as the Source and are studied by inductive bottom up reason. But if Man becomes extinct, does this mean our universe falls apart into meaningless chaos? Deductive reason begins with the ONE or Plato's good and involves vertically to create our universe.

Which makes more sense for a seeker of truth to remember the meaning and purpose of our universe and Man within it: the inductive or deductive approach?

A "perfect" circle never existed, does not now exist, and will never exist. It is inherently impossible for humans to experience a "perfect" circle. A "perfect" circle, being nothing, emanates from nothing. Both the alleged "perfect" circle and its alleged "perfect" a-spatial and a-temporal source are figments of human imagination. Also, the alleged "perfect" circle is "imperfect" from the frame-of-reference of non-Euclidean geometries. Appreciating Plato requires a vivid imagination, rather than deductive reason. — charles ferraro

From the point of view of inductive reason limited by our senses which is the visible realm, forms are imagination. However from the intelligible realm described by Plato in the divided line analogy, forms lead to the many opinions natural for the visible world.

Plato developed his Theory of Forms to the point where he divided existence into two realms. There is the world of sense experience (the ‘empirical’ world), where nothing ever stays the same but is always in the process of change. Experience of it gives rise to opinions. There is also a world which is outside space and time, which is not perceived through the senses, and in which everything is permanent and perfect or Ideal - the realm of the Forms. The empirical world shows only shadows and poor copies of these Forms, and so is less real than the world of the Forms themselves, because the Forms are eternal and immutable (unchanging), the proper objects of knowledge.

You seem to deny the intelligible world as fantasy while I prefer to consciously contemplate the idea with the potential to receive the experience of anamnesis or remembering what has been forgotten.

Charles Darwin argued that forms are not divine, eternal, Platonic ideas but natural biological species that originate and gradually develop, one from the other, over long periods of time through the combined action of natural selection and spontaneous genetic mutations. In other words, there is nothing
"a priori," or absolutely necessary and strictly universal, about the Platonic Ideas. They are simply natural biological species situated in space and time, some of which persist and others of which become extinct. — charles ferraro

Darwin argues from inductive reason. Appreciating Plato requires deductive reason. Is a perfect circle the result of an evolving species or the first emanation of an idea manifesting within creation? Plato's ideas are logical but require the conscious source beyond time and space to follow the logic and the hierarchy of forms

You're already way off track. Ideas aren't "something from nothing." This has to be clearly justified and explained. Ideas, or forms, are generalities/classes/prototypes. When discussing "tree" or "dog," the Form refers to the "what-ness" of that entity. What makes it a stick, a dog, a tree. These are the forms.

The rest is just verbiage. Bring it back to earth, quote Plato himself, give examples, etc. Otherwise this isn't interesting. — Xtrix

Where do forms come from if not perennial apriori ideas?

↪Nikolas Indeed. Go ahead. Hm. A start. What is the difference between reality and ultimate reality? What even is reality? And for whom? — tim wood

Society has many conditioned concepts of justice. They are all part of the "many." But justice itself is a form. It is an unchangeable universal ultimate reality or idea and not a conditioned response directed at certain people

Forms are thus mind-independent entities: their existence and nature is independent of our beliefs and judgments about them.

The Phaedo contains an extended description of the characteristics and functions of the forms:
Unchangeable (78c10-d9)

Eternal (79d2)
Intelligible, not perceptible (79a1-5)
Divine (80a3, b1)
Incorporeal (passim)
Causes of being (“The one over the many”) (100c)
Are unqualifiedly what their instances are only with qualification (75b)

The forms make sense when we begin with our Source or Plotinus ONE as the eternal unchanging. The universe or the body of God is in constant change. It serves the process of existence while the ONE IS. The forms then are the initial intelligence within the limits of creation emanating from the ONE.

The forms are the "one over the many." Man on earth is limited to contemplating the "many." Deductive reason begins with the premise of the intelligible which is not perceptible. It begins with the ONE and INVOLVES into creation and its many variations. Inductive reason begins with the many within creation and EVOLVES in the attempt to experience the ONE.

Can a human being through efforts of conscious contemplation begin to remember the forms or is it just a waste of time and nothing but fantasy?

Which implies that the forms were simply a way of thinking, an attempt at knowledge, and as such in themselves nothing at all. — tim wood

Are forms really nothing at all or really the ultimate reality? How can we approach the question impartially and without bias?

↪Nikolas
This is a very good question. How do we know about the underlying forms themselves. Apart from a priori knowledge, perhaps intuition is another means of inductive reason. Perhaps the role of imagination is not given enough importance and can also be a way of grasping the underlying forms as well. In some ways, imagination may be considered as subjective, but that doesn't mean that it can, at it's best, be a means of gaining access to some non physical truths, such as the underlying Forms of which Plato speaks. — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure of what you mean by imagination. We use the same word for conscious contemplation or opening to the experience of noesis and also escapist fantasy. What does imagination mean to you?

I have never read any writing by Simone Weii but I would like to. — Jack Cummins

Simone can have an effect on a person. When Julia Haslett was living in depressing times she discovred Simone and it saved her life. She wrote a documentary trying to understand it.

Simone cannot be classified. she was seeker of truth who had the mind of scientist and the heart of mystic. She couldn't be put into a collective. She is a woman who embarrasses me as a man. I do not have her total dedication to truth which is what a real man has. This is the trailor to Julia's documentary. She raises the whole question of attention. How does a seeker of truth respond to the question of attention? It is both philosophical and religious question a person can come to when they tire of arguing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOCE_d2R5lw

I believe that listening to others is of supreme importance and it is central to compassionate because this involves being moved to step into the predicament of another. We may not be able to know what the person we encounter should do but listening may be the one thing which we can do. I would say that listening is an essential skill for living and it may be one that is undervalued within philosophy. — Jack Cummins

I'm a great admirer of Simone Weil. Listening seems to be as difficult as it is necessary She wrote.

“The capacity to give one's attention to a sufferer is a very rare and difficult thing; it is almost a miracle; it is a miracle. Nearly all those who think they have the capacity do not possess it.” ~ Simone Weil

"Difficult as it is really to listen to someone in affliction, it is just as difficult for him to know that compassion is listening to him." ~ Simone weil

I do believe that listening and understanding are central towards empathy and compassion. This is recognised in most schools of thought within counselling. Listening is so much more important than advice. I would say that we have so many people who like giving advice. Many people like to perceive what a person in a given situation should do and this is through inability to step into the world of the other. When we are listening to the person who is suffering, in the spirit of compassion, it may be about listening and not just trying to formulate specific answers. The person who is suffering may need the psychological space, to view and reflect. In being compassionate, we may need to stand back and enter into the suffering of the other to enable someone to find their own way forward. — Jack Cummins

You may appreciate how Jacob Needleman described an experiment pertaining to listening. Is listening the beginning of morality? If it is, then compassion is impossible without the ability to listen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSOs4ti0sm0