Good question. As others have noted, philosophy has often associated the Real with the permanent, with that which defies time and refuses to change -- that which is complete and sated and blissfully motionless. As one poet put it time is fire in which we burn. Cue also the fire sermon.

Bhikkhus, form is burning, feeling is burning, perception is burning, volitional formations are burning, consciousness is burning. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form ... feeling ... perception ... volitional formations ... consciousness .... Through dispassion [this mind] is liberated....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80dittapariy%C4%81ya_Sutta

Cue also Ernest Becker and Sartre. The untrustworthy boy becomes a man whose promises can be relied upon. The movement is from ape to god, towards a 'god' who can only be approximated by the flesh. I get control over myself. I get off approximating the self-caused self-directed self-pleased unmoved mover. The stoic is a statue of virtue, nobly Static. His child dies or his leg is broken, but He is proud and content (proud of being proud and content.

The old man preacher of omnia vanitas, who takes many faces, glories in the transcendence of the truly human symbolic realm over the stupid accidents of the realm of mere flesh. He speaks from royal eternity, greater than the passing kings of this world, identified (more or less explicitly) with the graveleaping softwhere that knows itself immortal.

Here's one version of this:

Feuerbach urged his readers to acknowledge and accept the irreversibility of their individual mortality so that in doing so they might come to an awareness of the immortality of their species-essence, and thus to knowledge of their true self, which is not the individual person with whom they were accustomed to identify themselves. They would then be in a position to recognize that, while “the shell of death is hard, its kernel is sweet” (GTU 205/20), and that the true belief in immortality is

a belief in the infinity of Spirit and in the everlasting youth of humanity, in the inexhaustible love and creative power of Spirit, in its eternally unfolding itself into new individuals out of the womb of its plenitude and granting new beings for the glorification, enjoyment, and contemplation of itself. (GTU 357/137)

In light of the emphasis placed in his later works on the practical existential needs of the embodied individual subject, it should be noted that during his early idealistic phase Feuerbach was strongly committed to a theoretical ideal of philosophy according to which contemplation of and submersion in God is the highest ethical act of which human beings are capable.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ludwig-feuerbach/

The human species is basically understood as a self-loving god. Feuerbach, a bit like Schopenhauer, acknowledged the centrality of sex. Unlike Schopenhauer, he got to experience a happy marriage. Now S had a wacky theory of sexual shame that only suggests to me a personal issue. He is wiser in other moments (he was full of insights and contradictions.) F saw that our love for other human bodies and other human minds was the joy and justification of life, for those who could get enough and had the crucial material-political context for the development of their human potential. Hard to expect the starving or hunted to end up with a sunny curious disposition.

Non-being as being (this isn't intentional) closely aligned to being is a fascinating idea. In this perspective, non-being is not synonymous with nothingness or annihilation but rather represents a state of freedom from the limitations and fluctuations of the material realm.

@plaque flagNon-being as being (this isn't intentional) closely aligned to being is a fascinating idea. In this perspective, non-being is not synonymous with nothingness or annihilation but rather represents a state of freedom from the limitations and fluctuations of the material realm. — Existential Hope

Whether true or not about Buddhism, I balk at the idea of the inevitability of being that then must be freed from it. It's my complaint in the other thread. Something is monstrous if the "disturbance" happened from the state of Nirvana. Why the disturbance? Why not Nirvana?

So ensues layers of post-facto reasoning. Here comes that shifty subversive "balance" again :smirk:.

Whether true or not about Buddhism, I balk at the idea of the inevitability of being that then must be freed from it. It's my complaint in the other thread. Something is monstrous if the "disturbance" happened from the state of Nirvana. Why the disturbance? Why not Nirvana?

So ensues layers of post-facto reasoning. Here comes that shifty subversive "balance" again :smirk:. — schopenhauer1

Nescience might be inescapable at one level (particularly if we are staring at eternity), but knowledge need not be a mere dream (if that inspires angelic visions for some, I would not be astounded). I do not scurry away from a higher state that transcends the flaws of one kind of existence and is yet not utter demolition.

Reasoning can be multifaceted and be simultaneous (implicitly or explicitly) with the process of arriving at the fact. Balance can act as a bulwark against a blind leap into absolutist affirmations of any proposition that bears the risk of ignoring an indispensable aspect of reality. However, I do understand the value of a reasonable inclination towards a destination (assuming that it exists).

. I do not scurry away from a higher state that transcends the flaws of one kind of existence and is yet not utter demolition. — Existential Hope

@plaque flag

This needs to be examined that in order for goodness you need some evil. This itself can be construed of as an evil. That is to say, there is no "paradise" (in the ideal/conventional sense), only some sort of relative good-by-needing-the-bad. This situation seems rotten itself as there is no unmitigated good. That is to say, one cannot just experience good without it somehow having itself a negative consequence (boredom, no longer novel, etc.). Mediocre universe creates mediocre philosophies whereby good is only relative to some privations necessary to maintain its goodness. Chuck it all out. Baby and bathwater. No baby, then no bathwater.

What is it about these quasi-spiritual beliefs that the world is becoming whilst the core of some higher level of being is being? Why is this such a central theme? Where does this type of thinking originate, philosophically-speaking? Animals don't seem to have a need for this

I know you disparage Nietzsche a lot but his genealogical method pertaining to the origins of our thoughts and philosophical convictions seems to me like a fruitful way of opening the discussion. I don't think it was meant to be taken at face value but this reminds me of Nietzsche's 'story' of how you first had masters and slaves, (strong individuals and weak individuals) and so I guess in Nietzschean fashion you could say that the reason the world of becoming is condemned so much throughout the history of Eastern and Western philosophy is a problem of the philosopher's own impotence-their congenital defect as Nietzsche calls it. Of course, this is all a bit reductive and the story doesn't end here. But food for thought I'd say

This needs to be examined that in order for goodness you need some evil. — schopenhauer1

From a materialistic perspective, I still believe that a bottomless chasm cannot be good or bad for anyone, which is why the possible need for needs does not make the alternative better.

While some evil can allow us to appreciate the good, positive states of being don't require privations, even if they may always exist to a certain extent. Disliking others is not a prerequisite for meaningful bonds (with a person or something more abstract). There is no unrestricted evil. Harms such as loneliness also require a good (a prior feeling of contentment with one's way of life) to exist. The hole does not precede the sheet of paper. There may not be complete fulfilment, but it is also true that good experiences always exist at some level. When I used to suffer from severe pain due to high fever and extreme allergies, there was a distinctly good feeling, undoubtedly subtle at times, that never ceased. Boredom can reflect a wondrous past and a large amount of exhilarating opportunities. It could be that it is "hell" that requires the usage of the term "relative". There are more than a few bathrooms. The indefinable potency of the good cannot be pulverised effortlessly. The time is ripe

In this perspective, non-being is not synonymous with nothingness or annihilation but rather represents a state of freedom from the limitations and fluctuations of the material realm. — Existential Hope

Not exactly sure if I understand. Perhaps you could expand?

Why the disturbance? Why not Nirvana?

So ensues layers of post-facto reasoning. Here comes that shifty subversive "balance" again :smirk: — schopenhauer1

To me there is no answer to the ultimate why question. There can't be, which means maybe that the ultimate why question is not a proper question.

I like to think of the negative Socrates, the one who knew he didn't know, who could admit it.

he reason the world of becoming is condemned so much throughout the history of Eastern and Western philosophy is a problem of the philosopher's own impotence — Albero

:up:
Becker's The Denial of Death continues this kind of thinking. How do vulnerable human beings make peace with their situation ? I'd say primarily through myths that give them a heroic role (as simple in many cases as a good mother, a true patriot, a real man, etc.)

This situation seems rotten itself as there is no unmitigated good. That is to say, one cannot just experience good without it somehow having itself a negative consequence (boredom, no longer novel, etc.). — schopenhauer1

I don't think boredom is a universal problem. It could be that our age is so entertained that it's no longer a problem. Or maybe I'm a lucky eccentric in this regard.

The situation is rotten indeed at times. Also it's great at times. Cliche but true.

Apologies for the brevity of my previous response.

When we talk about non-being as being, we are exploring the idea that there is a deeper reality beyond the transient and ever-changing nature of the material world. This perspective suggests that non-being does not imply a state of absolute nothingness or negation, but rather a state of existence that transcends the limitations and impermanence of the physical realm.

In many philosophical traditions, including Eastern and Western philosophies, there is a recognition that the material world is characterized by constant flux, impermanence, and the ceaseless cycle of becoming and decaying. This restless movement can be seen as a source of suffering and dissatisfaction, as Schopenhauer's quote highlighted.

Non-being, in this context, can be seen as a realm of existence that is free from the constraints of the material world. It is a state of being that is not subject to the transience and instability inherent in the physical realm. It is not bound by the limitations of time, space, and change. Instead, it represents a state of profound freedom, unity, and wholeness. So, one is naturally not speaking about absolute nothingness (if it is even possible).

This understanding of non-being as being can be found in various philosophical and spiritual traditions. For example, in Buddhism, the concept of non-being is related to the idea of nirvana, which is a state of liberation from the cycle of birth, suffering, and rebirth. It is a state of ultimate reality that transcends the impermanent and illusory nature of the world.

Similarly, in Plato's philosophy, the realm of Forms represents a higher reality that is immutable, eternal, and unchanging. These Forms are seen as the true essence or archetypes of the physical objects we perceive in the world of becoming.

Thanks ! Yes I get it now. That's what I was also getting at with my talk of the symbolic realm.

Let me throw in a psychoanalytic theme too. Projection keeps the rat on the wheel. One way to see the wise man is as someone who embraces fantasy -- who realizes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and cuts out the middle man. There's the meme of the recluse who lives joyfully in the woods in a simple hut, untempted by the vanities of the city, finding enough entertainment in his own wild and yet serene mind, which has incorporated and sublimated the city already. I think of Shakespeare as a great spiritual figure -- as everyone and no one. Some kind of harmonic stasis is maybe achieved, if the body is healthy and safe enough anyway, because the flesh is always the foundation.

Thanks ! Yes I get it now. That's why I was also getting at with my talk of the symbolic realm. — plaque flag

:up:

Let me throw in a psychoanalytic theme too. Projection keeps the rat on the wheel. One way to see the wise man is as someone who embraces fantasy -- who realizes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and cuts out the middle man. There's the meme of the recluse who lives joyfully in the woods in a simple hut, untempted by the vanities of the city, finding enough entertainment in his own wild and yet serene mind, which has incorporated and sublimated the city already. I think of Shakespeare as a great spiritual figure -- as everyone and no one. Some kind of harmonic stasis is maybe achieved, if the body is healthy and safe enough anyway, because the flesh is always the foundation. — plaque flag

I am grateful for the addition of the symbolic realm and the insights from psychoanalysis. It adds a captivating layer of richness to our exploration, like the brushstrokes of a master painter on a canvas of ideas.

Within the tapestry of the symbolic realm, where meanings intertwine and dance, the wise one emerges as a visionary, embracing the wonders of fantasy. They understand that beauty is a kaleidoscope, shimmering and shifting, and they bypass the intermediaries to gaze directly into the depths of their own perception. In their solitary hut nestled within the woods, they find enchantment, undisturbed by the siren call of worldly vanities. Their mind, wild yet serene, becomes a playground where the echoes of the city intertwine and ascend to sublime heights.

Shakespeare, that enigmatic figure, stands as a spiritual giant, a ghostly presence weaving tales that transcend time and identity. In his words, he becomes the embodiment of the human collective, speaking to our deepest fears and desires, capturing the ineffable essence of our shared existence. He teleports between roles, inhabiting the souls of countless characters, and in that fluidity, he becomes both everyone and no one, an enchanter of hearts and minds. I had not thought about Shakespeare as a spiritual leader, and yet, it's bizarre that the interpretation did not come to my mind. Then again, considering my infinitesimal knowledge, it isn't really a surprise.

An equilibrium where inner symphony finds its delicate balance is surely worth celebrating. Here, the body, the foundation upon which our experiences are woven, assumes its role as a sanctuary. When the flesh is nourished and sheltered, it becomes a fertile ground for the blossoming of tranquility and spiritual pursuit. But even without this good, the mystifying resilience of consciousness persists.

Their mind, wild yet serene, becomes a playground where the echoes of the city intertwine and ascend to sublime heights. — Existential Hope

:up:

Beautiful line ! Entwining echoes gets it just right, and the synthesis is indeed climbing, greater than the sum of its parts.

so I guess in Nietzschean fashion you could say that the reason the world of becoming is condemned so much throughout the history of Eastern and Western philosophy is a problem of the philosopher's own impotence-their congenital defect — Albero

Yeah, doesn't seem to move me. Quite opposite. I just see Ayn Rand with a mustache, or perhaps Ayn Rand is Nietzsche with lipstick. Either way, both about the same level for me in terms of their Ubermensch.

He teleports between roles, inhabiting the souls of countless characters, and in that fluidity, he becomes both everyone and no one — Existential Hope

Along these lines, we can imagine a person who understands everyone, who can always look into a soul and find something familiar there, something he knows from the inside. Nothing human is alien to Shakespeare. Everywhere he goes, he finds pieces of his own harmonized internal chaos. Most of these pieces are dissonant, finite, and therefore engaged, attached, trying to prove something, sure that their enemy is truly other. Shakespeare's other is Shakespeare.

When the flesh is nourished and sheltered, it becomes a fertile ground for the blossoming of tranquility and spiritual pursuit. But even without this good, the mystifying resilience of consciousness persists. — Existential Hope

Good point. It's impressive to what degree material challenges can be overcome if the mind/spirit is developed and trained to maintain morale and control.

I had not thought about Shakespeare as a spiritual leader, and yet, it's bizarre that the interpretation did not come to my mind. — Existential Hope

I got the idea from Harold Bloom and James Joyce. I often think of the trinity of Jesus, Socrates, and Hamlet/Shakespeare. The third contains the first two perhaps.

I just see Ayn Rand with a mustache, or perhaps Ayn Rand is Nietzsche with lipstick. — schopenhauer1

I think you have a Nietzsche allergy that blinds you to his worth. No doubt he had some quirks. But I just a thinker by their best moments, and Nietzsche overall is a great example of a daring mind wrestling with the death of god and indeed with the uncertain legacy of Schopenhauer -- who lived to be an old man, relishing the attention he was finally getting. ( I have the Wallace bio of S on the way. It looks great.)

I think you have a Nietzsche allergy that blinds you to his worth. No doubt he had some quirks. But I just a thinker by their best moments, and Nietzsche overall is a great example of a daring mind wrestling with the death of god and indeed with the uncertain legacy of Schopenhauer -- who lived to be an old man, relishing the attention he was finally getting. ( I have the Wallace bio of S on the way. It looks great.) — plaque flag

Perhaps. Why would I agree with Nietzsche's assessment? He thought Noise was good and Quietude was weak. He thought the weaklings were too long praised.

In my view, it's better to think of Nietzsche as an experimental skeptic than as an earnest bringer of truth. He had his manic-prophetic moments, which adds to the whole, but I especially value his heroically honest self-vivisection

One of many ways to look at him is as a disciple of Schopenhauer who took that kind of depth and daring and turned it back on itself, digging beneath the pose of his hero, and of course each of his own poses as he tried them one after another. This is Schopenhauer as possibility rather than substance. The true disciple repeats the initial stormy intention in its radicality and not the performance itself. Nietzsche is something like a naked chaos, a playful poisonous and poisoned Hamlet, poisoned by the sword. His ghostly father Shakespeare was poisoned through the ears, as his eerie cousin Socrates was poisoned through the mouth.

Beautiful line ! Entwining echoes gets it just right, and the synthesis is indeed climbing, greater than the sum of its parts. — plaque flag

Thank you very much. And I can't help but agree.

Along these lines, we can imagine a person who understands everyone, who can always look into a soul and find something familiar there, something he knows from the inside. Nothing human is alien to Shakespeare. Everywhere he goes, he finds pieces of his own harmonized internal chaos. Most of these pieces are dissonant, finite, and therefore engaged, attached, trying to prove something, sure that their enemy is truly other. Shakespeare's other is Shakespeare. — plaque flag

So true. I also think that there can be a glimpse of the ultimate symphony as the melange is perceived in its entirety.

Good point. It's impressive to what degree material challenges can be overcome if the mind/spirit is developed and trained to maintain morale and control. — plaque flag

Doubtlessly. The materiality of the immaterial should not be impetuously discarded.

I got the idea from Harold Bloom and James Joyce. I often think of the trinity of Jesus, Socrates, and Hamlet/Shakespeare. The third contains the first two perhaps. — plaque flag

That is quite a novel perspective. It seems that it is inherent in the idea of a trinity that there are unifying characteristics. Hamlet's introspection and philosophical contemplation parallel Socrates' emphasis on self-examination and the search for wisdom. Both delve into existential questions, moral dilemmas, and the nature of truth. Shakespeare, like Jesus, delved into the depths of human experience, exposing the complexities of human nature and exploring themes of love, betrayal, redemption, and mortality. Both Shakespeare and Jesus have had a profound impact on literature and culture. Hamlet's tragic nature can be seen as encompassing elements of both Jesus' sacrificial love and Socrates' willingness to face the consequences of questioning societal norms and challenging authority. In view of this, a synthesis is not an unreasonable conclusion.

Buddhism's central idea of the transience of the world, and the attainment of non-being — schopenhauer1

Not so. That is a nihilist view. Nirvāṇa is beyond the vicissitudes of existence but is not mere non-existence. This is laid out in a very long text in the Pali canon called the Brahmajala Sutta (the doctrine of the net of views), which details the various kinds of false nihilist view (that being one) and false eternalist views (the idea that one can be perpetually reborn in fortunate existences.)

Animals don't seem to have a need for this. — schopenhauer1

Because they haven’t passed the threshold of self-awareness and all that this entails and implies. Note that in the Buddhist tradition, with the implicit acceptance of the reality of re-birth, re-birth in the animal realm is regarded as both likely and extremely unfortunate, as animals are stupid and incapable of understanding dharma. (Don’t ask me how they get out of that condition, I’ve never been able to figure that out.)

With respect to the convergences between Platonism, and Greek philosophy generally, and Buddhist and Hindu traditions, there was a ground-breaking book published around 2009, The Shape of Ancient Thought, by Thomas McEvilly, an art historian. It is a very long and detailed series of essays which argues that the convergences are due to exchange of ideas along the ancient Silk Routes (another example being the influence of Buddhism on Pyrrho, source of Pyrrhonian scepticism.) I think he successfully refutes the mainstream dogma that these two cultures developed in complete isolation from each other.

A brief introduction by the author (since deceased) can be viewed below.

Something is monstrous if the "disturbance" happened from the state of Nirvana. Why the disturbance? — schopenhauer1

Believe it or not, Alan Watts has a popular interpretation of this idea. I tossed it to the oracle who responded: According to Watts, the Divine, which can be understood as the underlying essence of all things, is omnipresent and all-encompassing. However, in order to truly experience and know itself, the Divine must temporarily forget its true nature and engage in the illusion of otherness. This is accomplished through the process of incarnation, where the Divine takes on the form of individual beings and forgets its true nature (cf Plato ‘anamnesis’.)

Through this self-imposed limitation, the Divine embarks on a journey of self-discovery, seeking to find itself within the vast diversity and multiplicity of life. The game of hide-and-seek symbolizes this process, as the Divine "hides" from itself in order to eventually "seek" and reunite with its true nature.

Watts often emphasized the importance of realizing one's inherent connection to the Divine and breaking free from the illusion of otherness. He suggested that by recognizing the underlying unity of all existence, individuals can awaken to their divine nature and experience a profound sense of interconnectedness and oneness. (cf Dalai Lama to hotdog salesman: ‘Make me one with everything’. Also recommend the Michael Douglas 1997 movie, The Game, which reflects this kind of theme in the idiom of California’s ‘human potential’ movement. )

Believe it or not, Alan Watts has a popular interpretation of this idea. I tossed it to the oracle who responded: According to Watts, the Divine, which can be understood as the underlying essence of all things, is omnipresent and all-encompassing. However, in order to truly experience and know itself, the Divine must temporarily forget its true nature and engage in the illusion of otherness. This is accomplished through the process of incarnation, where the Divine takes on the form of individual beings and forgets its true nature (cf Plato ‘anamnesis’.) — Wayfarer

This is essentially Advaita Vedanta. Brahman, through the power of Maya (often translated as "illusion"), limits himself as a form of divine play (Lila). These limitations then, as a consequence of their ignorance, mistakenly think that the world of distinctions forms the fundamental layer of reality. It is only when non-difference is understood that moksha (liberation) is attained.

"According to the mantra 1-4-10 of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Sri Shankara's commentary to that mantra, it is Brahman which has superimposed limitations upon itself, realizes by the grace of THE GURU who is none other than Brahman Itself, that it is the limitless Brahman Itself. It is Brahman/Atman realizing itself as Brahman/Atman. It is The Infinite which limits Itself and takes Itself to be a 'me' and then, when taught by a Guru who is none other than Brahman, realizes Itself as "I AM ".THIS IS THE DIVINE DRAMA that is being enacted and going on."

—https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2019-October/053468.html

I think that Mr Watts was also influenced by Advaita Vedanta.

As a Hindu, I am inclined towards a panentheistic interpretation, but I do have immense respect for Adi Shankaracharya and Advaita.

I think that Mr Watts was also influenced by Advaita Vedanta. — Existential Hope

:100: And also Zen. He was very popular in my youth (long time ago now) and has also enjoyed an Internet renaissance, not least because of the efforts of his son Mark Watts who has managed his intellectual property since Alan Watts’ untimely death from alcoholism in his 50’s.

Trey Parker, one of the guys behind South Park, also made a whole bunch of animations set to Watts’ Richard Burton-like voice, such as this one:

And also Zen. — Wayfarer

The emphasis on direct experience and the interconnected nature of reality are definitely common elements.

Mark Watts who has managed his intellectual property since Alan Watts’ untimely death from alcoholism in his 50’s. — Wayfarer

I am glad that Mr Watts has done so much to preserve and disseminate the valuable ideas of his father.

:up: :pray: