That's true. But you're speaking about what has been historically prior, and I am speaking about what is now spiritually prior. Thanks to the advent of Christ, we do not need to pass through the stage of preoccupation with Law now and may proceed directly to Love. — John

I don't think so - I think we still need the preoccupation with the Law to be able to understand Christ. The movement has happened in human history - but not necessarily in our own personal history, which is what matters.

The very difference between Hegel and Marx is that Hegel understood the material exigencies of history to be a reflection of the history of spirit (or consciousness as reflected in the history of ideas), whereas Marx saw the history of ideas to be a reflection of the history of the material exigencies (economics as the dialectic of materialism). — John

Well this is what I've been saying - that was Marx's mistake. He didn't understand that Hegel's was the history of ideas - not the history of material conditions. This is precisely the point I was making.

But I think there has been a strong tendency in mainstream religion to loose sight of that. It's called 'mistaking the finger for the moon' - another Buddhist parable. Actually it is what I learned from Buddhism, that has enabled me to re-evaluate the meaning of my own Christian heritage. — Wayfarer

You wouldn't be alone -

https://www.amazon.com/Without-Buddha-Could-Not-Christian/dp/185168963X

Strictly speaking, knowledge does not need to evolve. We might jump straight to synthesis in our ideas. In such cases though, we cannot "derive" meaning from what's gone before. Since we've jumped to knowledge of all sides in such cases, there is no act of thinking through to discover something based on what we already know. Amongst philosophers, this tends to be treated with distain because in that context there are no logical arguments to give that result in "discovery." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ah I feel Spinoza's intuitive knowledge (the third kind) being close to you ;)

In this respect, both Marx and Hegel (and countless other philosophers) make the same mistake. They say their logic amounts to prediction of the future. Hegel says our ideas will/must evolve in someway. Marx says given particular conditions (both "material" and ideas), our society will/must evolve. Neither claim is true.

For all we know, we might use the same ideas for centuries, maybe even millennia. Or we might jump straight to synthesis. Or the material contains of the world might be such that synthesis is forgotten. Or a set of thesis, antithesis, synthesis might be forgotten entirely. Hegel overlooks the material nature of our ideas. Logic might be enough to define truth, but it doesn't mean someone is thinking it.

Marx makes the same sort of mistake. He acts as if the ideas of economic systems will function as material change. Sure, he is aware of the need for change in material conditions, but they aren't specified in detail (i.e. social organisation, economic policies), so we are left with nothing more than imagined gesture towards a new economic system. We are left with the destiny of Marx's social analysis. At some point, somewhere, when the right condition occurs, we will get a communist society, but there is no effective description of when such a associated occurs. All we can do is point out our present society doesn't meet standard and proclaim we are destined to overcome this at some point. The change of society is only in our imagination at such a point.

In this respect, both Marx and Hegel (and countless other philosophers) make the same mistake. They say their logic amounts to prediction of the future. Hegel says our ideas will/must evolve in someway. Marx says given particular conditions (both "material" and ideas), our society will/must evolve. Neither claim is true. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Oh wow, what a great event, I will certainly record it in my calendar - I agree!

For all we know, we might use the same ideas for centuries, maybe even millennia. Or we might jump straight to synthesis. Or the material contains of the world might be such that synthesis is forgotten. Or a set of thesis, antithesis, synthesis might be forgotten entirely. Hegel overlooks the material nature of our ideas. Logic might be enough to define truth, but it doesn't mean someone is thinking it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I also agree here - there is no "evolution" of consciousness - no straight line going upwards. It's pretty much random change - both up and down.

Marx' inversion of Hegel resulted in a thorough materialism, however - there is no room in Marx for geist, as such (although that is surely tangential to this thread.) — Wayfarer

Which is why Mill is vastly superior, he doesn't sever Hegel's method, and ignore the animal spirits.

I've noticed that book and have also read quite a few of the curious sub-cultural group of Zen Catholicism. I like them a lot.

Amongst philosophers, this tends to be treated with disdain because in that context there are no logical arguments to give that result in "discovery" — Willow

Philosophical rationalism! No argument from me.

Mill was a shaman?

John Stewart Mill. Not only a super awesome guy, but also far far superior economist, philosopher, and utilizer of Hegelian logic than Marx.

Right! I must admit, I only have passing familiarity with Mill, although I recognize his importance, but I never studied him at University (although I do recall he was reading Plato in Greek at age five).

I should add there is another group which doesn't like this understanding of knowledge: advocates of the transcendent.

Philosophy with a transcendent saviour hits the same notes as philosophical rationalism-- "discover" transcendent force and you will become wise and meaningful. Understand the argument "You are given be God" and you'll finally matter and be wise.

If I dare to say that people matter without the transcendent, if knowledge of themselves and their worth is just given to them, without any sort of "logical discovery" (here I mean it in the sense of understanding and wisdom, so it applies to the transcendent as much a philosophical rationalism), I'm treated like a nihilistic heretic who's only trying to fool people into living meaningless lives.

What you call philosophical rationalism's understanding of knowledge is more or less the advocate of the transcendent's transplanted. By this transcendent force (God, PSR, logic), we derive that we are necessary better (than everyone else) and saved from the ignominy of our existence (e.g. meaningless, lack of a particular instance of knowledge, etc.,etc. ).

For both philosophical rationalism and the transcendent philosophy, knowledge of the self is the enemy. To merely be oneself, to be worthy (a meaningful life) and/or unworthy (a sinner who's terrible actions have no resolution), is the enemy. Both are running from themselves to a fantasy of perfection where there is a genocide of any failing.

They are the ones who think "logically," who avoid the ignominy of being ignorant, whether that be in recognising the absence of God or realising meaning is dependent on God. They are the ones who don't have to respect their failings, whether it be because the actions were in the service of logic or science or because their sins are resolved by God. By thinking "logically," they believe themselves to have become an image of perfection and so are necessarily better and wiser than anyone else. An entirely selfish ignorance of the self.

I'm by no means an expert on any of them, and I haven't been to university. I've read Hegel's a general history of the world, as well as listened to lecture courses on him, and also took an online course about Kierkegaard which involved his relation, and responses to Hegel. After a course on Marx I wasn't really interested in reading him,

Mill I read unsettled questions of political economy, and on liberty, as well as listened to a lecture course on him as well.

I should add there is another group which doesn't like this understanding of knowledge: advocates of the transcendent. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You know that in anime, it's always the super villains that are going on about transcendence. Personally I think that being a human is pretty great. No better options I know about.

To merely be oneself, to be worthy (a meaningful life) and/or unworthy (a sinner who's terrible actions have no resolution), is the enemy. Both are running from themselves to a fantasy of perfection where there is a genocide of any failing. — 'Willow"

So if there were to be such a thing as a moral compass, what do you think it would point at? What force would attract the needle? If 'philosophy' is 'the love of wisdom', or 'love-wisdom', and 'wisdom' is nothing other than being as we already are, then why is that philosophy?

Because reason isn't a slave to the passions, and there are a lot of powerful gejustus about.

John Stewart Mill. Not only a super awesome guy, but also far far superior economist, philosopher, and utilizer of Hegelian logic than Marx. — Wosret

John "Asinus" Mill. The godfather of the Progressives... oh my days!

John "Asinus" Mill. The godfather of the Progressives... oh my days — Agustino

Oh, John Stuart Mill did well enough, I think. Especially given the upbringing he had to endure thanks to his horrible father, James, who apparently thought to make him into some kind of prodigy regardless of methods used, probably leading to his later breakdown. His utilitarianism was more sophisticated than his daddy's and that of Bentham, taking into consideration quality of benefits and goods, and he even accepted and espoused positions which would probably be considered conservative thanks to the influence of Coleridge and others, i.e. a system of voting giving the better educated and more sophisticated citizens votes counting for more than those of others. His views on the "emancipation" of women may have been considered "progressive" in a bad way by most in his time, but one hopes that's not the case now. I suppose conservatives haven't forgiven him for that speech he made when M.P. denying the claim he had said all conservatives were stupid people, explaining that what he had actually said was that all stupid people were conservatives.

I should add there is another group which doesn't like this understanding of knowledge: advocates of the transcendent. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not necessarily. Your practical views are very close to some forms of meditative Buddhism from my understanding. You're all about being centered in your body, being right here in the present moment, fully aware of what is actually going on around you right here and right now, and not being trapped in dwelling on the future or the past, or otherwise being seduced by thinking or trapped by images. You think that if someone is like this - then they will not even inquire about God or the transcendent, they'd feel no need. An approach that owes a lot to mindfulness and pragmatism. Your approach isn't that uncommon to quite a few of the religious folks by the way - although it is true that it is an approach that is atypical of the typical Christian religious believer in the US for example. And it really depends on what you're doing at the moment whether this type of approach is useful. If I'm running a marathon - or otherwise participating in a sports competition, such an approach is likely to be very beneficial - it will indeed give me peak performance in that circumstance - a peak performance that I cannot achieve by being worried about what my opponent is doing, how fast they're running, whether they're ahead or not, etc. . But if I'm say an investor, trying to decide what I shall do with my money - that approach isn't very useful. I can be in the moment all I want - but that's not what would be productive in that case. I need to be analytic at that moment - not produce a synthesis, but rather analyse, and think about the situation - more like completing a puzzle.

I don't think so - I think we still need the preoccupation with the Law to be able to understand Christ. The movement has happened in human history - but not necessarily in our own personal history, which is what matters. — Agustino

I don't see any good reason to think that we need to be anything more than mindful of the Law; certainly not preoccupied with it; I don't think that's going to help.

Well this is what I've been saying - that was Marx's mistake. He didn't understand that Hegel's was the history of ideas - not the history of material conditions. This is precisely the point I was making. — Agustino

But this is by no means the point I was making. I didn't say that Marx was or was not mistaken. I would say that he understood very well that "Hegel's was the history of ideas- not the history of material conditions". Marx understood that perfectly well and that is why he overturned Hegel (on his own account stood Hegel right way up) to place the focus on the history of material conditions, instead of on the history of consciousness (or ideas, or spirit, if you prefer).

The point I made was that Hegel thought material conditions are an expression of spirit; so while Hegel's history of spirit is obviously not the history of actual material conditions, that fact is exactly what you would expect to be the outcome, on account of what it was that Hegel prioritized.

But this is by no means the point I was making. I didn't say that Marx was or was not mistaken. I would say that he understood very well that "Hegel's was the history of ideas- not the history of material conditions". Marx understood that perfectly well and that is why he overturned Hegel (on his own account stood Hegel right way up) to place the focus on the history of material conditions, instead of on the history of consciousness (or ideas, or spirit, if you prefer).

The point I made was that Hegel thought material conditions are an expression of spirit; so while Hegel's history of spirit is obviously not the history of actual material conditions, that fact is exactly what you would expect to be the outcome, on account of what it was that Hegel prioritized. — John

Very good. That's what I've been saying. It remains for you (or Marx) to show the necessary link between the history of ideas and the history of material conditions ;)

I have not been offering any opinion about whether Hegel showed a necessary connection between the history of ideas and the history of events, and the dependency of the latter on the former, or whether Marx established a necessary connection and dependency the other way.

So, this has nothing to do with what we have been discussing.

It's not what you have been saying, either; because you claimed that Marx's mistake was that he did not see that Hegel was concerned with the history of ideas and not material conditions.

You claimed earlier that Hegel was not making a point about material conditions but about the evolution of consciousness. I disagree with this if it is taken to mean that Hegel saw no connection between them. He thought material events are a manifestation of spirit; so the history of events necessarily mirrors the history of ideas, with the former being dependent on the latter. Marx thought the opposite; so he is a reversal of Hegel.

Your earlier claim is correct only if it is taken to mean that Hegel's primary focus was not on the history of events or material conditions; but this is obvious and hardly worth stating.

You claimed earlier that Hegel was not making a point about material conditions but about the evolution of consciousness. — John

Which, by the way, is true - just as you yourself have just admitted.

He thought material events are a manifestation of spirit; so the history of events necessarily mirrors the history of ideas, with the former being dependent on the latter. — John

I disagree - he thought the history of events is related to the history of ideas - ie affected by the history of ideas - but not determined by it.

I have not been offering any opinion about whether Hegel showed a necessary connection between the history of ideas and the history of events, and the dependency of the latter on the former, or whether Marx established a necessary connection and dependency the other way. — John

He thought material events are a manifestation of spirit; so the history of events necessarily mirrors the history of ideas, with the former being dependent on the latter. — John

Self-contradictory.

So, this has nothing to do with what we have been discussing. — John

Good, so then can you tell me what point about what we have been discussing are you actually in disagreement with?

I haven't admitted what you say I have, except in the limited trivial sense I already described. You're wrong about Hegel; but I'm not going to bother arguing further with you about it, because I am not convinced that you are arguing in good faith.

Self-contradictory. — Agustino

How so?

Good, so then can you tell me what point about what we have been discussing are you actually in disagreement with? — Agustino

All of this came out of your jumping to conclusions about what I meant by 'overturning'. The disagreement has been about whether preoccupation with the Law is necessary for spiritual growth. You jumped to the extreme erroneous conclusion that I had meant that with the advent of Love we could abolish law altogether.

Anyway, to repeat, I don't believe you are arguing in good faith now: I think you just don't want to admit you were wrong; or you want to disagree just for the sake of it, or whatever; I don't know. But, to be honest, I can tell you that I have lost interest in discussing with you until you stop trying to tendentiously interpret and distort what I say.

There is a principle in adult learning. It is about stages of learning, starting with 'unconcious incompetence' - there's something we don't know that we don't know - then conscious incompetence - we realise we don't know it - conscious competence - we've learned how to do it, but have to make an effort to do it right - ending finally in unconscious competence, we know it so well we don't have to think about it (like i.e. driving a car).

Spiritual practice is like that also. So perhaps the higher stages of it, are when the student has internalised the understanding so well that he or she doesn't have to think about it any more. Then it's no longer a matter of 'following rules'.

Actually, Chögyam Trungpa, maverick Tibetan Buddhist, used to teach that the formal aspect of Buddhist training - the vinaya rules and precepts - were the 'hinayana' aspect of the path. 'Hinayana' means 'lesser vehicle'. But he didn't mean that in a pejorative way - there are times in one's development when one simply has to 'pay attention to the rules', and go about doing things in a self-conscious way. He saw that as being foundational to the whole practice. But through mastery of a discipline then that formal aspect of the practice falls into abeyance. It doesn't mean you can simply disregard the law, but it means you've internalised it in such a way that it doesn't have to be consciously observed; it's become second nature.

I think that is similar in meaning to the Biblical teaching 'the letter kills, but the spirit gives life'. (But to write that, takes letters. ;-) )

There is no force setting the compass. It just points. When we know something, we are already what we are. I don't understand the foolishness of scientism until I'm wise to it.

We might say wisdom emerges out of the world of fools. Someone has a moment of inspiration, having a though of a better way of thinking or living (pointing of the compass). They pass it on through teaching (pointing of the compass). No force exists which necessitates wisdom. We have to do that work. We must have the ideas and the actions. It cannot be transcendent.

If we are to be wise like God, we must have God's wisdom. We must have the relevant thoughts and actions.

That's why philosophy. It takes us to do the pointing. Not so the we can hide from the failings of the world ( "be saved" ), but to understand the failing world still matters (even Hitler had a meaningful life) and act with ethics, wisdom and compassion.

There is no force setting the compass. It just points. — WillowOfDarkness

That is empirically false, a compass is indeed moved by a force, which is the point of the analogy. But you write such nonsense there's no point discussing it, you will just make up more meaningless verbiage.

I was speaking metaphorically, not empirically. Wisdom and ethics are not magnetism.

Though it's worth discussing empirical forces because they are really an expression of objects, rather than a constraint.

We say "a force acts on the needle," but where exactly is the object pushing it? It's the needle that moves with an environment of surrounding objects. We might say, at that moment, the needle points.

The existence of the pointing needle is responsible for that state, not some pre-determining force.

I don't mean it in that sense. People who believe in the transcendent experience synthesis all the time, some more than some who reject the transcendent. In this sense, my approach is not uncommon to religious folks, but frequent. As it is to just about everyone, at least some of the time. All it takes is an instance of understanding the moment. Question of "transcendental need" are another subject entirely. That's a particularly sort of commentary on meaning, not a feature of synthesis itself.

What I mean is those with transcendent belief cannot stand the idea that knowledge is a question of existence. For knowledge to be a thing that emerges and is lost in the dance of the finite world is heretical. What they lack is not synthesis, but an understanding that knowledge involves synthesis. They still think knowledge is destined by logic, a tradition which will always obtain in the world.

You misunderstand my approach too. Synthesis occurs with every instance of knowledge, even in long term planning. Experience is always an existing moment. If I'm planning, I'm focused on the future in that moment, so it is a moment of synthesis rather than abstraction. I know all sides in the present: my analysing, that I'm avoiding ignorance of the relevant subject, my present state which is focused on analysing.

What you are talking about there is elimination of distractions. To avoid worries, so they don't take away from a focus on an important task. You are talking about leaving out thoughts which you don't need at the moment, not whether an instance of knowledge amounts to synthesis or not.

Yes, I agree that following rules is important for some disciplines; but not for all. It is not important for poetry and painting for example; on the contrary. When it comes to spiritual paths, the Christian way is the way of the radical existential leap of true repentance. But this only comes to be when there is real transformation. The leap and the transformation may be understood to be codependently originating; you must be transformed to take the leap, and you must take the leap in order to be transformed.It is a mystery. That is why people speak of being converted; it is a profoundly life-changing experience (or so I am led to believe).

I think conversion is often misunderstood. It is seen as being like joining a cause or a party. I suppose sometimes it is like that, but I think the real meaning is something more profound. There is a lovely Greek word, actually I first encountered it in the dialogue between Jacob Needleman and Krishnamurti; it is 'metanoia'. It is a 'transformation of perception' - which is exactly what I think happens with a real conversion - it is change in your understanding of how things are. You can see how it is formed from 'meta' and 'noia', where the latter is a form of 'nous'. So it could almost be glossed as 'beyond mind' (in the same sense that 'metaphysical' is 'beyond physical').

There's a Sanskrit word which parallels it almost exactly, namely, 'paravritti' - the particle 'vritti' is one of the Sanskrit words for 'mind', and 'para' means 'higher' or 'beyond'. According to D T Suzuki in his commentary on the Lankavatara Sutra:

Paravritti literally means "turning up" or "turning back" or "change"; technically, it is a spiritual change or transformation which takes place in the mind, especially suddenly, ... which... corresponds to what is known as "conversion"... .

It is significant that the Mahayana has been insistent to urge its followers to experience this psychological transformation in their practical life. A mere intellectual understanding of the truth is not enough in the life of a Buddhist; the truth must be directly grasped, personally experienced, intuitively penetrated into; for then it will be distilled into life and determine its course.

http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm

There is no force setting the compass. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Of course there's a force! The question though, is the force within the compass, external to it, or both?