I seem to remember a Leonard Cohen song with the lyric line something like "Do we have the strength to be alone together?" — Janus

I remember his lyrics stating that there's a crack in everything, and that's how the light gets in.

I believe you are describing this phenomena.

LOL, yes I remember that one too. It always reminds me of when I used to be interested in kabbala, and I remember reading that Hebrew letters each have a meaning. So the word for light 'AUR' is composed of Aleph Vav Raysh which translates as "the inifinite impregnates a vessel". Or something like that...

I believe you are describing this phenomena. — praxis

The graph is probably a reflection of the process I'm talking about. I don't think I'm unique. It's a common human experience.

I haven't read the dopamine book; I am prejudicially suspicious of any attempt to explain complex human motivations and behavior in terms of the effects a neurotransmitter. — Janus

On the other hand, it is easy to look at the two different approaches as complimentary rather than in opposition. Two different ways of looking at the same thing. One from a biological, neurological point of view and one from an experiential one.

Right, I have no argument with dopamine being a part of the story, and only a part, even in the biological, neurological context. From the experiential perspective it doesn't exist at all

secular version of enlightenment — Tom Storm

What would that comprise?

secular (adj.)
c. 1300, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state," from Old French seculer (Modern French séculier), from Late Latin saecularis "worldly, secular, pertaining to a generation or age," from Latin saecularis "of an age, occurring once in an age," from saeculum "age, span of time, lifetime, generation, breed."

Enlightenment in the European context 'includes a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.' So notice here the explicit separation from 'the religious' as an essential component of Enlightenment philosophy (a separation made explicit in Auguste Comte's idea of the 'positive sciences' which is the origination of positivism.)

Enlightenment in the spiritual/religious sense is native to the Indian religious lexicon, in respect of which the English word 'enlightenment' was used to translate Hindu and Buddhist terms including Nirvāṇa and Mokṣa, for which there is no easy English equivalent. It is not a term usually associated with the Christian lexicon although a possible equivalent is the divine illumination associated with Augustinian Christianity.

This form of enlightenment is associated with the dissemination of Eastern religious ideas associated with Theosophy, 'New Thought', and the activities of various Eastern emissaries to Western culture including D.T. Suzuki (who lectured on Zen Buddhism at Columbia University in the 1950's) and numerous other teachers of Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism (a stellar example being the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in the late 19th Century, associated with the World Fair.) Such ideas have also been popularised through innummerable smaller cult and cultural groups throughout the 20th century.

Another significant source was the ideas of the 'New England Transcendentalists', best known of whom were Emerson and Thoreau, and through whom the Indian conception of enlightenment also percolated. These had considerable influence on successors such as Pierce, James, Royce, and others, down to Abraham Maslow and other transpersonal psychologists. Many syntheses of these ideas have emerged through such channels as integral humanism, group awareness training, the activities at Esalen, and others too numerous to mention.

All that said, I think there's an inherent tension between the European and Indian ideals of enlightenment. The former is an essentially individualist, pragmatic and scientific whilst the latter is based on a radically different, non-individualist conception of the nature of the self and the meaning of existence. However, culture being what it is, these two somewhat conflicting attitudes are now meeting and combining in a dialectic to produce an entirely new synthesis, encompassing many disciplines including phenomenology, biosemiotics, systems theory and the 'new physics'. I think one significant frontier emerging from this dialectic is that of 'evolutionary enlightenment' (although regrettably that term is associated with a now-discredited self-appointed guru by the name of Andew Cohen). But a fascinating paper that @apokrisis linked to a few months back is Peircean cosmogony's symbolic agapistic self-organization as an example of the influence of eastern philosophy on western thinking, by Søren Brier, from which:

The [New England] transcendentalists worked towards a unification of science, philosophy and ethics in a spiritual view that is quite close to Perennial Philosophy (Geldard, 2005). The view of the transcendentalists is close to the Advaita Vedantic non-dual ontology of the Indian yogic philosopher Adi Shankara and Buddhism of which Peirce was aware.

These views are all process philosophies embracing evolutionary theory, as discussed in Brier (2008). The view of Cosmogony and evolution of living systems that we are beginning to approach here is neither a Neo-Darwinian ‘blind watchmaker’ materialism nor a theistic creationist view. If these two cosmogonies are seen as Hegelian thesis and antithesis the non-dual evolutionary ontology may be called an aufhebung to a new level of synthesis.

So in case you'd ever wondered what an aufhebung was - now you know.

I seem to remember a Leonard Cohen song with the lyric line something like "Do we have the strength to be alone together?" — Janus

:cool:

No mystery except what we hide from ourselves. — T Clark

:up:

:100: anti-woo!

the enlightened individual e.g., the Buddha, Socrates...? — Tom Storm

"Enlightened" because they were martyrs?

Does enlightenment necessarily involve transcendence and higher consciousness as understood in spiritual traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism?

I don't think so. In philosophy 'immanence and ecstatic habits' (i.e. reflective exercises) are more reliably(?) enlightening.

Would some include 'illuminated' figures from different traditions such as Jesus?

"Some" would, I suppose, but I wouldn't based on the canonical Gospels.

Is there a difference between wisdom/self-realization and enlightenment?

The enlightened unburden their lives in order to climb "higher" (e.g. Buddha, Laozi ... Witty) and at the summit the wise die laughing (e.g. Democritus, Pyrrho ... Zapffe)

Does the word enlightenment hold any real meaning, or is it just a poetic umbrella term for a fully integrated and intelligent person?

(Check the language game/s in which "enlightenment" is used.)

Should the term enlightenment be reserved solely for use by spiritual traditions? — Tom Storm

No. e.g. "What is Enlightenment?"

Can someone who believes that Jesus is a myth and thinks all stories of miracles and the New Testament stories are nonsense be called a Christian?

I suppose so – 'by works and not by faith' – like so many disbelieving yet observant churchgoers and dutiful ministers.

Is Nietzsche's self-overcoming a form of the enlightenment narrative? — Tom Storm

Yes.

Curiously perhaps, the scientific viewpoint is a depersonalised one, so that for example, my feelings and desires are no more significant than anyone else's; they are phenomena on an equal basis. Perhaps that is why the beginnings of the scientific project are known as 'The enlightenment'. Materialism is the foremost non-dualist philosophy. — unenlightened

:100:

Since e.g. Democritus & the Cārvāka! And also, Spinoza's "radical enlightenment" (J. Israel), et al.

Time-binding is what gives desire its bite. People get confused about this, and suppose that it is the sweetness of sugar that makes one desire it, but of course this cannot be, because the cause has to precede the effect. Rather it is the idea and memory of previous sweetness that is projected into the future and identified with that forms the desire. Fear is the negative of desire, and suffering is the negative of pleasure. These are all aspects of the time-binding of identification: - "I" will have pleasure/ will suffer.

:clap: :up: Thanks for giving this concept such succinct, clear expression! (Till now time-binding has been only an underdeveloped, guiding intuition to a more fleshed-out conception of moral concern (re: moral agency) consisting of 'tensed selfhood'.)

I think you can find similar ideas to enlightenment-as-non-attachment in Spinoza, the Epicureans, the Skeptics, the Stoics and the Existentialists.

Nietzsche, as I read him, advocated a radical independence of spirit ... — Janus

:fire:

Another significant source was the ideas of the 'New England Transcendentalists', best known of whom were Emerson and Thoreau, and through whom the Indian conception of enlightenment also percolated. These had considerable influence on successors such as Pierce, James, Royce, and others, down to Abraham Maslow and other transpersonal psychologists. — Wayfarer

Of course, I totally forgot about them. I keep starting Walden and not finishing it. I've always responded to the notion of society as having a depleting effect on individuals. For me self knowledge requires significant alone time. That would be my path rather than deliberate meditation.

All that said, I think there's an inherent tension between the European and Indian ideals of enlightenment. The former is an essentially individualist, pragmatic and scientific whilst the latter is based on a radically different, non-individualist conception of the nature of the self and the meaning of existence. However, culture being what it is, these two somewhat conflicting attitudes are now meeting and combining in a dialectic to produce an entirely new synthesis, encompassing many disciplines including phenomenology, biosemiotics, systems theory and the 'new physics' — Wayfarer

You've packed a lot to think about in that paragraph. There are contemplative traditions within Christianity (generally via monastic pathways) which would be free of the scientific and individualistic focus. Additionally, I guess Gnosis is one such tradition. And today, Father Richard Rohr (from the Franciscan tradition) is a teacher in a contemplative, enlightenment tradition it seems to me. He's pretty scathing about the materialistic spirituality of mainstream Christians.

"Truly enlightened people see oneness because they look out from oneness, instead of labeling everything as superior and inferior, in or out. If you think you are privately “saved” or enlightened, then you are neither saved nor enlightened."

Thanks. Do you associate enlightenment with the acquisition of virtue (sorry about that phrase) or is virtue an entirely separate domain?

No. e.g. "What is Enlightenment?" — 180 Proof

I think you can find similar ideas to enlightenment-as-non-attachment in Spinoza, the Epicureans, the Skeptics, the Stoics and the Existentialists.

Nietzsche, as I read him, advocated a radical independence of spirit ... — Janus — 180 Proof

I'd forgotten about that essay; I encountered it as an undergraduate: looks like radical independence of spirit begins with Kant. Keeping the flame alive!

I have no argument with dopamine being a part of the story, and only a part, even in the biological, neurological context. — Janus

I may have misrepresented the work if I suggested that it was presented in a manner divorced from a larger picture or story, although the title alone, Dopamine Nation, should indicate otherwise.

From the experiential perspective it doesn't exist at all — Janus

Not sure what you could mean by that. That we can't actually see the compound function in the body? It is far more real than this 'non-attachment' concept that you appear to put so much stock in.

A major premise of the work is that biological systems seek homeostasis, and without going into the details, the basic result is that too much pleasure eventually leads to pain, and vice-versa. I mention this because of the passing thought I had while reading that ascetic spiritual practices, which may be commonly regarded as virtuous or ego reductive, simply lead to pleasure, of a kind, hence the phrase samadhi junkie.

You've packed a lot to think about in that paragraph — Tom Storm

I think it's important to spell out the different senses of the word as there's a lot of ambiguity and misunderstanding about its meaning.

Father Richard Rohr — Tom Storm

I do wonder if he has an open file at the CDF.

Not sure what you could mean by that. — praxis

I simply mean that we don't consciously experience dopamine, just as we don't consciously experience neural networks.

It is far more real than this 'non-attachment' concept that you appear to put so much stock in. — praxis

Not on the experiential level.

It is far more real than this 'non-attachment' concept that you appear to put so much stock in.
— praxis

Not on the experiential level. — Janus

You have no attachment to anything or anyone, including yourself?
— praxis

I wouldn't claim that. — Janus

:chin:

Your apparent puzzlement is amusing.You think everything is black and white: either no attachment at all or complete attachment? No diversity of attachment: no being attached to some things and not others?

You’re the one who’s employed the term “non-attachment”. If you don’t mean what that appears to represent then maybe it’s not the right term.

You’re the one who’s employed the term “non-attachment”. If you don’t mean what that appears to represent then maybe it’s not the right term. — praxis

This is from "Princess Bride," right?

Perhaps.. it's as simple as being able to question what it is to be unenlightened? And no, not @unenlightened, not necessarily that is. Simply to have knowledge of the existence of both states and ability to ponder their respective differences and similarities, while most importantly resisting the temptation to cast yourself as one or the other based on what has historically been a consistently changing reality or "goal post". The smartest men of each century were in fact the smartest men, until they weren't. It's ironic really, by acknowledging one's own intelligence you inadvertently discredit everything responsible for it. This is the trap that subdues many men who seek what they do not have, be it for reasons of piety or degeneracy. Perhaps this is a good thing, all considered.

That is inexplicably funny. Maybe my subconscious has a better memory than my conscious mind.

This is from "Princess Bride," right? — T Clark

No, that's from the director's cut of "Blade Runner".

That is inexplicably funny. Maybe my subconscious has a better memory than my conscious mind. — praxis

Eckardt on Detachment

The mind of him who stands detached is of such nobility that whatever he sees is true and whatever he desires he obtains and whatever he commands must be obeyed. And this you must know for sure: when the free mind is quite detached, it constrains God to itself and if it were able to stand formless and free of all accidentals, it would assume God’s proper nature … The man who stands thus in utter detachment is rapt into eternity in such a way that nothing transient can move him …

Now you may ask what this detachment is, that is so noble in itself. You should know that true detachment is nothing else but a mind that stands unmoved by all accidents of joy or sorrow, honour, shame or disgrace, as a mountain of lead stands unmoved by a breath of wind¹. This immovable detachment brings a man into the greatest likeness to God. For the reason why God is God is because of His immovable detachment and from this detachment, He has His purity, His simplicity and His immutability. Therefore, if a man is to be like God, as far as a creature can have likeness with God, this must come from detachment. This draws a man into purity, and from purity into simplicity, and from simplicity into immutability, and these things make a likeness between God and that man …

You should know that the outer man can be active while the inner man is completely free of this activity and unmoved … Here is an analogy: a door swings open and shuts on its hinge. I would compare the outer woodwork of the door to the outer man and the hinge to the inner man. When the door opens and shuts, the boards move back and forth but the hinge stays in the same place and is never moved thereby. It is the same in this case if you understand it rightly.

Now I ask: What is the object of pure detachment? My answer is that the object of pure detachment is neither this nor that ². It rests on absolutely nothing and I will tell you why: pure detachment rests on the highest and he is at his highest, in whom God can work all His will … And so, if the heart is ready to receive the highest, it must rest on absolutely nothing and in that lies the greatest potentiality which can exist …

Again I ask: What is the prayer of a detached heart? My answer is that detachment and purity cannot pray, for whoever prays wants God to grant him something or else wants God to take something from him. But a detached heart desires nothing at all, nor has it anything it wants to get rid of. Therefore it is free of all prayers or its prayer consists of nothing but being uniform with God. That is all its prayer …

Therefore it is totally subject to God, and therefore it is in the highest degree of uniformity with God and is also the most receptive to divine influence …

Now take note, all who are wise! No man is happier than he who has the greatest detachment. — Meister Eckhardt On Detachment

1. Compare with the Buddhist '8 Worldly Concerns'.

2. Compare with the Sanskrit 'neti, neti'.

Thanks. Do you associate enlightenment with the acquisition of virtue (sorry about that phrase) or is virtue an entirely separate domain? — Tom Storm

Sorry for butting in but theia mania.

It's the term used by Buddhists. Whether complete non-attachment is possible to cultivate is a question I can't answer, since I haven't done it. I do know that I have managed to become less attached to things, so I know it is possible to learn to reduce your attachment, and I do know the result is a clearer mind and less anxiety.

theia mania. — TheMadFool

Is that what we should expect from an enlightened mad fool instead of the mundane madness from the ordinary mad fool? :razz:

theia mania.
— TheMadFool

Is that what we should expect from an enlightened mad fool instead of mundane madness? — Janus

Madmen are, as far as I know, unpredictable. Expect the unexpected is the rule.

But then the unpredictable is expected, so to be truly unpredictable the madman should sometimes be predictable, because that would be unexpected.

But then the unpredictable is expected, so to be truly unpredictable the madman should sometimes be predictable, because that would be unexpected — Janus

Yes, you're on the right track.

I knew you'd say that. :wink:

Yes, it's aretḗ I'm alluding to with the parenthetical reflective exercises, but more broadly as (adaptive) habits / skills / capabilities than more narrowly the usual suspects e.g. Aristotlean, Stoic or Christian "virtues".

I think apatheia is more appropriate in the context of occidental philosophy than "detachment".