:up:

So in this matter, the reason why you and others are skeptical about revelatory enlightenment is, it seems, because you are too fixated on a propositional conclusion that requires no foundational alterations in the act of perception itself. — Constance

Thanks for potentially diagnosing my situation, C. You may be right but your use of language is somewhat indirect and jargonistic to me - are you a denizen of academe perhaps?

What do you mean by - "too fixated on a propositional conclusion that requires no foundational alterations in the act of perception itself." Can you provide an example of a foundational alteration in the act of perception. And yes, I see how you referred to Wittgenstein earlier.

You are adding the word revelatory to enlightenment - can you spell out an example of such a phenomenon? Are you referring to the sudden attainment of higher consciousness?

You say 'forget about Jung' do you have reasons for dismissing him or is it just personal taste?

Having said that, I'm the only enlightened person here. I'm pretty sure about that. — frank

I've always thought of you that way too, Frank. Yes, I pointed out in my OP that the 17th-18th Century Enlightenment is hostile to ideas of enlightenment. The secular vs the religious.

This depends entirely on how you choose to look at it. Animals are born in their billions - some are cats & dogs, some are humans. You are a human. So what? If you find a pen on the street in the morning do you say, 'Wow, that's amazing, why did it have to be a pen, it could have been a ruler, or a watch? And why this morning and not last week, or in 2019 and why here and not in Zambia or Darwin?'

I'm sorry I'm not sure I entirely follow you. Phenomenology perhaps?

The quote, as you probably know, is Jung's - his model of human consciousness incorporated the 'shadow side' or darkness. Pretty sure he is saying that to be enlightened means to integrate all elements of your conscious being (including your evils) in the process he called individuation. When complete, you are enlightened... I guess. I think this says a lot about Jung's notions of attachment, and he is probably saying too that everyone is on a path to enlightenment but only some 'complete' this individuation process. However, I don't think he is saying that we are all partly enlightened. That sounds suspiciously like being partly pregnant. But who knows?

What were you throwing away? — Janus

Probably my attention span which is preternaturally short.

Just move on, it was a throw away line. :wink:

Is that relevant to whether it is the best way to understand what enlightenment is? Should philosophers only be interested in, only take seriously, ideas that "roll of the tongue" and don't sound boring? — Janus

Who mentioned philosophers? Just making an observation as a bystander to religion and philosophy.

In it's deflationary sense, I think (in case you haven't noticed :wink: ) that it is simply the most radical state of non-attachment or non-reactivity possible for an embodied human being.. — Janus

Yeah... doesn't really roll of the tongue and it sounds kind of dull.

The thread topic is enlightenment. Since when does philosophy concern itself with enlightenment or should have the final say over it?
— baker

The OP specifically identifies enlightenment as discussed in both eastern and western philosophies. — T Clark

In my OP, I was wondering if enlightenment means the same thing in different cultures. I guess I was asking if it is the case that enlightenment (if and when it takes place) transcends culture and religion.

I am somewhat surprised that no one yet has said something like 'enlightenment is a myth'.

What is peace and calm? I assume that is a goal of meditation. But is it an active goal? Do we accomplish it, or is it there when we stop everything and find a way to shut out the pain or bodies give us? — TiredThinker

I find I get a lot of peace and calm - for me it involves doing nothing in particular. You know it when you feel it. I like spending time alone. Apart from this forum, I don't use any social media. I watch very little TV and no news programs. I don't meditate, but I like to sit and listen to music (classical) and zone out. Now I am older I don't find it hard to empty my brain of most thoughts.

Me neither. I never read comics as a kid and I don't like superhero films but I've caught a few on streaming services over the years. Last time I went to the cinema was around 10 years ago.

We’ll don’t know about that but the TV sure has made the cave wall a whole lot more entertaining. — Wayfarer

Nicely done. Far more vivid than some piss poor shadow puppets.

The unattainable is attained through its unattainment' — Wayfarer

That's a quote with a lot of potential uses.

I guess this OP is just another expression the mind body question and the hard problem of consciousness, huh? Seems to me that about 50% of all philosophy discussions end up somewhere here.

Yes, it seems that in the current world of physics, what we call reality is actually understood as quantum waves, with discreet blobs of energy bobbing about on them. Seems kind of hard to talk about mind and body if this is what physicalism amounts to.

Personally, I struggle to understand how a mind would not be what a brain does. I lack the ability to relate fully to the supposed hard problem and to the idea of qualia and the notion of 'what it is like to be something' which seems to be at the heart of this debate for some very clever thinkers. Subjective experience is the crux of the matter.

Is consciousness is an immaterial property, a 'magic thing' that sits in our bodies for a while and then with death, transmigrates, or moves to be with the gods? Or is consciousness the product of brain function? John Searle described consciousness as being to the brain what digestion is to the stomach.

What we do know is that there seems to be a lot at stake in this subject. The outcome of this question seems likely to support or demolish the idea of the soul.

My question is this. If it could be conclusively proven that what we call mind is just what brains do, would intelligent people still believe in higher consciousness?

The question I am asking is “Have the Humanist groups or non-believers group taken precautions to mitigate such extreme ideology in your inner circle?”

Has the question even arose? Christians fell victim to this, the Muslims have fell victim to this, and other groups fell victim to radicalism and extremism, is your group next? — TheQuestion

Well I think the obvious answer to this, and it is often proffered by conservatives and celebrity motivational speakers like Jordan Peterson, is that Communism (in the 20th century) was the leading example - secular, fundamentalist, dictatorial and the death of millions.

I would simply include political ideology as an example of a faith based system. It may not be based on an unverifiable supernatural entities but it is (in some cases) based on assumptions of human transformation through the application of a single worldview.

Generally secular humanism's ideas are based on evidence and critical thinking, so it is probably less prone to extreme irrational beliefs than religions (in many of their expressions). By and large, if an ideology coalesces around the view that it can and should save people (this include politics) it may start to mess with people's lives and accept no dissent.

As if it is more noble or more realistic to think that enlightenment is impossible to attain. — baker

Yeah, as if. It's a good thing no one has introduced this ridiculous proposition into the discussion then.

No. Membership in the scout organization is not mandatory. — baker

For me this is inconsequential. There are good ways and bad ways of being a scoutmaster. My assessment is he is a piece of work and I'll warrant, there are other serious mistakes and flaws in his approach. In fact, I have it on good authority that no one likes this scoutmaster and he is soon to be removed from the organisation for other malpractice.

Please see above for the numerous invitations to those who disagree to follow other threads. — Joshua Jones

I understand this and need no invitation to leave when I am not engaged by a thread. Is this a polite way of you saying "fuck off" perhaps? Given that philosophy pretty much hinges on disagreement and critical discourse, your response seems avoidant, or perhaps fearful of difference.

But hey, don't worry, I have no intention of trolling you. I am responding in what you call "good faith".

For those who know, no evidence for my premise is needed, For those who don't, no evidence for my premise will help. — Joshua Jones

In philosophy this kind of argument, an appeal to self-evident truth, is not really very sound now, is it? It's one of those holding statements so beloved of Christian Apologists when they describe the realm beyond reason, of faith and certainty, that Jesus died for them. "I know!" they declare.

Your premise would benefit from deeper examination and some push back. That's all I am really saying. And I bear you no ill will.

Nonsense. In any enterprise corruption equates to its degradation.

Gangsters are gangsters. Politicians are politicians. Feel free to make a joke about that, but in all seriousness there is a danger in equating them as identical in every respect. You can have noble and principled gangsters just as you can have noble and principled politicians - the ‘bad’ lives in every nook and cranny of humanity. — I like sushi

Sorry Sush, I'm not sure which bit is nonsense. I'm not sure I follow your point. I wasn't really talking about genuine politicians - Is Putin a politician or a gangster. Or both? Kim? I do take your point that most politicians are not in scope for this. And Acton also agrees.

It's just wise to remember the fires are real - and imagine, if you haven't experienced it - what collapse actually smells like. — Joshua Jones

As it happens, I live in one of the most fire prone areas on earth and many people I know have lost homes and family, including in the Black Saturday fires of 2009 which killed 173 people. I am familiar with the sound of sirens and having minutes to get out of my home. My family suffered in Europe during the war and my father spent three years in a Nazi camp. My own background is 30 plus years working in substance abuse, suicide risk intervention and acute mental health services in a city of 5 million people. I have specialised in services for the homeless and Aboriginal Australians amongst other things. I have seen almost every possible type of human misery going. I still don't buy your Apocalyptical Roadshow. Sorry JJ.

Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

I wonder if this understanding is what lubricates the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Sorry NOS, a cheap shot...

I imagine that person is now cheerfully fucking up the world for Apple or some other conglomerate. Self-realization being but a footnote to their youthful dream life. I had the same experience in reverse - a young person at a Buddhist group I attended started with, "Hi I'm Andy; I'm here tonight to attain enlightenment." Giggles and groans. I was immediately struck by that 'attain'. Pretty sure the monks have heard it all.

Lets say that by requiring the scout to wait and be patient that in doing so the scout will have to wait past his 18th birthday to become an Eagle Scout at which point it will be too late for him to be an Eagle Scout because he will have missed the cutoff point and therefore not done it within the time limit, all because his scout master wanted him to wait and be patient, is that fair? — HardWorker

No. I'd say the scoutmaster is a creep. In essence the scoutmaster is fixated on life lessons and his power to implement them and forgets that this is a process, part of which is actually attaining an outcome, even if the process is slightly flawed.

Don’t you think that if a writer is astute enough to distill the spirit of their time and put it under critique, that they would be as deliberate and insightful in choosing their style of attack? — Joshs

No question, but the merits of that second aesthetic choice may still be up for debate.

The language used to describe enlightenment seems messy. It's hard to assess what is being described.

I'll avoid the Eastern and religious terminology and pull out some of the English words that keep coming up. Naturally, I'm assuming words fall short in describing ineffable states of awareness.

'Self-actualization'; 'self-annihilation'; 'self-realization'; 'liberation'; 'awakening'; 'cessation'.

And there are two other words which often come up which I assume refer to a higher consciousness aspect to the term - 'union' and 'perfection'.

Looking at the on-line sales pitch from folk like Sadhguru of the yoga tradition, reminds me of my own time spent with theosophists and assorted mystics in the 1980s. I'm trying not to be cynical but clearly enlightenment still requires marketing and, these days, a website...

"Enlightenment means a conscious annihilation of yourself. For most people, it will take a certain amount of time and maturing to understand that whatever you make yourself to be, in the end, it is frustrating and not enough. However wonderful you make yourself, still it is not enough. Only when you disappear, everything becomes wonderful."

Awkward language notwithstanding - Sadhuru is getting at something people haven't raised so far on this thread. The merits of enlightenment and the concomitant experience of everything becoming 'wonderful'. I wonder (sorry) what this means. It seems antithetical to self-annihilation however. Who exactly is the self experiencing the extinguished wonderfulness? Or is this what happens when mere words are used to describe the numinous?

Very typical of Nietzsche, full of assumptions, pronouncements, exclamation points and rhetorical questions. — Ciceronianus

I can't comment on the merit of his ideas but the prose is so bombastic I can't ever get though more than a few sentences before needing to leave in a hurry. It's like being stuck next to a hectoring uncle who teaches lit crit somewhere.

Why should enlightenment be the same for each of us? — Banno

Good question. I'm not sure it is meant to be the same but I have a poor understanding of the idea, hence this OP. Would there perhaps be certain themes in common?

I think to be enlightened is the realization that there are things that you don't know that you don't know. — James Riley

All attempted definitions are welcome. There are lots of things I don't know that I don't know. And lots of things I don't want to know. I have always made the assumption - not sure why - that in theory enlightenment comes as a sudden realization which brings with it some kind of revealed wisdom through a unity with higher consciousness. This is not a concept sustained by my secular worldview.

Even worse... the Chinese market!

Maybe having a martial arts master be an old asian dude is a archetype so isn't that almost racist in a sense? When is creative license allowed in matters of race? — TiredThinker

I guess you're talking about cultural appropriation. This matter can be seen through several lenses, like most issues.

I have a Asian friend who was annoyed by the casting because there are not many big roles for people of Asian background in major films, so when a white person along with Celtic culture replaces an Asian character, with Asian culture (who is already established as Asian in the source material), this can readily be seen in a negative light.

And yes, it is a well-worn trope to have an elderly Asian grand master. But comics/graphic novels deal in well-worn tropes. Personally I found it difficult to accept Sherlock Holmes as a CGI sorcerer.

Agree. Note: I had made some small changes, adding: 'except for inherited power.'

Just ask yourself, just how many absolute dictators or monarchs have been killed? And how many of these people with absolute power have killed people in order to sustain their position? Many. — ssu

I've often assumed that to gain absolute power in a political sense would probably (except for inherited power) require deceit, violence and possibly murder to achieve and to remain there. So the kinds of people that get to absolute power are likely to be compromised from the get go. I wonder who we would say has absolute power today - Putin? Xi? Kim?

I suspect there is a broader point that people who never have anyone say no to them might eventually become intoxicated by that power and the lack of boundaries and take awful liberties with other's liberties.

There was similar thread on power started by @I Like Sushi.

Does absolute power corrupt absolutely? — TiredThinker

Remember the full quote from Lord Acton, which answers your question. It refers to men and politics, not deities. And the quote is tends to corrupt not always corrupts. Although it looks like absolute power seems doomed to malfeasance.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority."

Note "almost always'. This quote probably belongs in the category of common sense. It's hard to find an example of hierarchy where this does not often apply, from politics to corporate rapacity.

Since no one has been able to produce a deity for inspection it is impossible to say if any god's use of power applies. We are not even able to say if any gods exist and, if they do, we also don't know how they do what they do or why.

I think it comes from ignorance and an inability to understand or imagine how someone might think differently about the world than they do. — T Clark

I think also for some people, and I'm not thinking of anyone particular here, there's an emotional, almost visceral reaction to certain words. Before the person even considers the idea, the response is there already, dismissive and pugnacious - almost like a 'lizard brain', flight or fight response. You say Christianity, they immediately blurt out 'deception and pedophilia..'. That kind of thing. Maybe attachment can be added to the list of provocative trigger words. Christ knows I've been guilty of prejudging a bunch of ideas myself... :worry:

I know very little about enlightenment but I wonder if being any kind of teacher is already a sign of significant attachments.

But, genuinely not really caring or maintaining an importance around this or that. I don't know what it really is; but that's how I translate it. — Cheshire

Ok. I don't think it's uncommon for notions like unattachment and detachment and apathy to merge into a maelstrom of studied indifference in mainstream Western eyes.

There's a very small audience for such jokes, right? — Hanover

I really hope so.

Tell someone who cares.The notion of the noumenal, and its various misunderstandings, are amongst the worst ideas ever had. — Banno

The noumenal certainly doesn't seem very helpful but have you ever heard any of Kant's jokes?

"There was once a young merchant who was sailing on his ship from India to Europe. He had his entire fortune on board. Due to a terrible storm, he was forced to throw all of his merchandise overboard. He was so upset that, that very night, his wig turned gray." Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790)

Perhaps the wig was identical to its representation.

Less sarcastic form of apathy. — Cheshire

Can you say more? Do you mean to say that unattachment is a less pejorative manifestation of apathy?

Perhaps you'll remember you had this chance to talk it out when the death tolls rise and rise, but then again, probably not. — Joshua Jones

As someone who claims to be educated and a counsellor no less, you seem to have a penchant for emotive and passive aggressive language. Could it be that as a counsellor your work is overshadowed by your own anxieties? All this talk of burning books and burning people, Joshua - just how helpful do you think this might be?

My son tells me this sense of living through the collapse of civilization is pretty common among twentysomethings.

There was also an episode of RadioLab about the curious rise of nihilism in popular culture — Srap Tasmaner

I remember nihilism and the collapse of civilization being all the rage when I was a kid 40 years ago.