Thoughts

[Pure760]

The world is like a playground of evil things. When you choose peace over play, you get more than expected.

The same spiritual laws apply to every individual, as a human there is no way to bend or alter these laws only follow them.

 

[durangodawood]

...choose peace over play...

What does that mean?
.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The world is like a playground of evil things.

I don't understand this metaphor. What are you referring to?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sidhe]

The world is like a playground of evil things. When you choose peace over play, you get more than expected.

The same spiritual laws apply to every individual, as a human there is no way to bend or alter these laws only follow them.

Allow me to edit.

The world is like a playground. We are all bound by the same principles of liberty, and should respect that others have the same rights we hold dear. When we play by these rules, we get more than expected.

I like that better.

 

[Wicked Willow]

It kinda reminds me of the "matter=evil/spirit=good" dualism that still dominates most of the New Age literature out there.

 

[sidhe]

It kinda reminds me of the "matter=evil/spirit=good" dualism that still dominates most of the New Age literature out there.

I'm puzzled by the clinging to dualistic thought in the majority of New Age literature, honestly. I know the "us vs. them" and "good vs. evil" constructs are comforting and all, but they fail to differentiate the "new age" from the "old age."

 

[Eudaimonist]

It kinda reminds me of the "matter=evil/spirit=good" dualism that still dominates most of the New Age literature out there.

That's what I was thinking too, but I'd like the OP to comment.

I would rephrase the statement (to suit my worldview) like this:

The world is like a playground of things. Any thing may be used in a beneficial way, or in a harmful way, depending on what you do with it. Have fun, but play wisely.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm puzzled by the clinging to dualistic thought in the majority of New Age literature, honestly.

It's a simple physical law. Dualistic things collect a substance called fluff. The more dualistic it is, the more fluff gathers. When one is dualistic, one ends up covered from head to toe in fluff.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wicked Willow]

I'm puzzled by the clinging to dualistic thought in the majority of New Age literature, honestly. I know the "us vs. them" and "good vs. evil" constructs are comforting and all, but they fail to differentiate the "new age" from the "old age."

Most of the stuff you find in the New Age section these days isn't actually "New Age" - it's "Light Age" (in the sense of "Coke Light"): one part half-baked 19th century Theosophy, one part individual whimsy made up on the fly, one part assertions that everything within that book is Ancient (tm), handed down from the ascended Secret Masters (tm), and very, very Secret (tm).

An acquaintance of mine attended a business conference in the early 1980s on the marketability of "New Age", and the way it could be brought into more palatable, consumerist tracks of thought. Looks like they pretty much succeeded in doing that: it's the old conventions of thought, sold under a label that's supposed to make it look like this huge alternative movement, while at the same time working within the confines of the status quo.

 

[Penumbra]

It kinda reminds me of the "matter=evil/spirit=good" dualism that still dominates most of the New Age literature out there.

I can sympathize with people that believe that. Matter can be weak, disappointing, or otherwise imperfect, but some believe in other, higher things as a contrast.

-Lyn

 

[dlamberth]

I can sympathize with people that believe that. Matter can be weak, disappointing, or otherwise imperfect, but some believe in other, higher things as a contrast.

-Lyn

Not me. But I think it depends upon what one see's with in the essence of this physical world. I think that if one sees the physical world as weak, disappointing or imperfect, than they are also calling those higher things the samething.

.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I can sympathize with people that believe that. Matter can be weak, disappointing, or otherwise imperfect, but some believe in other, higher things as a contrast.

Actually, this is a good point. I had to pause and reflect on this, and that's good. Perhaps that is part of the selling point of dualism -- disappointment with life as a material being. Death and suffering are part of being a physical human being, but dualism offers immortality and an end to suffering, because presumably immaterial beings can't be hurt in the same way.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wicked Willow]

I think the sheer escapist potential of spirit/matter-dualism contributes greatly to its appeal, but I don't think that's how people first get to believe in it.

If you ask me, the whole notion is based on our ability to create, think and communicate in terms of symbols. Once we're out of our earliest infancy, our whole conception of reality is processed and contained within the symbolical sphere of language and related sign systems. (Which is also why we have a hard time accessing our earliest memories: they're basically stored in another "format".)

Now, the history of dualist thought probably started with the ancient Greeks, and their adaptation of phoenician letters. Up until that point, letters had never been mere phonetic units, but usually referred to a HUGE semantic field of symbolical meanings. (Just look at the way each Hebrew letter is actually a word in itself, or the way Hieroglyphs work, or even Chinese pictograms and their way of creating semantic fields around the term they describe.)
Greek script was divorced from that: it consisted of "pure" symbols that were not directly connected to physical objects or the like. So Plato and people who thought like him figured that abstractions must be MORE real than the physical reality that surrounded them. (He actually hinted at the notion that our perceptions shape our realities, and that languages do much more than just describing what is "out there".)

Of course, Plato's concept of the "ideal" needn't be dualistic, unlike René Descartes nonsensical remonstrations.
Likewise, there are materialists out there who are basically dualists in disguise - except that they basically amputate the "spiritual" altogether, and insist that the "material" half of the dualist equation is all that's there.

Both the Cartesian and the materialist miss out on the Big Picture, if you ask me: in Buddhist terms, I'd accuse them of seeking permanence in impermanence (and missing the TRUE, atemporal sense of permanence contained within each moment). They spend so much time worrying about the fact that flowers are bound to wilt that they can't appreciate the blooming that's happening right in front of their eyes.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Greek script was divorced from that: it consisted of "pure" symbols that were not directly connected to physical objects or the like. So Plato and people who thought like him figured that abstractions must be MORE real than the physical reality that surrounded them.

I personally place the blame for Plato's Ideals on geometry. Plato figured that circularity would "exist" (be recognized as a possibility) even if there are no circular objects, so therefore circularity is eternal and nonmaterial.

Of course, Plato's concept of the "ideal" needn't be dualistic, unlike René Descartes nonsensical remonstrations.

That's true. Descartes must get a good portion of the blame for the popularity of dualism.

Likewise, there are materialists out there who are basically dualists in disguise - except that they basically amputate the "spiritual" altogether, and insist that the "material" half of the dualist equation is all that's there.

Yes, such reductive monists definitely exist. This is why I never describe myself as either a monist or a dualist. I prefer a multi-perspective approach.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Pure760]

I don't understand this metaphor. What are you referring to?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Every temptation of the ego, you're always feeding this temptation and you are obvious proof and everyone else is too so you've proven to yourself that this is the way of life. Its as simple as when your sitting in a waiting room.. you can never stop jittering, reading magazines, looking around the room, thinking about the other people in the room.. this is all temptation of the ego of which I am speaking.

 

[Pure760]

What does that mean?
.

Instead of giving into temptatiion you deny it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Every temptation of the ego, you're always feeding this temptation and you are obvious proof and everyone else is too so you've proven to yourself that this is the way of life. Its as simple as when your sitting in a waiting room.. you can never stop jittering, reading magazines, looking around the room, thinking about the other people in the room.. this is all temptation of the ego of which I am speaking.

What is wrong with wanting to read magazines in the waiting room? It simply indicates a mind that is used to activity and enjoys performing its function.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Pure760]

What is wrong with wanting to read magazines in the waiting room? It simply indicates a mind that is used to activity and enjoys performing its function.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Because looking at god is much better than looking at a magazine. The point is, that is the cage that keeps people blind, the desire to do things instead of looking for peace, which is the only thing that can truely satisfy you.

 

[Pure760]

Think about the experience you get from reading a magazine.. why do you do it? To gain a mild form of entertainment? God is far beyond that sort of satisfaction, but to experience it you need to recognize there is no physical pleasure that can compare to the experience of reality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Because looking at god is much better than looking at a magazine.

I imagine that there are many better activities than looking at magazines, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't ever look at magazines.

BTW, I find reading New Scientist magazine educational, stimulating, and even peace-inducing. I can't imagine why I should want to give that up just because it isn't higher up on my list of priorities in life.

The point is, that is the cage that keeps people blind, the desire to do things instead of looking for peace, which is the only thing that can truely satisfy you.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Peace is often found in activity, if it is the right sort of activity. For example, the painter whose creative outlet is painting will feel more at peace painting than not painting. And why should she avoid reading art magazines while sitting in the office?



eudaimonia,

Mark