The vertigo of eternity

[Soul_of_Shu]

That doesn't mean I accept what they say on blind faith, but rather I am not "put off" if they take that tone of "we must" or "we should" (the latter is really implicit in any assertions made here).

For what it's worth, I'm not put off by it either, if taking it in the context of someone striving to be, e.g., a musician capable of creating, playing, and participating in truly artful compositions, then not only should one persevere with practice, but indeed must do so, if such value fulfillment is to be attained. So why would that not apply in lifting our ideation out of its greatly conditioned, reactive modality, to unlock its most profound creative expressions?

[ParadoxZone]

(I'm not going to attempt the quote feature here as the last attempt wasn't successful.)

Ashvin,

I don't believe there was any cynicism or gracelessness in my commenting on a particular style. That I know immediately who the two wiser ones are could be taken as a measure of your success. But that's not important.

Thanks for sharing your take on your anxiety. That's helpful in seeing more clearly where you're coming from.

And on what I think is your main point, we are in agreement. Hedge90's quote above made me startle slightly too. My reaction was, if that's the take, next you're going to think this and then that, etc. So, not that close to a final resolution.

Sure, I get the distinction you make in the use of the word "ego". I think the point still stands, but that's not important either.

And as for Bernardo philosophising for a living - I understand what you mean, though I definitely wouldn't put it like that. And his defense of blind will doesn't sound as absolute to me as it seems to to you. That could be an awful take, but it's my take, for now. Yes, I too like to think that he appreciates what's going on here.

[AshvinP]

(I'm not going to attempt the quote feature here as the last attempt wasn't successful.)

Ashvin,

I don't believe there was any cynicism or gracelessness in my commenting on a particular style. That I know immediately who the two wiser ones are could be taken as a measure of your success. But that's not important.

Thanks for sharing your take on your anxiety. That's helpful in seeing more clearly where you're coming from.

And on what I think is your main point, we are in agreement. Hedge90's quote above made me startle slightly too. My reaction was, if that's the take, next you're going to think this and then that, etc. So, not that close to a final resolution.

Sure, I get the distinction you make in the use of the word "ego". I think the point still stands, but that's not important either.

And as for Bernardo philosophising for a living - I understand what you mean, though I definitely wouldn't put it like that. And his defense of blind will doesn't sound as absolute to me as it seems to to you. That could be an awful take, but it's my take, for now. Yes, I too like to think that he appreciates what's going on here.

Got it, and thanks for the feedback. I will keep in mind how I am using the "we must" language in future essays, because I do not intend to convey a moralistic or preachy tone - that is actually the opposite of what I think we need right now, which is people developing, in full consciousness and freedom, inner conviction of these truths and the ethics which unfold from them. Following moralistic dictates will get us nowhere. Mostly I put that in to convey a sense of urgency, as in "we must start thinking this way really soon if we want to penetrate more deeply into the spiritual orientation which is desperately needed at this juncture". But I am sure there are better phrasings I can use, or at least use that one less often.

I probably agree BK's defense of blind Will is not absolute - he does seem to back away from it a little bit in recent interviews. But he is not ready to say that we can philosophically rule it out, for whatever reasons. I believe we can rule it out by way of phenomenology of our own Thinking activity.