Another recent BK interview

[AshvinP]

Adding to Bernardo's assertion that the rational intellect is in it's evolutionary childhood...

I wonder what the consciousness which produced the Bhaghavad Gita, only some 3,000 odd years ago, is like. I wonder why that consciousness, surely different in qualitative functioning from the rational intellect, has simply vanished from existence until some philosopher decides to allow for its existence. Until the analytic philosophers decree a new mode of consciousness has arrived, do we all have to settle for 100% uniformity of rational intellect? Can we only have hope for higher consciousness when they give us the green light to proceed? Does every analytic philospher's current intellectual limits have to be the limits of Reality itself?

Indeed, it seems that the rational intellectual approach of Western culture is in many ways especially underdeveloped despite it's prowess in other ways. As they say, "Give a child a hammer and everything looks like nails."

The culture doesn't produce the approach (mode of consciousness), though, but rather the approach produces the culture. What is invisible always precedes what is visible; meaning always precedes perception. These are all moments of an organic Unity. That is really what Kant, Schop, BK and many other cynics fail to see. The rational intellectual mode separates our "I" so greatly from the World that we have no choice but to make the World Content our own thought-content to cotninue evolving. Or, rather, we must expand the sphere of our own thought-content to encompass more and more of the World Content. That is how the modern age bears the fruit of spiritual freedom . It is not random, a fluke, or a freak stage of evolution. The spiritual tools to endure this dark night of the soul have been provided to us by Wisdom in anticipation. We only have to let go of the intellect's assumption that it is at the very apex of cognitive evolution and that it alone can understand what humanity is capable of.

[Lou Gold]

I wonder what the consciousness which produced the Bhaghavad Gita, only some 3,000 odd years ago, is like. I wonder why that consciousness, surely different in qualitative functioning from the rational intellect, has simply vanished from existence until some philosopher decides to allow for its existence. Until the analytic philosophers decree a new mode of consciousness has arrived, do we all have to settle for 100% uniformity of rational intellect? Can we only have hope for higher consciousness when they give us the green light to proceed? Does every analytic philospher's current intellectual limits have to be the limits of Reality itself?

Indeed, it seems that the rational intellectual approach of Western culture is in many ways especially underdeveloped despite it's prowess in other ways. As they say, "Give a child a hammer and everything looks like nails."

The culture doesn't produce the approach (mode of consciousness), though, but rather the approach produces the culture. What is invisible always precedes what is visible; meaning always precedes perception. These are all moments of an organic Unity. That is really what Kant, Schop, BK and many other cynics fail to see. The rational intellectual mode separates our "I" so greatly from the World that we have no choice but to make the World Content our own thought-content to cotninue evolving. Or, rather, we must expand the sphere of our own thought-content to encompass more and more of the World Content. That is how the modern age bears the fruit of spiritual freedom . It is not random, a fluke, or a freak stage of evolution. The spiritual tools to endure this dark night of the soul have been provided to us by Wisdom in anticipation. We only have to let go of the intellect's assumption that it is at the very apex of cognitive evolution and that it alone can understand what humanity is capable of.

Yes, and after the letting-go, practice that peace is every step. If we want new habits, we must practice, practice, practice. There's a Zen story of two monks about to cross a river flowing with a strong current. A lovely maiden arrives and asks for help in the crossing. The older monk carries her across the river. As monks journey on, the younger monk frets over the fact that the older monk has touched and held closely a woman. He responds, "I put her down when we reached the other shore. Why are you still carrying her?" Yes, Analytic Idealism, like other models, has limited but important usefulness (like challenging dogmatic reductive physicalism). Why not use it for its value and put it down?

[AshvinP]

Indeed, it seems that the rational intellectual approach of Western culture is in many ways especially underdeveloped despite it's prowess in other ways. As they say, "Give a child a hammer and everything looks like nails."

The culture doesn't produce the approach (mode of consciousness), though, but rather the approach produces the culture. What is invisible always precedes what is visible; meaning always precedes perception. These are all moments of an organic Unity. That is really what Kant, Schop, BK and many other cynics fail to see. The rational intellectual mode separates our "I" so greatly from the World that we have no choice but to make the World Content our own thought-content to cotninue evolving. Or, rather, we must expand the sphere of our own thought-content to encompass more and more of the World Content. That is how the modern age bears the fruit of spiritual freedom . It is not random, a fluke, or a freak stage of evolution. The spiritual tools to endure this dark night of the soul have been provided to us by Wisdom in anticipation. We only have to let go of the intellect's assumption that it is at the very apex of cognitive evolution and that it alone can understand what humanity is capable of.

Yes, and after the letting-go, practice that peace is every step. If we want new habits, we must practice, practice, practice. There's a Zen story of two monks about to cross a river flowing with a strong current. A lovely maiden arrives and asks for help in the crossing. The older monk carries her across the river. As monks journey on, the younger monk frets over the fact that the older monk has touched and held closely a woman. He responds, "I put her down when we reached the other shore. Why are you still carrying her?" Yes, Analytic Idealism, like other models, has limited but important usefulness (like challenging dogmatic reductive physicalism). Why not use it for its value and put it down?

I couldn't agree more. Analytic idealism is one of the tools provided to us by Wisdom to navigate these waters. Like all other tools, it will cease being a tool and become a crutch if we make it hold all the answers to our questions or the single supreme answer that all further questions are meaningless because they cannot be answered. These positions are mirror images of each other reflected across the idolizing intellect.

[Lou Gold]

The culture doesn't produce the approach (mode of consciousness), though, but rather the approach produces the culture. What is invisible always precedes what is visible; meaning always precedes perception. These are all moments of an organic Unity. That is really what Kant, Schop, BK and many other cynics fail to see. The rational intellectual mode separates our "I" so greatly from the World that we have no choice but to make the World Content our own thought-content to cotninue evolving. Or, rather, we must expand the sphere of our own thought-content to encompass more and more of the World Content. That is how the modern age bears the fruit of spiritual freedom . It is not random, a fluke, or a freak stage of evolution. The spiritual tools to endure this dark night of the soul have been provided to us by Wisdom in anticipation. We only have to let go of the intellect's assumption that it is at the very apex of cognitive evolution and that it alone can understand what humanity is capable of.

Yes, and after the letting-go, practice that peace is every step. If we want new habits, we must practice, practice, practice. There's a Zen story of two monks about to cross a river flowing with a strong current. A lovely maiden arrives and asks for help in the crossing. The older monk carries her across the river. As monks journey on, the younger monk frets over the fact that the older monk has touched and held closely a woman. He responds, "I put her down when we reached the other shore. Why are you still carrying her?" Yes, Analytic Idealism, like other models, has limited but important usefulness (like challenging dogmatic reductive physicalism). Why not use it for its value and put it down?

I couldn't agree more. Analytic idealism is one of the tools provided to us by Wisdom to navigate these waters. Like all other tools, it will cease being a tool and become a crutch if we make it hold all the answers to our questions or the single supreme answer that all further questions are meaningless because they cannot be answered. These positions are mirror images of each other reflected across the idolizing intellect.

"There are no rules, including this one." Does that seem nihilistic? It seems humble to me.

[AshvinP]

Yes, and after the letting-go, practice that peace is every step. If we want new habits, we must practice, practice, practice. There's a Zen story of two monks about to cross a river flowing with a strong current. A lovely maiden arrives and asks for help in the crossing. The older monk carries her across the river. As monks journey on, the younger monk frets over the fact that the older monk has touched and held closely a woman. He responds, "I put her down when we reached the other shore. Why are you still carrying her?" Yes, Analytic Idealism, like other models, has limited but important usefulness (like challenging dogmatic reductive physicalism). Why not use it for its value and put it down?

I couldn't agree more. Analytic idealism is one of the tools provided to us by Wisdom to navigate these waters. Like all other tools, it will cease being a tool and become a crutch if we make it hold all the answers to our questions or the single supreme answer that all further questions are meaningless because they cannot be answered. These positions are mirror images of each other reflected across the idolizing intellect.

"There are no rules, including this one." Does that seem nihilistic? It seems humble to me.

Think about all the questions a person is implicitly claiming to answer with certainty when expressing such a sentiment.

What is the nature of reality? What is the nature of human perception and reason and its relation to that reality? How has that relation evolved from centuries past and how will it continue evolving in centuries to come? What have other people besides myself experienced, perceived, and known? There are many more.

So we see that what seems like a simple "humility" at first blush is actually a claim to certain knowledge across all different domains and through all different layers of existence. It's only when we don't allow ourselves to reason past first blush, due to whatever intellectual concepts we have inherited from others, that we miss the deeper dynamics of such 'simple' sentiments.

[Lou Gold]

I couldn't agree more. Analytic idealism is one of the tools provided to us by Wisdom to navigate these waters. Like all other tools, it will cease being a tool and become a crutch if we make it hold all the answers to our questions or the single supreme answer that all further questions are meaningless because they cannot be answered. These positions are mirror images of each other reflected across the idolizing intellect.

"There are no rules, including this one." Does that seem nihilistic? It seems humble to me.

Think about all the questions a person is implicitly claiming to answer with certainty when expressing such a sentiment.

What is the nature of reality? What is the nature of human perception and reason and its relation to that reality? How has that relation evolved from centuries past and how will it continue evolving in centuries to come? What have other people besides myself experienced, perceived, and known? There are many more.

So we see that what seems like a simple "humility" at first blush is actually a claim to certain knowledge across all different domains and through all different layers of existence. It's only when we don't allow ourselves to reason past first blush, due to whatever intellectual concepts we have inherited from others, that we miss the deeper dynamics of such 'simple' sentiments.

Cool. In my intuitive way, when you called me into your framing, these lines from Prufrock jumped out at me:

And I have known the eyes already, known them all—
The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,
And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?
And how should I presume?

... thinking further, these lines emerged:

And would it have been worth it, after all,
Would it have been worth while,
After the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets,
After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor—
And this, and so much more?—
It is impossible to say just what I mean!
But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:
Would it have been worth while
If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,
And turning toward the window, should say:
“That is not it at all,
That is not what I meant, at all.”

[Lou Gold]

Sometimes the words, "There are no rules, including this one" play out like this interview with Jacob Collier.

And, as we know, the Preacher says, "There's a season for all under the sun" and "all is vanity."

I'm not arguing fundamentals here, just noting that the practical 'concrete' world is loaded with nuances and conditions. We dance as best we can.

[Lou Gold]

Sometimes the words, "There are no rules, including this one" play out like this interview with Jacob Collier.

And, as we know, the Preacher says, "There's a season for all under the sun" and "all is vanity."

I'm not arguing fundamentals here, just noting that the practical 'concrete' world is loaded with nuances and conditions. We dance as best we can.

No! I don't think BK is a nihilist. I believe him when he says that he has anxiety about what is beyond death. I grok his dilemma with the mind. As the Dalai Lama has said, "The mind can rationalize anything." When I went to live as a North American in Brazil, I found that it was crazy for my mind and delicious for my heart and I loved it. Going in the opposite direction, BK seems to have had an opposite experience toward which I feel compassionate and I grok that his commitment to analysis has made of him a rather perfect philosopher to challenge the core assumptions of dogmatic reductionist physicalism. However, I'm not here to play shrink with Bernardo. I just wish him well and am happy that he has found a mentor as extraordinary as Jung. My prayer is that BK will also plunge deeply, find his way, be led to faith and find new lingo with which to express it to an often Godless audience in a compelling way.

[AshvinP]

Sometimes the words, "There are no rules, including this one" play out like this interview with Jacob Collier.

And, as we know, the Preacher says, "There's a season for all under the sun" and "all is vanity."

I'm not arguing fundamentals here, just noting that the practical 'concrete' world is loaded with nuances and conditions. We dance as best we can.

No! I don't think BK is a nihilist. I believe him when he says that he has anxiety about what is beyond death. I grok his dilemma with the mind. As the Dalai Lama has said, "The mind can rationalize anything." When I went to live as a North American in Brazil, I found that it was crazy for my mind and delicious for my heart and I loved it. Going in the opposite direction, BK seems to have had an opposite experience toward which I feel compassionate and I grok that his commitment to analysis has made of him a rather perfect philosopher to challenge the core assumptions of dogmatic reductionist physicalism. However, I'm not here to play shrink with Bernardo. I just wish him well and am happy that he has found a mentor as extraordinary as Jung. My prayer is that BK will also plunge deeply, find his way, be led to faith and find new lingo with which to express it to an often Godless audience in a compelling way.

What if this whole anxious drama of life and death can be resolved through human reasoning activity? This is what we keep pointing to - the person who arbitrarily declares human reason to be illusory activity, only adding pesky ideas on top of the "real" world of mind, will, matter, etc., will never find out if that question can be answered. That, in short, is what we call "nihilism". No one can be surprised at perpetual anxiety about death, or any other significant aspect of life, when they have declared themselves and everyone else forever unequal to the task of understanding it and thereby redeeming it in and through their own meaningful activity.

[Lou Gold]

Sometimes the words, "There are no rules, including this one" play out like this interview with Jacob Collier.

And, as we know, the Preacher says, "There's a season for all under the sun" and "all is vanity."

I'm not arguing fundamentals here, just noting that the practical 'concrete' world is loaded with nuances and conditions. We dance as best we can.

No! I don't think BK is a nihilist. I believe him when he says that he has anxiety about what is beyond death. I grok his dilemma with the mind. As the Dalai Lama has said, "The mind can rationalize anything." When I went to live as a North American in Brazil, I found that it was crazy for my mind and delicious for my heart and I loved it. Going in the opposite direction, BK seems to have had an opposite experience toward which I feel compassionate and I grok that his commitment to analysis has made of him a rather perfect philosopher to challenge the core assumptions of dogmatic reductionist physicalism. However, I'm not here to play shrink with Bernardo. I just wish him well and am happy that he has found a mentor as extraordinary as Jung. My prayer is that BK will also plunge deeply, find his way, be led to faith and find new lingo with which to express it to an often Godless audience in a compelling way.

What if this whole anxious drama of life and death can be resolved through human reasoning activity? This is what we keep pointing to - the person who arbitrarily declares human reason to be illusory activity, only adding pesky ideas on top of the "real" world of mind, will, matter, etc., will never find out if that question can be answered. That, in short, is what we call "nihilism". No one can be surprised at perpetual anxiety about death, or any other significant aspect of life, when they have declared themselves and everyone else forever unequal to the task of understanding it and thereby redeeming it in and through their own meaningful activity.

What if this whole anxious drama of life and death can be resolved in many ways, some of which are dependent on human reasoning and others depending on other ways of participating in this incredible process of being?

ni·hil·ism
/ˈnīəˌlizəm,ˈnēəˌlizəm/

noun
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

Sorry, I don't see BK as doing this. If he was, why in the world would he think it's valuable to save Western Civilization?