Re: Knowledge vs Wisdom and Preference vs Objectivity
I find it a rather sensational absolute claim that wisdom is a divine experience, for I can discern no moment of ascendancy from a secular experience to a possibly divine counterpart. I also think it improbable, presupposing the previous claim to be true, that every word we utter is an attempt to tap into that wisdom. "Hey Brendon, can you hand me that cup?" Is the attempt to tap into wisdom a subconscious act, one with which I am unaware? For my only intent with that statement was to have you give me the cup.
"Every word that comes out of our mouth is an attempt to tap into this wisdom...The mind is only interested in knowledge..." Words are necessarily predicated upon the existence of a mind. Words are not sentient. They have no intention beyond that which is bestowed by the active mind from whence they originated. If the mind is not interested in wisdom, neither can the words. Becky brought up a good point. To which ego are you referring and how and when does it disappear?
"Wisdom is instant...[wisdom] grows in your heart." Though, these statement seem contradictory, it is possible that I misinterpreted the language. How does wisdom generate innocence? On what objective basis is innocence determined and where is the causal link between the two qualities?
Before we judge whether or not wisdom taps into a metaphysical reality behind all existence, should we not demonstrate the existence of such a metaphysical reality? Is this not a necessary preliminary step?
"[Wisdom] is without qualities." "Wisdom is instant...wisdom is a divine experience...wisdom is intrinsically true." Instantaneous, divine, true...all qualities. (You have used the word feminine, in both class and on your blog in constantly varying contexts with which I can find no corroborating definition. Could you clarify?)
Words are indicators of what?
Words are dangerous because people believe what they say and they miss the spirit. I understand that words are often inadequate to fully address the intentions of the speaker. While language is an imperfect tool, it is the most effective one we have. It is necessary to understand what the words say. Absent this step, it would be impossible to ascertain the spirit.
Within philosophical discourse, every claim requires due articulation, explanation, and justification. A claim absent these co-requisites denies both motivation and adequate means to further explore and interpret the ideas of the author. These virtues of discourse are not luxuries to which we aspire; they are the necessities of effective communication.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"I understand that words are often inadequate to fully address the intentions of the speaker. While language is an imperfect tool, it is the most effective one we have. It is necessary to understand what the words say. Absent this step, it would be impossible to ascertain the spirit."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this a lot. I don't mean to generalize, but I've made the observation that many individuals interested in Philosophy (and in general, I suppose) are quite quick to dismiss language as an appropriate or effective medium to fully articulate the "spirit" and depth of the ideas they intend to express.
We're fearful that other individuals may misunderstand us, or never come to see the world as we may experience it. To suggest that there is a fundamental, unchanging truth inherent to an object almost intrinsically implies its interpretation... there is no objective "essence," behind anything, beyond what qualities we attribute to it.
In that sense, it may be true that language may never rightfully describe the properties we aspire to convey, but this is no fault of language itself. More than likely, it is our lack of competency in putting it to use!
I think perhaps that you may be too kind. I agree that those interested in philosophy often dismiss words for the reasons you articulated. I think, however, that there is another possibility. I feel that some pseudo-philosophers dismiss words so the inability to articulate themselves ceases to be an issue. To be blunt, the dogmatic abandonment of language is a cop-out. Either they cannot, with words, defend their views or they care not to, either way it is a defense mechanism for indefensible philosophy.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I do not seek to generalize either; I do not wish to insinuate that everyone who dismisses words as effective are bad philosophers too apathetic to explain themselves properly.
i am not speaking of a god you have learned about, you will only find pieces of thou (as opposed to it) in what you have read about. you will acquire the information, but you will not directly experience. i am not referring to a supernatural being, but an attitude towards existence. when the ego is overweight the affect is a separation between self and universe which causes insecurity, loneliness, suffering.
ReplyDeletewisdom is divine because you learn something that is going to save you suffering in the future. the illusion which manifests as your attitude is that experience is secular and not divine
when you ask me to grab the cup for you, you are telling me that you want the cup, the means by which you get the cup become secondary, unless you attempt to display your authority over me by having me hand you the cup. purpose, motivation, intention etc though do not have material qualities can only exist in the carrying out of the metaphysical dimension into the material dimension. so if you wanted the cup (object) to have a drink whether for nourishment or to pleasure your taste buds, or become intoxicated etc or not even drink it but hold your ear up to it to hear the ocean, it is a purpose, the lack of purpose would still be a purpose, maybe you didn't want me to have it, maybe you felt more emotionally secure with it in your pocket. there is nothing innate about the cup (the existence of the object) that you desire, but the essence of the cup can be determined by the metaphysical purpose/motivation/intention etc that you want the cup. as in existentialism, we give essence to the cup. and so if you possessed the metaphysical nature, you would not care if i handed you that cup, if i could hand you something in the place of the cup that would achieve the same goal, or even surpass the goal. seeing that you want the cup as a means to a metaphysical end is wisdom because you do not have attachment to the cup, but to what you want the cup for so you do not blind yourself to other options that will achieve the same need (so it is embracing the subject (in my philosophy) and being able to apply it to any object that stems from that subject) instead of negative feelings being provoked when you can't have the cup, even though there be a glass sitting right next to it. (hints of eastern philosophy in there as well)
so because nothing is an option to exist (arguably not to exist), when something does exist, we choose it to exist (in space/time) out of the myriad of possibilities that only exist in the metaphysical dimension, unless we bring them to actuality. once something exists in the material world, others can observe it through empirical data and determine how it relates to (ego) them. now if we treat this thing as a threat because there is something about ourselves and life that we are not confronting out of insecurity then it is not wisdom, but if in your honest observation you realize that you have had the opportunity to exist and that other things were allotted to exist by means we cannot wrap our minds around because of the degrees of separation from our existence still exist, that because they exist from the same underlying center, nature, god, source etc (all probably should be pronouns) that allotted our existence, they should be treated with the same genuine love and respect that we desire to be treated with (earn to deserve is a philosophy opposite of a slippery slope, it is a self regulating, perpetual motion positive energy stimulator? haha) which makes even something as simple as actualizing the cup you desired to your hands wisdom.
i do not know where you got that i implied that words themselves were sentient, but words are human constructions except for the few that remain in which the vibration emitted transmits the representational frequency accurately ie aum. the intention of the speaker is carried out into material form through words, it is a translation from metaphysical to physical and as in anything translated something gets lost, words are signs or markers that point to something that exists. if something has physical qualities we can talk about them, but if something doesn't we can only talk about the energy emitted or it's effect on the material world. but all words attempt to clarify or communicate something that we cannot describe because it doesn't have physical qualities, i speak or type knowing i cannot convey the essence that i experience, but i say many words in many ways to try to say 1 thing. if you only use words to communicate what is on your mind, you are like guy with the ear in "thus spoke zarathustra" that would mean you do not use words to describe how you feel or even what you sense.
ReplyDeleteand did you see my response to becky's response about the ego? like divine, you get caught up in the words and you loose the wisdom that i am trying to tap into. you search your mind for areas that these words have been referenced in your experience, but that hinders your growth because you are unwilling to accept my redefinitions because i do not have the credentials (and you have every right to be skeptical of me, and i encourage you to continue to question my theories)
yes, this is poetry, you get it, all words are poetry because the intention in creating a word is to represent something that exists, in the way that poetry uses words and sometimes rhymes to represent feelings in a more complicated way than can be expressed and received in more than a word. isn't that what a system is? it is physical evolution, the complexity of the system actually adds quality to the existence of the individuals, which its means extends to all scopes from building a sentence, a body, a universe the forms do not matter, they are all consistent with because they are caused by the underlying metaphysical nature or design (the answer between the opposing camps of intelligent design and darwinism maybe?) answers are always evolution, and if we appreciate that we should treat it as design because our opportunity to exist and sense qualitative hedonism (epicureanism) is only possible because of this essence.
ReplyDeletewe are not disagreeing here, and likewise with existence, if every word that we speak (action we do) is an accurate representation of our intention, the synchronicity that emerges of consistency is its own reward. the point is to align all the tools we have, would you not suppose someone who's reason agrees with his emotions, sensations and intuition is more sound and happier than the majority of people who can't even untangle their sensations and emotions, those are the sleepwalkers, the people who intentionally hypnotize themselves and vouch their freedom because they don't want the responsibility of trying hard enough to align the various planes of existence (inauthentic being, das man, sysiphusian)
wisdom is only valuable when it is needed like your cup but can be applied to more uses. and so as time passes, and you have acquired this collection of consistent experiences because you figured out the root of the issue, it grows and strengthens.
wisdom generates a kind of trust as so it has the same effect as innocence but out of experience rather than ignorance, and with trust comes freedom and honesty. maybe because our pineal gland is open more when we are children. as we age, we accept things that aren't appropriate (fighting, smoking cigarettes, imperialism etc) and we become rounded off because of all the knowledge we acquire, even to the extent that we accept gravity, but a 2 year old would act more noticeably at their mother that got a hair cut than us floating into the room. listen to comfortably numb by pink floyd, he is not talking about a drug addiction.
yes instantaneous, divine, true and many other of these concepts have qualities, but because they only come into existence through an object (physical, masculine), in themselves they have feminine qualities and exist in the metaphysical as a possibility until "plucked" into the material world through the intention? of an active agent.
a demonstration would require physicality stimuli for you to observe, the metaphysical dimension cannot be communicated because words are material, but without a doubt you experience it without any consideration of it because it doesn't exist to you because it doesn't have qualities you can verify, but all the things that we can verify are a result of it. you assume that the particle entered schrodinger's box without seeing it, because you assume that the cat is dead, but there is a 50% chance that the particle actualized as an interference pattern and never entered the box so the cyanide didn't kill the cat, that doesn't make sense to me.
ReplyDeletewho decided that language is the most effective tool? you should study how octopi communicate through wearing their language, a form of telepathy which can be experienced once again through pineal gland activation, this isn't a conspiracy, this is the future if we can let go of the insecurity of others knowing our thoughts (but even octopi use ink to hide themselves when they want to hide what they think). the difference between belief in a word or story and disbelief is the attitude towards the openness to accept new ideas and preconceived notions of the existence of reality based on past experience. i used to be an atheist or constructionist or whatever, but i experienced something real, as real as if i experienced it through my senses but i realized something has been trying to communicate with me all along but i wasn't open to it, it comes in the "form" of a thought but it's creation lacked my intention, and rather than giving up everything that i thought i knew, it only confirmed with more solidity what i knew and opened me up to experience the same things with an unconditional love and respect. we will never fully know what the words say, because we have to experience it ourselves. philosophy is a process, any time you think you zipped it up, you are settling for less. i always use the "most appropriate" word i can think of to describe something, but there is no such thing as an appropriate word, if it was truly appropriate there would be no need for communication, we would both experience the same phenomena and be able to move on from there without contrasting our analysis. this is the beauty of our imperfect being, we articulate as close to reality as we can, and perpetually learn more ways to enhance our experience of reality through this method since we even think in language.
do you really think that i am dismissing words? or that any word (or series of) can constitute a genuine experience? i don't think you don't know that if you read books on medicine that it doesn't make you a doctor... if you think i am "copping out" by saying something exists without our awareness of it or ability to properly identify it, you are your own worst enemy. there is nothing dogmatic, or abandoning about my mysticism (under the heading of hazrat inayat khan)