| Author |
Message |
asclepio |
|
Post subject: Nature, Will, sense and the hounds of reason
 Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 09:04 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 21, 2006
Posts: 164
Status: Offline
|
|
93,
Three things quick, english is not my first language so be patient, second I'll try to be concise and keep it short (notice how I never said "I promise"), and three I study philosophy so there may be some bias or terms that might seem obscure, for instance by "western mind" I mean the usual philosopher, or the view point of classica western philosophy.
Here's the thing, Nature, as conceived by a western mind makes sense and makes one sense. "Makes sense" means that reality, as we live it in a daily basis moves towards a certain direction, there is purpose in movement and change. The thing in itself has a meaning, it doesn't exist "just because", it's existence is not a matter of pure chance and accident, if it exist it exist because something made it exist (someone made the chair, or the climate made the stone, etc.). It alse has one sense, that is to say that in our lives we don't like contradiction, a chair is to sit down (or use as furniture, table or whatever) but not to marry, or to have sex with or go to the pool with.
Since nature has one sense, one overall reading, there can be an objective science, that is, one way of looking at things in such a manner that we'll be able to know what it is for. In history we can find that at first that one objective sense was to be found in christian theology, things exist because of god to serve god's plan in some way, later on it can be expressed in numerical ways, mathematics becomes the most important science and the geometrical mind brings order to nature with it's method.
To the western mind then Nature is sense. The sense, the purpose or meaning of a thing lies in the thing itself. Man is part of nature because he himself has a meaning a purpose (again, it has a meaning, one meaning). It is because he has meaning that he is part of nature, that is what ties him with nature, his mind however, the analitical process or discursive manner of the mind sets him apart in nature. Right from the middleages (perhaps even before) a man is an animal (a part of nature) only because he has the same essential deffinition of everything else that is natural, because he has one meaning or purpose. But that is not what makes him different, it is his rational side that puts him on the top of nature, that is to say with the ability to read nature from above looking down.
By the way, to the traditional western mind, that one unique purpose is rarely defined, a tragedy to western philosophy, man has one meaning but he can't reach it, he is doomed.
Nature here, as one might easily guess, equals being, what makes a thing be, the reason a chair is a chair. Plato united being and thought (or mind). Other philosopher would critized him for it, but to some extent they all unite mind with being. Why is that?
Simple, the "reason a chair is a chair" explains it all, we are talking about reason, the mind or rational thinking. Rationality operates through language and because of language, one thinks in terms of language, with words even, and then one relates the language which is used to describe nature with nature itself. That which defines "nature", "being", or "reality" is defining itself.
To say that the philosophy that tries to explain what nature is (and therefore what is natural and what isn't, what is good and bad, wanted or unwanted) is nothing but a game of words is simplistic. Although rational thinking is a thinking of language, language itself is what constructed the western world, more to the point the world that we live in in a daily basis, that is the world that we wanted to describe in the first place. Therefore some rationality is "good", since we live in the western world and thinking in a western way is part of the culture, and moreover, of the laws that force us to do things.
The conclusions are obvious, "Nature", or in other words "being", the meaning or sense, is the result of language talking about itself. Reflection, it bends down, looks at itself. Which means that the previous notion that nature, or things, have a meaning or purpose and just one, becomes possible and not absolute (it's not wrong, that would be the same mistake over again, but it's not true either, more than that, "truth" is part of rational thinking and therefore is only possible if we accept some previous axioms).
Before we get excited and go "yes! Finally I can play Dungeons and Dragons for months and argue that "normal" is a cultural standard", or worst "yes! Finally we'll all get along because no one has the unique truth", we need to examine other more relevant conclusions.
First off, one can live and exist normally (that is, live in a western way) simply accepting the previous notion of nature and things as if having one meaning, no one is forced to do anything. BUT, if we choose to trascend the limitation of language, the artificial barrier, the human barrier, and explore the "extra-linguistical", or in simpler terms the "super-natural", there is a price. Abandon hope all ye who enter here:
To trascend this would mean to accept that what makes us westeners, humans even, is a limitation. It would be advisable to keep this in mind! That which makes us normal, such as believing in the inner-good of everyone, or believing that the world and it's inhabitants are special in a misterious way, or believing that a nuclear attack on Jerusalem is a bad thing, etc., etc., it's not absolute, not objective, again, it's not "false" in that way.
There are many quotes from LiberAL, not only the hounds of reason, the curses on because, grammar is defunct, etc., but also the one on how there is an unknown factor against reason, that I could bring, also there is a wonderful article on the Equinox about jumping from the old Aeon into the new (the transformation into the sun, destroying everything, etc.). But then I'd be boring you even more. What I'd like to enphize more is this:
When one accepts the Law and the word, and one's will is to understand the last word (truly, a beautiful analogy, it IS the last word/barrier!) Nature can not, and is not, defined by the idea of one-sense, of one-meaning, of one-god (picture god as the point in the painting where all the tendencies and distances meet, the focal point), also it is not defined by the idea of no-sense, no-meaning and no-god. Rather by the idea of infinite-sense, infinite-meaning, infinite-gods.
That which is infinite is not restricted, no barrier can keep him in limitation, therefore I am, becomes I am and am not, that is to say, the space between me and you is also me and you. It presents itself, this conceptual conversion, in the form of a different view point, reality is a dance of destruction and creation, the death of millions of cells makes me live, but it trascends even that, there is "no self/infinite self" is not only to be seen, or desired, as "we can all get along just fine, plenty for all", but also as state where there is no difference (no good or evil).
If I am and am not, if being and non-being exist at the same time there is that which remains. It's not a "thing", because to use that word it would imply the notion of one-meaning, but it's not "no-thing" either, it's the Will.
To be with the Will, to be the Will, is to stop being so that the Will can be. And "be" or "being" here is not used as in a static sense, but at the same time movement and no-movement makes no difference in this level. In order to stop being the self must die, with it all notion of good and evil, of must or shall, all impressions of what is lovely and what is to be hated, all of it. To put it bluntly, if the idea of someone dying or killing someone scares you, makes you feel disgusted, there's some "self" still and it has to go. All that remains then is the Will. That's why any and all debates on a thelemic society and thelemic ruling comes always to a barrier, because society is a linguistic phenomenon and the Will is not.
As I said, I tried.
93/93 |
_________________
I:30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.
http://stores.lulu.com/ohem
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: Nature, Will, sense and the hounds of reason
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 04:37 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
asclepio wrote: › 93,
Here's the thing, Nature, as conceived by a western mind makes sense and makes one sense. "Makes sense" means that reality, as we live it in a daily basis moves towards a certain direction, there is purpose in movement and change. The thing in itself has a meaning, it doesn't exist "just because", it's existence is not a matter of pure chance and accident, if it exist it exist because something made it exist (someone made the chair, or the climate made the stone, etc.).
I disagree with your very first premise. There is no reason for a rock, there is no reason for a tree, and there is no reason for a star - reasons imply purpose which implies conscious volition which implies a structuralized nervous system, i.e. higher animals. Just because we can 'superimpose' purpose onto things doesnt mean it exists - it is not the earth's "purpose" to revolve around the sun, the physical laws all combine to make it this way. Its not one flower's purpose to grow and another's purpose to die - they just happen, they just are.
Quote: › It alse has one sense, that is to say that in our lives we don't like contradiction, a chair is to sit down (or use as furniture, table or whatever) but not to marry, or to have sex with or go to the pool with.
This isnt contradiction... people can use things for more than one prupose, and often for their not-normal purpose. That doenst mean they are thwarting its 'purpose,' merely expanding its effective potential.
Quote: › To the western mind then Nature is sense. The sense, the purpose or meaning of a thing lies in the thing itself.
I disagree. I think purpose is a construct of the human mind that super imposes on things as they actually are which have no inherent reason to be extracted.
Quote: › Man is part of nature because he himself has a meaning a purpose (again, it has a meaning, one meaning). It is because he has meaning that he is part of nature, that is what ties him with nature, his mind however, the analitical process or discursive manner of the mind sets him apart in nature. Right from the middleages (perhaps even before) a man is an animal (a part of nature) only because he has the same essential deffinition of everything else that is natural, because he has one meaning or purpose. But that is not what makes him different, it is his rational side that puts him on the top of nature, that is to say with the ability to read nature from above looking down.
(1) man does not inherently have 'one purpose' because of your logical deductions, especially if you disagree with teh first premise
(2) I dont see how rationalit puts one 'one top, from above looking down:' its an extremely effective tool but do you think that somehwo reason is the one thing NOT part of nature?
I dont see how you never think of the idea that this whole 'ascribing of purpose to everything' is falling in the pit of Because & Reason you mention later....
Quote: › When one accepts the Law and the word, and one's will is to understand the last word (truly, a beautiful analogy, it IS the last word/barrier!) Nature can not, and is not, defined by the idea of one-sense, of one-meaning, of one-god (picture god as the point in the painting where all the tendencies and distances meet, the focal point), also it is not defined by the idea of no-sense, no-meaning and no-god. Rather by the idea of infinite-sense, infinite-meaning, infinite-gods.
You make the presumption that all human wills are to 'understand the last word.'
Quote: › That which is infinite is not restricted, no barrier can keep him in limitation, therefore I am, becomes I am and am not, that is to say, the space between me and you is also me and you. It presents itself, this conceptual conversion, in the form of a different view point, reality is a dance of destruction and creation, the death of millions of cells makes me live, but it trascends even that, there is "no self/infinite self" is not only to be seen, or desired, as "we can all get along just fine, plenty for all", but also as state where there is no difference (no good or evil).
Youre talking about 0, but 2 has some validity to it as well; in fact its even been written that 0=2...
Quote: › To be with the Will, to be the Will, is to stop being so that the Will can be. And "be" or "being" here is not used as in a static sense, but at the same time movement and no-movement makes no difference in this level. In order to stop being the self must die, with it all notion of good and evil, of must or shall, all impressions of what is lovely and what is to be hated, all of it.
Generally, I totally agree. The conscious self is a gigantic block to the natural will, but I dont think it consists in killing the self, trampling on its corpse and declaring victory. It is more of a process of killing the self, seeing it is not king in the kingdom (as tehre is a whole sphere of unconscious contents it has zero power over), then reintegrating the conscious self in a more harmonious way, i.e. to facilitate and not thwart the Will that emanates naturally.
Quote: › To put it bluntly, if the idea of someone dying or killing someone scares you, makes you feel disgusted, there's some "self" still and it has to go. All that remains then is the Will. That's why any and all debates on a thelemic society and thelemic ruling comes always to a barrier, because society is a linguistic phenomenon and the Will is not.
And also because many Thelemites also cling to their morals and react emotionally against people who challenge them. Ironic but true.
I think you go the mystical route, i.e. the self is only a barrier to that Will, btu I think you need to balance it frmo the magical standpoint: i.e. teh conscious complex of the self is rightful vehicle of that Will so it should be fortified and understood, not simply annihiliated. The world of duality is also a 'valid' place just as the world of 'the infinite' transcending opposites that you speak of.
Quote: › As I said, I tried.
93/93
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
asclepio |
|
|
Post subject: Re: Nature, Will, sense and the hounds of reason
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 06:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 21, 2006
Posts: 164
Status: Offline
|
|
Aum418,
There seems to be some misunderstanding, you don't agree on the matter of meaning and nature... of course you don't, no thelemite would, or should, agree, I'm not saying it's true, on the contrary, I'm giving a short version of what the typical western mind thought of nature, from Plato until Nietzsche and Heidegger. Of course you don't agree with:
Quote: › Quote: › To the western mind then Nature is sense. The sense, the purpose or meaning of a thing lies in the thing itself.
I disagree. I think purpose is a construct of the human mind that super imposes on things as they actually are which have no inherent reason to be extracted.
You think it's a construct, you and me both, then why state the contrary? because a big part of the western culture still believes in that, and since a lot of the members on this forum are part of that culture, sometimes they're respone and attitude correspond to that believe.
I think that explains the misunderstanding. That's why you can't understand this:
Quote: › I dont see how you never think of the idea that this whole 'ascribing of purpose to everything' is falling in the pit of Because & Reason you mention later....
Exactly my point, as mentioned earlier, that's a world-view that is very popular in the west, that doesn't mean is absolute truth, nor does it mean that you (as a westener) believe it, or me, or a lot of people, but still is the predominante world-view in the west. Hopefuly that will clear the air.
93/93 |
_________________
I:30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.
http://stores.lulu.com/ohem
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 28° 
: 
in 5° 
: Anno IVxvii 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
