Skip navigation

The factor in human life provocative of a noble discontent is the gradual emergence into prominence of a sense of criticism, founded upon appreciations of beauty, and of intellectual distinction, and of duty. The moral element is derivative from the other factors in experience. For otherwise there is no content for duty to operate upon. There can be no mere morality in a vacuum. Thus the primary factors in experience are first the animal passions such as love, sympathy, ferocity, together with analogous appetitions and satisfactions; and secondly, the more distinctly human experiences of beauty, and of intellectual fineness, consciously enjoyed. Here the notion of intellectual distinction, or of fineness, is somewhat broader than that of ‘truth’, which is ordinarily cited in this connection. There is a grandeur of achievement in the delicate adjustment of thought to thought, which is independent of the mere blunt question of truth. We may term it ‘beauty’. But intellectual beauty, however capable of being hymned in terms relevant to sensible beauty, is yet beautiful by stretch of metaphor. The same consideration applies to moral beauty. All three types of character partake in the highest ideal of satisfaction possible for actual realization, and in this sense can be termed that beauty which provides the final contentment for the Eros of the Universe. 

P.11 Adventure of Ideas, Whitehead

Advertisements

…But wisdom is persistent pursuit of the deeper understanding, ever confronting intellectual system with the importance of its omissions. 

Whitehead, adventure of ideas, p. 47

Truth leads to Untruth, Untruth leads to Truth.

The path and way of being, particularly human being, flows like this.
This is one of the most general notions that can be spoken about the Essence and Destiny of Man.

Truth leads to Untruth, Untruth to Truth.

Man is that organic process, that creatively ordered flux.

Man stands before the Cosmos a small frail being. Its incomprehensibility equal to its spatial scope. He almost drowns in the abyss of the Unknown.
Yet in the depths of this incomprehensible blackness, a light emerges.

Consciousness born. Man’s essence, like the tree, who rises and strives towards Sol, Man reaches for the light in Mind. And as the tree does not only rise up, so does it also descend.

And just as the seed had to incubate in the darkness before it could sprout, so Man also.

Being at one with the heights and the depths. Being at home in them and also a home for them.

Man, fearless only when he grasps his own oblivion.

For a dawn grows out from every darkness.
And Man is that Dawning.

Man is forever a Dawn and a dawning. And it takes time for this to dawn upon him.

solitudinus

…Obviously, the negative inner image can also be suppressed and projected outward. That is, one can project one’s own moral problem–as usual–onto another person. As soon as this does not happen and one confronts one’s own problem, the projection is withdrawn and the actual image of the Other becomes visible.

– Neumann (Jacob and Esau, p.18)

Lament

No permanence is ours; we are a wave
That flows to fit whatever form it finds:
Through day or night, cathedral or the cave
We pass forever, craving form that binds.

Mold after mold we fill and never rest,
We find no home where joy or grief runs deep.
We move, we are the everlasting guest.
No field nor plow is ours; we do not reap.

What God would make of us remains unknown:
He plays; We are the clay to his desire.
Plastic and mute, we neither laugh nor groan;
He kneads, but never gives us to the fire.

To stiffen into stone, to persevere!
We long forever for the right to stay.
But all that ever stays with us is fear,
And we shall never rest upon our way.

– Hesse

I’ve been thinking about confidence lately. And how the ladies like or are more turned on by a confident man. But if self doubt is necessary for the striving for Truth and living of our individual truth then self-confidence, especially too much of it, is the opposite of truth seeking and can be considered a form of violence and death.

I had a dream recently, and it was about Love. I was with a girl and we were going around doing things and hanging out. But when it came to the end of the dream, a song by Meat Loaf popped up and I sang this:

I would do anything for Love,
O I would do anything for Love!
But I won’t do that,
No, I won’t do that.

Hopefully, by the time you finish reading this you will understand the purpose of this dream. And what it means for me and all of us.

“…in order to understand ourselves we need a great deal of humility. If you start by saying, `I know myself’, you have already stopped learning about yourself; or if you say, `There is nothing much to learn about myself because I am just a bundle of memories, ideas, experiences and traditions’, then you have also stopped learning about yourself. The moment you have achieved anything you cease to have that quality of innocence and humility; the moment you have a conclusion or start examining from knowledge, you are finished, for then you are translating every living thing in terms of the old. Whereas if you have no foothold, if there is no certainty, no achievement, there is freedom to look, to achieve. And when you look with freedom it is always new. A confident man is a dead human being.”
– J.Krishnamurti (Freedom from the Known)

So, in regards to dating Women; What is the Man, who doesn’t want to be a dead human being, to do?

Can he really be with a Woman of today, if she is like this? That is to say, who looks specifically for a Man, who, being confident, merely fits into his society and so is never truly free? And who, if she doesn’t, herself, acknowledge that she is projecting from knowledge and conclusions, can therefore be considered not free and also then, not helpful in regards to Humanities higher purpose or calling?

For if the higher purpose of Humanity, is to “Know Thyself”, and if knowing thyself requires one to admit that we do not know ourselves…then what is the “new” Man, or “Present” Man to do? (Present, is here being taken as “on time”, or aware of Humanities new situation)

What can we say about Women, who, being stuck in the past, and not present, because they want a “confident” man, i.e. want a Man who makes them feel secure and safe. To help make them feel confident through his confidence. What can we say about Women, who want a Man who is certain of himself? Who themselves want comfort and security over the Truth, and the striving for it?

Can we ask this? Can Women acknowledge the new situation and properly step up to the plate? Are we “Men” forever having to give in to, what could be called–which I would prefer not to have to say–the “weakness” of Woman?

Can women face the uncomfortableness of truth, or will they always want to feel secure and therefore shun it? For if, as wisdom says, Happiness comes from within not without, then how can woman, consciously, seek a partner who will hide them from the truth and allow them to live an illusion?

I mean, if this is the “new” situation; that we have to be lacking in certainty, to be full of self-doubt, or rather, to maintain that innocence of the child; who is open to anything because he never thinks he actually knows for sure; confidently.

Am I missing the proper understanding of Confidence? Is there something that is hidden from me in regards to Woman? Supposedly, she, wants to be free and treated more equally. Well, if that is the case, and Women have a “new” demand based on their “new” situation. Then so do we Men, now have a “demand”, which really isn’t “our” demand but one based on the Truth. That we need you to work with us. That if you want to be “equal”, that you too have to change and adapt and strive for truth. That you too, have to share the weight and burden of “not knowing”, of uncertainty. That you, can no longer shift the responsibility onto us. Can no longer judge us from the past and what you have concluded is being “confident”.

In the past, you were sheltered by the Patriarchal. And this sheltering, that allowed you to remain freer from hardship, has also held you down. The situation has changed. And what once was helpful, to both Men and Women, has now been stifling you. And you, in your turn, being more reactive than responsive, have contributed to the disruption of the Family. Of the foundation of relationship between the sexes and therefore, also, within all Relationship. We, too, have not been very helpful. We also reacted to your reaction instead of responding. We are both at fault and yet, we are both free from blame. For, we both, do not know. And we both, are having issues coming to terms with the new situation. With having to forego a “foothold”. To having to be open and think and feel anew in every moment. For, just because someone says something or does something, that in the past, hurt us, does not mean that it should in this new moment. That just because I feel a certain way doesn’t mean that my feeling is a proper response to the new situation. And this also applies to Thinking, that just because, what I see, looks similar enough to a previous situation does not mean that I can, without re-thinking or re-looking, assume a conclusion or apply a solution that I have had or used before.

In this sense, the desire for security, comfort; a safe haven, as J.Krishnamurti would say, is precisely what keeps us from the Truth, and from real relationship. We conform or run away. We keep things easy and light. We are afraid and we won’t face the fear. It is easy to judge and then run. It is hard to maintain uncertainty and meet each person and situation fresh, anew, free from past conclusions and ideas.

This has to be done together. I can’t stress this enough. I am not capable of always and forever maintaining the tension that creates the freedom to look, with living eyes, into every new situation and moment. Maybe I didn’t get enough sleep or maybe, for you, it is that time of the month.

Part of Relationship is to help each other “Know Thyself” and to understand what “self-knowledge” really means: That we “do not know”. That I am, we are, changeable, within a continuum of constantly changing relationships. And through this continuum of change within relationship we have to acknowledge each other and all of our relationships.

Our relationship with the Whole; the Universe, which we seem to have named God, or Cosmic Spirit. With each other. With our own selves. With Ideas.

But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps this is merely the end of a previous situation and relationship. Perhaps there has finally been a revolution and this scribbling signifies my resultant liberation. Regardless, the point was to make you think, as this dilemma has made me think.

solitudinus

d) The correct condition of the ψυχή  as presupposition for genuine λόγος (διαλέγεσθαι).

To summarize, λόγος [speech], in its genuine function, is founded on dialectic. But, at the same time, we see that λέγειν [to speak], if it is living speech–living in the sense that it lets others see–necessarily presupposes a readiness to see on the part of the ψυχή [soul] of those others. Yet, on the other hand, in fact most men do not possess this readiness, and διαλέγεσθαι [discussing], as Plato says explicitly in the Phaedrus, is a πραγματεία [task] (cf. 273e5), a real labor and not something befalling a person by chance. To that extent, a special task and a special kind of speaking are necessary in the first place, in order to develop this readiness to see on the part of the very one who is investigating and also on the part of the other, the one to whom something is to be communicated. Therefore everything depends on this, that the ψυχή, the inner comportment, the Being of the existence of man, lies in the correct condition with regard to the world and to itself, i.e., in the correct συμμετρία, in an adequacy to the things themselves which are to be grasped in their uncoveredness. Socrates summarizes this once more at the end of the Phaedrus, now specifically not in a theoretical explication but in an invocation of the gods. ”O dear Pan and all ye gods here”-Socrates is outdoors with Phaedrus, beyond the city-“grant it to me to become beautiful” (καλός is nothing else than the opposite of αἰσχρός, ugliness, and signifies συμμετρία versus άμετρία, the proper adequacy versus inadequacy) “ grant it to me to become beautiful, to come into the correct condition in relation to what is in myself, what comes from the inside, and grant that whatever I possess extrinsically may be a friend to what is inner, and grant that l repute as rich the one who is wise, i.e., the one who is concerned with the disclosure of things, the disclosure of beings, and grant that to me the amount of gold, the quantity of treasure, I possess in this world will have for me as much value, and that I will claim for it only as much value, as a man of understanding should claim.”(279b8-c3).  That is, he beseeches here specifically for this correct condition with regard to the things themselves, and at the same time also for the correct bounds. Thus nothing in excess, for that could again turn into ignorance and barbarism…

Heidegger (Plato’s Sophist, p.240-241)

4. The proximity to beings, as this is claimed for the second stage, has Still another Characteristic result: ὁ πρὁς μᾶλλον ὄντα τετραμμένος. ‘Whoever [like the former prisoner] is turned towards more beingful beings [towards what is more beingful than something else, thus to more genuine beings] sees more correctly.’ Thus ὀρθός, ὀρθότης, ‘correctness’ [Richtigkeit] crops up, and indeed in the comparative, in an intensification: there are gradations. The correctness of seeing and viewing things, and thus of definition and assertion, is grounded in the particular manner of orientation and proximity to beings, i.e. in the way in which beings are in each case unhidden. Truth as correctness is grounded in truth as unhiddenness. We now see for the first time, albeit only roughly, a connection between the two forms of essence (concepts of truth), which at the beginning we only considered separately and stood alongside one another. Truth as correctness of assertion is quite impossible without truth as the unhiddenness of beings. For that to which the assertion must direct itself, in order to be correct, must already be unhidden. So if one takes the essence of truth exclusively as correctness of assertion, one betrays a complete lack of understanding. Not only does one stand before a derivative concept of truth, but, because one does not see the origin of this derivative concept, one calls upon a half-measure, which does not become full by everyone going along with it. On the other hand, one will only be able to grasp the essence and specific necessity of this derivative form of truth, truth as correctness, if truth qua unhiddenness is explained and its necessity grounded; that is, if one can clarify both the origin and the derivation. This is indicated by Plato’s clear and simple statement: whoever is turned towards the more beingful beings, sees and talks more correctly’. This is a decisive step towards solving the problem of the relationship between the two concepts of truth.

-Heidegger (the Essence of Truth, p. 29-30)

8. Removal of the shackles is thus not genuine emancipation, for it remains external and fails to penetrate to man in his ownmost self. The circumstances of the prisoner change, but his inner condition, his willing [WolIen], does not. The released prisoner does indeed will, but he wills to return to his shackles. Thus willing, he wills not-willing: he does not want to be involved himself. He avoids and shrinks back from the demand to fully give up his previous situation. He is also a long way from understanding that man truly is only in so far as he demands this of himself.

The second stage ends with this thwarted emancipation. The emancipation fails because the one to be freed does not understand it.

Liberation is only genuine when he who is liberated thereby becomes free for himself, i.e. comes to stand in the ground of his essence.

-Heidegger (The Essence of Truth: Plato’s Cave Allegory and Theaetetus, p. 31-32)

The disillusioning effect of the encounter with one’s own shadow, the unconscious negative part of the personality, is always to be found in cases where the ego has lived in identification with the persona and the collective values of the period. That is why this encounter is, as a rule, particularly severe and difficult for the extravert, since by nature he has less insight into his subjectivity than the introvert. The naive self- illusion of the ego, which has more or less identified itself with everything good and fine, receives a severe shock, and the undermining of this position forms the essential content of the first phase of the analysis.

-Erich Neumann (Depth Psychology and a new Ethic, p.78)

 

Responsibility for the group presupposes a personality which has become conscious of its shadow problem, and which has come to grips with this problem with all the forces at its disposal. The individual must work through his own basic moral problem before he is in a position to play a responsible part in the collective. The realisation of one’s own imperfection which is involved in the acceptance of the shadow is a hard task in which the individual is required to free himself from the absolutism of his pleromatic fixation as well as from his identification with collective values.

-Erich Neumann (Depth Psychology and a New Ethic, p.93-4)