From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2024-04-19, D  wrote:   
      
   >> This here Beatles fan doesn't care too  much for   
   >> money, 'cuz money can't buy him love.   
   >   
   > Not even in a bunny farm in Nevada?   
      
   I never considered looking elsewhere after noting not   
   being able to buy it from Amazon.   
      
   > Yes and no. I'd say that that is one interpretation. I   
   > think you can read Nietzsche as an atheist, as an   
   > existentialist but I think also, that he is somehow   
   > trying to "purify" christianity a bit. Let me finish The   
   > Anti-christ, and I'll get back to you on the subject. Let's   
   > just say that his style of writing often makes it far from   
   > clear what he is getting at.   
      
   If I ever read him, I'm going to identify vimist!   
      
   >> What comes to mind is that, to my way of thinking,   
   >> teachings often (always?) have an exoteric aspect,   
   >> and an esoteric aspect. The former might be thought   
   >> of as preparatory material/exercises for new(er)comers,   
   >> eventually making the latter accessible to those who really   
   >> given it a genuine chance. Coming to the latter without   
   >> having endured the former is akin to an infant eating meat,   
   >> being exposed to a speech on spirituality, etc.   
   >   
   > I don't know. I think his critique is about the exoteric   
   > side, ossifying and becoming something else not originally   
   > intended. For me, the esoteric side can only be experienced   
   > subjectively, and today, in most mainstream religions,   
   > due to ossification, there is no longer any connection   
   > between the exoteric and esoteric.   
      
   That sounds reasonable, possibly explaining how unearthing   
   buried treasure therein in my journey benefited from   
   teachings from other traditions "jostling the ground" a   
   bit by seemingly presenting similar concepts differently -   
   as though similar but not identical frequencies, such that   
   putting them near each other led to a pulsing of greater   
   and lesser peaks/valleys of constructive/destructive   
   interference of overlapping waves.... :-)   
      
   > Yes. And also keep in mind that it is your understanding   
   > based on your unique experience and challenges in life. So   
   > that would mean very little for a chinese guy working in   
   > a pet shop. And likewise his understanding on the dao de   
   > ching would probably mean equally little to you. There   
   > is of course a "human" layer in terms of having parents,   
   > birth, death etc.  that we all have in common, but I   
   > doubt that that is enough building material for deep,   
   > spiritual insights.   
      
   Or there's one thing that is no thing pretending to be   
   lots of things to a pretend thing it called "I" - which   
   inter-relationships/arrangement somehow gets lost in the   
   pretense aka magic aka dream that the mess of things   
   called "life" is but!   
      
   >> There's also the difference between a purely   
   >> mental/conceptual approach, and actually *trying*   
   >> the teachings. The former might be likened to an empty   
   >> styrofoam cup; the latter, a bottle of properly aged   
   >> distillate from fine raw materials.   
   >   
   > Are you thinking something along the lines of reading   
   > about meditation vs actually meditating?   
      
   Yes!   
      
   >> In that context, I can't be satisfied with a mere   
   >> surface exploration: me gots to do it to feel qualified   
   >> to evaluate.   
   >   
   > True. Sometimes I've played around with a pragmatic   
   > definition of religion, as in, does it make me a better   
   > human being? If yes, then why not. However... in terms   
   > of a formalized religion, for me, without belief, it just   
   > becomes unconvincing acting, so from that point of view,   
   > the pragmatic approach collapses. That in turn, leads me   
   > to the philosophical way where I "deconstruct" the religion   
   > into rules/aphorisms/life lessons, and I ground them in my   
   > values, and if they correspond, then at least I can say   
   > _without acting_ that yes, there seems to be some sense   
   > in that and I can respect the rule.   
      
   You've definitely a "how to live better" book in you!   
      
   > But dogma, angels, saints, the entire theology and   
   > super-natural stuff, I've never been able to reconcile   
   > that with any behaviour on my side, since to me, that has   
   > always seemed like childrens stories.   
      
      
   Well? There are children, right? And there are many adults   
   whose mind/intellect is essentially childlike, right? Who's   
   to say such wasn't included to "reach" them?   
      
      
   I think all of it has numerous meanings depending on the   
   context a mind brings to them. My context was somewhat   
   captured in a paragraph above, which I'll repeat so   
   the reader doesn't have to dig for it:   
      
   --------------------------------------------------------   
   Or there's one thing that is no thing pretending to be   
   lots of things to a pretend thing it called "I" - which   
   inter-relationships/arrangement somehow gets lost in the   
   pretense aka magic aka dream that the mess of things   
   called "life" is but!   
   --------------------------------------------------------   
      
   To/for me, that context brings a whole lot of bible   
   and Hindu and Buddhist material to a certain kind of   
   explanatory life.   
      
   > Yes, it does sound pretty plausible, doesn't it? I'm   
   > of the opinion that mathematics, "truth", morals   
   > etc. does not exists in "the world" but only exists   
   > when information is processed by a conscious mind and   
   > generates some kind of output. Science can only describe   
   > the world, but it can never give us the values we use to   
   > decide how science should be used. It's just a tool. Now   
   > those values can either be created by humans according to   
   > rational principles, or be "given" to humans as revelation.   
   > I think that the "given" approach was apropriate for the   
   > childhood of humanity, where a man in the sky just said   
   > "this is how it is", but that we now, no longer believe   
   > in the "man" and realize that it is up to us.   
   >   
   > For some, that is a shock, and a huge pain in the soul,   
   > and they are not ready to accept that responsibility. To   
   > others, philosophers, humanists etc. it is a challenge   
   > and they have been hard at work for centuries already.   
      
   Put that in the book too. :-)   
      
   I'm not much interested in wisdom for living, because it   
   seems more a nightmare to be unseen as such, which to my   
   way of thinking would render wisdom to endure whatever it   
   is unnecessary.   
      
   > Awareness becoming aware of itself. That should lead to an   
   > eternal loop in a computer program, but somehow it seems   
   > as if we're able to snap out of it! ;)   
      
   Awareness aware of awareness is turning away   
   from the shadows-enlivened cave wall of mind /   
   representation. "Snap[ing] out of it" (i.e. out of   
   having turned away) is turning back for another round   
   of illusion/delusion.   
      
   > Jaspers is tricky, since he places meaning in beyond the   
   > world, his philosophy becomes more of (in my opinion)   
   > an example of _his journey_ rather than a map for people   
   > to follow.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)