Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Questions: Self-Actualization

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14596
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:12 pm

Our anti-Nihilistic war must begin on the battlefield where Nihilism emerges as a plausible option, using the Nihilistic weaponry: words, language, abstraction detached from experience, resulting in an in-congruence between the real and the ideal so extreme as to result in a psychotic schism.

We will become its antithesis; the negation of negation.
Words, referring to abstractions, attaching to empiricism, to reality, to sensual experience.
The word, symbolizing the abstraction (noumenon) must be reattached to the phenomenon, to whatever degree it can.
Words, referring to concepts, such as love, human, equality, morality, must be given a pragmatic utility, and a reference in the empirical, the natural - because nature is always perceived as a looking back, and the perception of patterns. the deeper back one goes to sample samples the more concrete the awareness of the past becomes.

If the concept cannot be attached to anything real, (empirical, sensually experienced, objective), then it must be abandoned as a purely human construct - pure self-referential subjectivity, undisturbed by anything real.
And of the concepts already being detached from reality, in Modern systems, a process of reattachment must become our resistance to the nihilistic trend.

Harvie, Ferguson wrote:
System and existence cannot be merged: ‘system and conclusiveness correspond to each other, but existence is the very opposite…. Existence is the spacing that holds apart; the systematic is the conclusiveness that combines.’17

The incompleteness of existence cannot be properly represented, far less explained, as a ‘category’ within any system. The modern idea of reason has traversed an enormous distance from Descartes to Hegel, yet the speculative system is immanent in its birth as a project of ‘pure’ thought. The ideal of detachment, objectivity and logical coherence ends in a formalism which cannot even mirror the world from which it has detached itself. Even so, non-existent illusion that it is, the system has come to disguise and dominate people’s conceptions of themselves, unnecessarily constraining the possibilities of actuality left open to them. Johannes draws attention to this false idealism which the Enlightenment has bequeathed to the contemporary world:

To be a human being has been abolished, and every speculative thinker
confuses himself with humankind, whereby he becomes something
infinitely great and nothing at all.
(Postscript, p. 124)

If Christianity is made an ‘object of knowledge’ and part, therefore, of an ‘external’ reality, it is destroyed. And to approach it ‘religiously’ in this light is even more fundamentally mistaken: ‘an objective acceptance of Christianity (sit venia verbo) is paganism or thoughtlessness’.18 Christianity is not an ‘object’ which, external to the subject, can be known in its detachment, it is not a ‘thing’ which can be understood in that way at all:

Christianity, therefore, protests against all objectivity; it wants the subject
to be infinitely concerned about himself. What it asks about is the
subjectivity; the truth of Christianity, if it is at all, is only in this;
objectively, it is not at all.
(Postscript, p. 130)

Christianity is wholly inward; all its apparently outward forms are no more than attempts at indirect communication—attempts which have themselves been absorbed into a historical process through which they become misrepresented as authoritative statements.        

Harvie, Ferguson wrote:
The self’s encounter with the absolute is a process of existential reflection, rather than thought reflection. But reflection requires a mirror, a reflecting surface upon which the subject can focus the self. This is, from a psychological viewpoint, just the meaning of the ‘sign of contradiction’. A contradiction ‘attracts attention’ to itself:

There is a something that makes it impossible not to look—and look, as
one is looking one sees as in a mirror, one comes to see oneself…. A
contradiction placed squarely in front of a person…is a mirror.
(Practice, pp. 126–7)

The metaphor of the mirror is both instructive and potentially misleading. In medieval theology the metaphor of the mirror had stood for the central location of man in the divine cosmological plan. In the human soul was a model of the entire cosmic structure which man, as a microcosm, reflected internally. But Anti-Climacus has a very different notion of ‘reflection’ here. His is a religion of ‘hidden inwardness’ in a cosmos from which the human subject has become detached. There is no longer any separation between the mirror, the observer and the reflection. The peculiar uniformity and dullness of the modern world is here given a specifically religious development; the ‘compressed’ subjectivity of melancholy is rediscovered in the most ‘advanced’ of the pseudonyms. Anti- Climacus expresses the notion in the language of Either. ‘The contradiction confronts him with a choice, and as he is choosing, together with what he chooses, he himself is disclosed.’

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Fri Jan 02, 2015 5:37 am

Satyr wrote:
Codes is also what Nietzsche used...that Oracle-like method, which Christianity adopted and applied in the Bible.

Then let us clarify...simplify.
To speak clearly in a world dominated by slaves and the control of slaves whoa re now convinced of being masters of their own destiny, is to be expected.
I often speak of parasitism.

In a world that punishes divergence, while professing to be pro individuality, it is best to wear the skins and the smells and the ho9rns of those one depends upon for nutrition.

There is no shame in this.

But when dealing with your own kind, it is noble to speak clearly, simply and directly...like a man.
Obfuscating and clouding your words in rhetoric with no substance is to pretend that you understand more than you actually do.
The world is full of this pretense, making knowledge a synonym with understanding.

Remember the laconic decree which simplified an entire mindset down to three basic tenets:
Know thyself
and
Nothing in Excess
and
Make a pledge and mischief is nigh

The third of which has little application in a world with no responsibilities and no honor.
The entire code of conduct of Apollo is contained in these three pledges.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :
Delphic Maxim 19. Do not use an oath (Ορκω μη χρω)

How do you differentiate oaths and pledges, and why are they to be avoided?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Mon May 04, 2015 8:53 am

Someone on this forum recently asked me about standards.

Firstly, take the three prevalent sayings on this forum: know thyself, live lightly and nothing in excess.

Knowing oneself is a process, where a standard comes in related to that, is to be as honest as possible with oneself. When speaking to others honesty isn't always necessary though. It depends on the people and the context. In an environment where one is anonymous, for example, to lie to others is essentially to lie to oneself, because there could be no repercussions for telling the truth nor rewards for lying beyond what repercussions and rewards one basically would inflict on oneself through one's insecurities.

The other two sayings essentially express the same thing as each other. But, I use the two sayings slightly diffetrently to place a different emphasis on the general notion they both carry. To live lightly, is certainly to live without excess, but when I think of living lightly I mostly think in terms of avoiding exess specifically related to possessions and responsibilities. One may carefully discriminate what possessions one decides to keep or acquire, and what responsibilities that one continues to attempt to fulfill or decides to take on.

When I think of the saying, nothing in excess, I mostly think in terms of recurring cycles of activity. There are things that one does a reasonably predictable amount of time each day, week, month or year, but with that saying in mind one's standard may be to spread them out, rather than to do one excessively, then another, and so on. So for example, a habit regarding physical exercise may be to exercise vigorously for several months then to spend several months not exercising. A better balance is obviously desirable. So one can see how the saying, nothing in excess, doesn't just refer to not doing something too much in general, but not doing too much at once, even if the net amount of activity will be the same.

The creative cycle as I understand it so far is basically; first acquiring information from one's environment (reading, observing, listening to words, music, etc.), passively digesting the information (boredom), actively digesting it (contemplation), then finally, expression in a variety of forms. One may try to avoid excess in any stage of the cycle, and rather attempt to let it flow as it's natural to do so. So one may try not to take in more information than one can at one time (over reading, for example); not to spend to much time being passive, which will eventually lead to mental and physical decline; not to spend too much time in contemplation, something which may lead to internal stress that manifests itself through one's physical health; and not to try to make something of nothing, meaning not to express oneself, when there is little left to express for the time being.

So one can see how one may set a standard of avoiding excessively doing something (nothing in excess) and taking on more burden than what may likely be useful for one's betterment (live lightly).

This all relates to the notion of power or becoming. One gains power by understanding oneself, by becoming more whole, a more distinguishes entity amidst others. One further gains power by taking the pattern which is the distinguished entity which one is, and increasing it's complexity, efficiency, and size. For example, an entity may grow bigger, but keep it's original pattern [I originally accidentally wrote strength], and at least initially that will be an increase of power. But, if a larger entity consumes a smaller entity, the smaller entity is not more powerful despite now being part of something larger, because it will have lost it's pattern or what distinguishes it.

When one understands the above one understand why it's important to avoid certain responsibilities, and to avoid owning more possessions than one can properly use in one's pursuit of power.

Relationships between people create responsibilities. Clearly, one would expect a relationship to be gainful for oneself, and if the other is not someone of low esteem, one would not want to simply use him crassly then forget, rather one would set a standard of conduct regarding him or her, such as making an effort to properly reciprocate what is gained. So for people of high quality, a standard may be to be consistent with them, to not ask too much at one time, nor to ask more than he can, or has reason to, give. And to be honest with them, to expose more of one's being to him, assuming that one would best gain from him having his being more honestly exposed as well.

So we see how commonly spoken of standards of conduct may best be used. Not to attempt the futile and defeating task of applying the same standards universally to all people, but to discriminate how one uses them. So for some people, the utmost, honesty/transparency/integrity, decency, kindness, earnestness, willingness to go out of one's way, is necessary; and it's further necessary to be careful about making excessive commitments, and to honor all commitment or promises previously made.

Then one may treat lesser people differently. Not in a base way, but in a way that one could say that they almost, in their very being, expect. For example, if another is an imbecilic but and honest imbecile, one would use them to one's advantage, but not try to use deceit in the effort, but simply let any lopsidedness of the exchange be due simply to the other's inability to understand it. But, when referring to dishonest people, whether they be actively dishonest, or passively dishonest due to an internal dissociation (delusion), one may treat them accordingly to how they treat oneself.

Developing standards is always a work in progress, but one can see how the three major saying of this forum, know thyself, live lightly, and nothing in excess, and the metaphysics of being and power are useful in that process.


Last edited by Stuart- on Thu May 07, 2015 7:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kovacs



Gender : Male Posts : 62
Join date : 2014-03-09
Location : Yes

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Mon May 04, 2015 2:02 pm

Stuart- wrote:
Someone on this forum recently asked me about standards.

Firstly, take the three prevalent sayings on this forum: know thyself, live lightly and nothing in excess.

Knowing oneself is a process, where a standard comes in related to that, is to be as honest as possible with oneself.
Is it a matter of communication coupled with introspection?  When one is honest with X, usually it is another person.   Here one is to be honest with oneself, hence I moved to communication.  Honesty is often seen as relaying correct information - about what one thinks and feels.   So communicating this stuff to oneself.
Or being willing to actually experience what is there, presumably: to notice it, accept that it currently is there, whatever it is.   So I mention introspection.   Is it only through introspection one finds out what is there and is then honest with the fruits of this introspection?   How does one deal with the incredible fallibility of introspection? (I did notice your 'as honest as possible') Not the same issue as this is around the issue of the nature of things one can contact via introspection - the flitting thoughts and feelings that are egodystonic, for example.   As long as they are 'inside' cut off from expression, can one see them as they are?   These latter issues are what led me to ask about introspection and if there are other methods involved in this honest self-relation. If you, Stuart, have other methods. And I am the one who used the word introspection. Perhaps that was off. Let me know.

To jump laterally, but relevently: what have you noticed about the way in which your values affect what you can see in yourself and how what is seen seems?  Or to put it another way: we have great creativity in the creation of an internal judge.   We need not have morals in any conventional sense, certainly without a deity or religion it is still possible to find on the top, so to speak, a process that inhibits the ability to even notice portions of the self, let alone realize what they actually are as they dart into the spotlight and dart away again.  How does not know how small the little 'i' is that has taken over?   Thinking, I suppose, in gurdjieffian metaphors.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14596
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Mon May 04, 2015 2:45 pm

Stuart- wrote:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :
Delphic Maxim 19. Do not use an oath (Ορκω μη χρω)

How do you differentiate oaths and pledges, and why are they to be avoided?

The emphasis on the "use".
Do not use an oath.
Take an oath, do not use it to convince.
Akin to the Christian "Do not take the Lord's name in vain"...as in do not be careless with the sacred.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Wed May 06, 2015 12:59 am

Hi Kovacs,

You ask a lot of interesting questions, that may be partially answered in the below thread I made:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At the moment I'm not ready to start exploring that subject once again, but I'll eventually get back to it and perhaps give a detailed response to your questions.

Kovacs wrote:
To jump laterally, but relevently: what have you noticed about the way in which your values affect what you can see in yourself and how what is seen seems?

Doubtlessly, there's a connection, but I can't say I'm overly aware of the process. Personally, after the long process of claiming to have very few values, which took place during the early days you knew me on the other forum, I'm still trying to develop significant amount of values, which while likely highly influenced by those here, I can actually say are entirely my own.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Moreno



Gender : Male Posts : 3
Join date : 2013-04-13
Location : Brazil

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Wed May 06, 2015 9:49 am

Stuart- wrote:
Hi Kovacs,

You ask a lot of interesting questions, that may be partially answered in the below thread I made:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At the moment I'm not ready to start exploring that subject once again, but I'll eventually get back to it and perhaps give a detailed response to your questions.
I can respond in the other thread and you can take it up if and when you want. It seems to me a critical issue as far as self-actualization. I would have moved from questions once I got a clearer sense of what you were putting forward.

Kovacs wrote:
To jump laterally, but relevently: what have you noticed about the way in which your values affect what you can see in yourself and how what is seen seems?

Quote :
Doubtlessly, there's a connection, but I can't say I'm overly aware of the process. Personally, after the long process of claiming to have very few values, which took place during the early days you knew me on the other forum, I'm still trying to develop significant amount of values, which while likely highly influenced by those here, I can actually say are entirely my own.
You can tell what your values are by noticing what you want to avoid doing and being and what you strive to do and be, even if these are not thought out. For example shame can be a metric, though clearly not the only one, and the avoidance of it or what one thinks will avoid it. I understand you are trying to work out, consciously, a set of values, but something is always in place, adjusting or striving to. Even a standard of 'nothing in excess' sets up some sort of evaluation process where one tries to measure and adjust. I was likely, though I can't be sure, going to try to tie that criterion into the issues I raised around self-knowledge. But I'll see how it goes on the other thread.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Thu May 07, 2015 7:56 pm

Satyr wrote:
Stuart- wrote:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :
Delphic Maxim 19. Do not use an oath (Ορκω μη χρω)

How do you differentiate oaths and pledges, and why are they to be avoided?

The emphasis on the "use".
Do not use an oath.
Take an oath, do not use it to convince.
Akin to the Christian "Do not take the Lord's name in vain"...as in do not be careless with the sacred.

When two noble people are discussing future events and how they'll be involved in such events, they'll take especial heed of each other's words. As you say, "when dealing with your own kind, it is noble to speak clearly, simply and directly...like a man". One will tell the other if they are uncertain about one's future actions, using words like, "may", "might", "possibly", "consider". When one believes his intentions meet a standard of certainty, he'll simply say, "I will".

Should one wish to make it clear to the other that one places his honor on doing nearly whatever it takes to complete a planned action, he might make a pledge so that the other will have little doubt how he should adjust his plans. So while one shouldn't use a pledge to basely convince others of something, all pledges still seem to be fundamentally a form of convincing.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14596
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Thu May 07, 2015 8:04 pm

A pledge is a way to self-motivate and to hold yourself accountable before other.
Using and abusing are related.

I think it means: do not say it, do it.
Do not promise it, be it.

In time you will not have to pledge to your own kind. They will know that you saying you will do something is a pledge.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Fri May 08, 2015 1:46 am

Stuart. wrote:
It seems that when a person is mature to his circumstances he has lived the type fully integrated; to have had time for thought precludes maturity.

It looks like you're saying that one cannot think while going through maturity because lack of development and its constraint on time prevents thought. And that is why you go on to ask...

Stuart. wrote:
To be self-thought and mature while still under forty, how is this possible?

In the previous statement, you're implying, based on "to have had time for thought" meaning, you don't have time for thought while maturing because if you did, it would negate maturity. In this next line (your question), if one is already mature, then it is a given that self-thinking is possible. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible here? Am I seeing this correctly?
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14596
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Fri May 08, 2015 8:54 am

All consciousness is a looking back.
To be introspective is to be looking back to what has already occurred.

At first your (re)actions are spontaneous; they are automatic, following the genetic code, impulse.

As one grows older what is past increases, adding to the inherited memory of genetic code.
Experience is this addition.
With experience, and a honest, evaluation of it, the mind begins to know self, in relation to the environment.
To know self does not mean one understands self. To understand is to know and find patterns in this knowledge.
The pattern is the essence of you.

Understanding self is to begin to have a willful control over self.

As one gets older the mind has more data to perceive the pattern.

To have experiences does not mean that you will know yourself through those experiences.
Each experience is the expression of self within an environment.
To exaggerate self, negatively or, as is most often the case, positively, corrupts the analysis.

The exaggeration is usually on the side of self,.
The individual unloads the negative upon otherness, so as top preserve the positivity he prefers to think as self.
We blame other, before we take responsibility.
Some of us never take responsibility.




_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:47 pm

Kovacs wrote:
Is it a matter of communication coupled with introspection? When one is honest with X, usually it is another person.   Here one is to be honest with oneself, hence I moved to communication.

Yes, communication with oneself.

Quote :
Honesty is often seen as relaying correct information - about what one thinks and feels.   So communicating this stuff to oneself. Or being willing to actually experience what is there, presumably: to notice it, accept that it currently is there, whatever it is.

One can be dishonest out of cowardice or stupidity. Often stupidity is largely due to cowardice.

Quote :
So I mention introspection.   Is it only through introspection one finds out what is there and is then honest with the fruits of this introspection?

One discovers self by discovering what one is not - the outside world.

Quote :
How does one deal with the incredible fallibility of introspection? (I did notice your 'as honest as possible')

It's fallible due to stupidity and/or cowardice. So one may try to decrease those attributes so that then one's predictions become probable.

Quote :
Not the same issue as this is around the issue of the nature of things one can contact via introspection - the flitting thoughts and feelings that are egodystonic, for example.   As long as they are 'inside' cut off from expression, can one see them as they are?   These latter issues are what led me to ask about introspection and if there are other methods involved in this honest self-relation. If you, Stuart, have other methods. And I am the one who used the word introspection. Perhaps that was off. Let me know.

I don't know what would be inside and entirely cut off from introspection, mentally or physically. Even our bone marrow manifests itself in that our health suffers with a lack of it.

Stuart wrote:
Kovacs wrote:
To jump laterally, but relevently: what have you noticed about the way in which your values affect what you can see in yourself and how what is seen seems?

Doubtlessly, there's a connection, but I can't say I'm overly aware of the process. Personally, after the long process of claiming to have very few values, which took place during the early days you knew me on the other forum, I'm still trying to develop significant amount of values, which while likely highly influenced by those here, I can actually say are entirely my own.

To add to that response, a person in general who has relatively obtained a large degree of self-knowledge, I believe wouldn't let his values affect to too much of an extent what he sees in himself. He largely creates his values based on what he sees in himself.

This is something I didn't mention in the above essay. The noble way to make values/standards is to aligns one's values with one's past (as one inherited it from one's ancestors and as it's manifested in one's present state). This is the way to express gratitude for one's ancestors' struggles and it'll also create a solid basis for values/standards that can therefor lead to more decisiveness and likely more power.

Kovacs wrote:
Or to put it another way: we have great creativity in the creation of an internal judge.   We need not have morals in any conventional sense, certainly without a deity or religion it is still possible to find on the top, so to speak, a process that inhibits the ability to even notice portions of the self, let alone realize what they actually are as they dart into the spotlight and dart away again.  How does not know how small the little 'i' is that has taken over?   Thinking, I suppose, in gurdjieffian metaphors.

Like I said it's a matter of intelligence and courage.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:24 pm

In the later part of A Genealogy of Morals N. says the sick seek what makes them sick, Satyr says those with no substance seek to drain those with substance. The former makes sense, in that "misery loves company", and perhaps, once at a state so far gone, a sick person's will to power would switch from that seeking health so that he may better expand upon himself in health, to being a will to sickness, so that he may better expand upon his himself as a sick person.

The latter makes sense in that I observe it as a common occurrence. But, I don't know if the later relates to the feminine seeking the masculine, nor how excess femininity, in males, relates to one who's sick or one's who lacking substance, or how sickness and lack of substance relate to each other.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2021
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:45 pm

Stuart- wrote:
the sick seek what makes them sick,

Haven't read that book but at first glance it could mean that when you are sick you want to find out about your sickness and so you look for what makes you sick; so 'seeking' in that sense.

Now, here is an observation I've made about myself when reading (listening) to Nietzsche's TSZ, some passages repeatedly - The first kind of interpretation I have for many things he says are actually more complicated, not in your face obvious;
but then,
after listening to it many times,
some very simple, obvious ways of interpreting it come up.
Usually I'd expect it to be the other way around but maybe it's because I've become blind to some obvious interpretations/way of understanding.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:42 am

I met someone online who seems to have a very noble, but simple, outlook on life and reality. He looks for quality in himself and those he surrounds himself with, advocates no political ideologies, nor has any outspoken views on what's best for the human species in general. He has simple goals, which include understanding as much of himself and reality as possible. That's basically all I know of him from the conversation I've had. I know nothing about how he managed to be in a state apparently free from the diseases of modernity. It seems he never had to struggle much against them, but was either just relatively unexposed or naturally immune to them. I don't know of any conflict and suffering, in general, that he's had in his life, and he neither speaks of academic matters nor does he seem to have much to say on philosophical, societal or physiological subjects, in general.

I question whether I have a character to match his. But, whatever character I have it came from an entirely different approach. I long thought about, and later read much about very abstract idea, as a part of my general discontent. And then while direct influence by those of high character here on this forum is largely responsible for any character that I have, it wouldn't have been possible for me to accept such influence had I not first consolidated so many of the abstract issues that had been confusing me.

What use would it be to introduce such a person to all these philosophical ideas, when often their purpose is to help one obtain the type of character that he already has, when he may simply be distracted by them as if to compel him to become a scholar rather than to simply live a more simple respectable life? Or to speak of the more pressing current events to him as if to try to give him a sense of purpose that might override the moderate, respectably light, sense of purpose he already has?

Much is spoken here of a duty to speak the truth, and to seek those who are diseased by modernism but have the potential to overcome it. Basically, to help those with potential to over come debilitating psychological effects of modernism and to help those who're delusional come to a better understanding of reality. But I don't know what duty one might have towards one who's opinions are so modest that, while perhaps failing to notice how delusional and diseased so many people are, they contain nothing that can be taken as delusional, and has no debilitation psychological effects from modernism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:34 am

Is there an end to self-knowledge or perfecting?

And if all the ideas here could be traced back to some past thinker or the other, does it mean we don't add our own expressions or stop writing at all, since everything said has already been said before?
I dont mean simple world-juggling with alternate synonyms to make it look like it were something new,,, but a 'dasein' that is peculiarly your own and weaving that with and into and out through those thinkers with your mode of being… is lending a novelty.

A mind that is already aware of the modern dis/ease, would impose on itself new tasks, new problems, raise new questions, find more efficient solutions, put forth its taste in new parameters and hierarchies that might be contestable…, testing itself again and again...  what else is growth?

No, this is an endless ocean.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:12 pm

One knows himself by what he's not, but one who defines himself by what he's not has yet to go so far as to know himself, being still so focused on what he's not. In fact maybe what happens is while trying to know himself by what he's not he becomes fixated on what he's not, and begins to resemble it.

In many cases one does find himself by seeking what he's not, but by failing, and instead seeing what he is; here his initial illusion of who he was was the very discovery of the thing he wasn't; that which allowed him to differentiate himself from it. For example, one delusionally believes he's overcome religion. This delusion of being one over religion is his actual first sight, in this context, of who he's not. Now while consciously identifying as what he delusionally thinks he's not, he has allowed himself to unconsciously see who he is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Questions: Self-Actualization

Back to top Go down
 
Questions: Self-Actualization
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» Questions: Self-Actualization
» 'Flies in winter' questions
» Questions about Atlantis and Lumuria
» Lacson questions police helicopter purchase
» Our Earthly Questions About our Heavenly Home

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: