Spiritual Reorientation 11: Fatalism

“Those who are dissatisfied with themselves are continually ready for revenge, and we others will be their victims, if only by having to endure their ugly sight.”

1.

According to the conformist spiritualities, the phenomenological world and its forms are impermanent, vanity, transitory, fleeting, empty and illusory. These ideas, however—these seemingly eternal opinions—which were developed, argued for and produced by beings within the very same fleeting and illusory world, are somehow, in a typically contradictory fashion, exempt from these conditions. How is it possible for an idea created within this empty and vain illusion, and thus, by the empty, vain and illusory beings within it, not to be empty, vain and illusory in itself? It seems that despite their intention to denounce this world as futile and illusory, they forgot to do the same to their “truths”, which they nonetheless parade about as eternal and reality. It is almost a grand comedy to watch this happen, for the very moment these ideas left their mouths, or spilled themselves on to some parchment or papyrus, is the exact same moment they refuted themselves.

This myopic idea as it has been propagated by religious rhetoric, is typical of nihilism, a recurrent yet implicit theme found among the metaphysics of commonplace spiritualities. These nihilistic conclusions are likely the result of attempting to shoehorn the world in a nutshell by the ambitious philosopher, which remain filled with preconceived worlds in which no one or no thing has ever existed, and void of any characteristics except for the imaginary properties bestowed by he who thought them up. But if we stop imagining for a second, and employ the senses that these philosophers so often disparage, these “worlds in nutshells” are simply these philosophers themselves, the only universe within which these worlds have ever seemed to exist, complete with all the furnishings and moralities conveniently provided by their biases, prejudices and partialities. No philosophy, no metaphysics, no religion, is impersonal. As such, the nihilistic ideals of impermanence, emptiness, meaninglessness, Saṃsāra, futility, maya, the transitory and suffering, are views of the world made by those who have given up on making the world beautiful, and instead have resorted to conclusion through the easy road of conjecture, and are simply disappointed with the apparent world as they have lived it so far; and rather than see and sense not only the beauty of this “illusion”, but its foul ugliness, they would rather pluck out their eyes, or at least formulate some sort of escape hatch or mechanism through which they can retreat—a high-dose of some or other narcotic, a long and lengthy nap and lullaby, a better illusion—what they call “spirituality”. We should be careful not to wake them as we pass. But, of course, they never actually do retreat, do they? I mean—there they are, front and center.

2.

Soon we will all wither away and die. But until that happens—and even at the same time—we grow and live. In the same vein, we are only impermanent insofar as we refuse to be permanent. We are only empty insofar as we refuse to be full. We are only illusory in so far as we refuse to be real.

3.

Spiritually, they say that one should accept their fate, and to accept their impermanence. They say we should not struggle, but should let it go. They tell us rather than do, we should not do. This is fatalism, and defeatism. One might wonder why they do not tell us to lie down and die next. But, as we know, to stop moving is to start dying. And, as we find, what is impermanent is their order, structures, authority and systems. What is permanent, is the chaos they all must face, the chaos we all must face, and the spiritual strength needed to continuously act within it.

a reply to: Aphorism

“Those who are dissatisfied with themselves are continually ready for revenge, and we others will be their victims, if only by having to endure their ugly sight.”

Is it revenge you seek for not finding what you seek?

Nothing is permanent but you believe in things.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Are you so dissatisfied with yourself that you must imagine yourself a nothing?

Yet a something sits on a something typing somethings to a something and it gets a response.

Why do you choose to be a nothing itsnowagain? Yet act like a something?

Is that your world in a nutshell?



I never relate to your definition of "spirituality". It always sounds more like "religion" to me.

My spirituality focuses on my ability to experience this world with my own meanings attached to it. The thing I am, the thing I sit on, the thing I am touching with my finger-things... they can have emotional meaning for me. The thing I am sitting on, that I call a chair, it has a past for me. I bought it when I was putting together my office in my first business venture. Loads of emotional memories are felt flitting through me when I see or touch it. That gives it depth- or another dimension altogether, for me. But only me. It is a subjective dimension. Therefore, a spiritual one, because it cannot be measured by instruments, no other person can bear witness to that.

My spirituality seems to increase the beauty of this world that I experience, make it a richer experience, a world of matter I do not search to avoid, or reject. On the contrary.

You seem to promote a view of the physical /material world as without any meaning. That is an intellectual exercise I can do, but not for long, my brain seems to be a meaning- creating machine, because it keeps producing emotions and memories in response to these things.

a reply to: Bluesma

It is my world in a nutshell, and so much the better. If it wasn't, then what I said in the op is false.

If you may have noticed, it is the immaterial world I have state is without meaning. Because you touch a chair does not mean it carries with it intrinsic meaning. It is you that generates the meaning, not the chair. This is painstakingly obvious by the fact that if someone else touches the chair, your meaning doesn't cross their mind. But I wrote about this already in "the meaning comes from within". It seems as if you happen to agree with my "religion", but still nonetheless repudiate it for perhaps ideological reasons, or maybe because you simply do not like it. Frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way, as to rope you into my spirituality would go against all that I've written about.

My "religion" is me, to which I am it's only advocate, priest and deity. I don't promote a point of view; I am a point of view. I am my spirituality. When I look at your spirituality, I see you. I'm glad we can keep it that way.

originally posted by: Aphorism

They say we should not struggle, but should let it go. They tell us rather than do, we should not do. This is fatalism, and defeatism.

It wasn't defeatism when Luke Skywalker 'let go' and destroyed the Deathstar. Rather than do his own shooting with his targeting computer, he let the Force shoot through him. Did he do, or did he not do? Depends on how you look at it.

The Force is of course a fictional depiction of something that is a universal common denominator in world religion and myth. Star Wars, as a modern myth, depicts it in a way modern audiences can relate to.

The world and its forms are indeed impermanent, and precious. Like a concert. Except that it hurts.

After the concert comes our wedding with eternity, and then another concert. Both are good because you can't have one without the other.

'Our death is our wedding with eternity.
What is the secret? "God is One."

The sunlight splits when entering the windows of the house.
This multiplicity exists in the cluster of grapes;

It is not in the juice made from the grapes.
For he who is living in the Light of God,

The death of the carnal soul is a blessing.
Regarding him, say neither bad nor good,

For he is gone beyond the good and the bad.
Fix your eyes on God and do not talk about what is invisible,

So that he may place another look in your eyes.
It is in the vision of the physical eyes

That no invisible or secret thing exists.
But when the eye is turned toward the Light of God

What thing could remain hidden under such a Light?
Although all lights emanate from the Divine Light

Don't call all these lights "the Light of God";
It is the eternal light which is the Light of God,

The ephemeral light is an attribute of the body and the flesh.
...Oh God who gives the grace of vision!

The bird of vision is flying towards You with the wings of desire.'

-Rumi

a reply to: BlueMule

I like what you've written.

The Force is of course a fictional depiction of something that is a universal common denominator in world religion and myth. Star Wars, as a modern myth, depicts it in a way modern audiences can relate to.

It's sad to me that we must mythologize in order to value the world; that we can only relate to story times, and not what the story is always about.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

I like what you've written.

The Force is of course a fictional depiction of something that is a universal common denominator in world religion and myth. Star Wars, as a modern myth, depicts it in a way modern audiences can relate to.

It's sad to me that we must mythologize in order to value the world; that we can only relate to story times, and not what the story is always about.

We don't mythologize in order to value the world. We mythologize because we are song birds, and mythology is the song of the universe. It comes from the same place as music, poetry, dreams, dance.

Most people see Star Wars and see only the narrative. They don't see the infranarrative. It's the same with religion. But that's ok. It takes all kinds. We need more than one musical instrument in this fleeting, precious concert.

'All religions, all this singing,
one song.' -Rumi

a reply to: BlueMule

I cannot disagree with that. Let's just hope people begin to find their own voice.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

I cannot disagree with that. Let's just hope people begin to find their own voice.

If people werent finding their own voice, we would still be living in trees. But yeah Im not a fan of conformity either.

People howl as a pack, but only you can slay your dragon.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Are you so dissatisfied with yourself that you must imagine yourself a nothing?

Yet a something sits on a something typing somethings to a something and it gets a response.

Why do you choose to be a nothing itsnowagain? Yet act like a something?

The realization that there are no things is not imagination.
What do you think Heisenberg meant when he said 'Atoms are not things, just tendencies'?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It is imagination.

If you aren't a thing, stop acting like one. Become nothing instead of saying you are nothing.

We are not an atom.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Itisnowagain
Are you so dissatisfied with yourself that you must imagine yourself a nothing?

I have found that I am not a thing. You on the other hand believe you are a thing among other things. The illusion of being a thing among other things is threatening - as it is known that all things have a beginning and an end.
The discovery, the realization, of no thingness is the end of feeling separate and the end of the human condition of suffering.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I have found that I am not a thing. You on the other hand believe you are a thing among other things. The illusion of being a thing among other things is threatening - as it is known that all things have a beginning and an end. The discovery, the realization, of no thingness is the end of feeling separate and the end of the human condition of suffering.

They taught "no-thing ness" to Japanese soldiers so they could disassociate from the act of killing. The illusion of no-thingness is dangerous. Unfortunately, It is not known that all things have a beginning and an end. The invention of no-thingness is rather the beginning of disassociation. I would rather value the things around me than believe and rogue they are nothing.

originally posted by: Aphorism
They taught "no-thing ness" to Japanese soldiers so they could disassociate from the act of killing.

Nothingness cannot be taught - just discovered, uncovered, unveiled, revealed.

a reply to: Aphorism

Much of what you say agrees with core Middle Path Buddhism. Shunyata would be the Buddhist term for emptiness that you are looking for (though it actually means much more than just emptiness) - it is closely related to the Two Truths Doctrine. While this term is important in Buddhist teachings, it (as well as all other Buddhist concepts) is just that - a teaching to help you understand the Middle Path. Knowing and understanding Shunyata is a good way to understand how your mind works, which helps you see through it's illusions that can cause suffering, but you must not cling to Shunyata as that would just be another form of attachment. I can expand upon this to help you understand better if you want, but please ask a question and be willing to read a bit in the reply.

I'll leave with a bunch of quotes that might help you sort out just what the Middle Path of Buddhism really is (in case you are curious or needed a refresher):

"The Victorious Ones have announced that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. Those who are possessed of the view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible"
-here

"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), and biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view. 'Everything exists': that is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': that is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle."
-here

"But if one were to take this understanding of the emptiness of things as itself absolute, this again would be clinging: clinging to Sunyata. This mistake is the error not with regard to the mundane nature of things but with regard to their ultimate nature. It is to take the conditionedness of the conditioned as itself unconditioned. But "this would mean an absolute division between the conditioned and the unconditioned, the divided and the undivided, the permanent and the impermanent, and in this case the undivided would not be the truly undivided, as it would be divided from the divided." Thus one teaches the Sunyata of Sunyata: in the ultimate truth even Sunyata is empty of absoluteness. Ultimately, even the division between the conditioned and the unconditioned is not absolute. Therefore we are not forever bound to our conditionedness because we, as conditioned entities, already are (in our ultimate nature) the unconditioned reality. In short, there is an end to ignorance and suffering."
-here

"'Studying the Way’ is just a figure of speech ... In fact, the Way is not something which can be studied. You must not allow this name [the Way] to lead you into forming a mental concept of a road."
-here

"Those who cling to perceptions and views wander the world offending people."
-here

Hopefully these can be of help to someone!

a reply to: Aphorism


I do recognize a lot of similarities in our views- which is probably why I read your posts- I usually get what you are saying, and appreciate your pro-living attitude, which I share.

I don't know why I continually pick up messages alongside that which seem to de-value spirituality in general. I also mix you up in mind with LesMisanthrope, and perhaps somethings he/she has written end up being associated, I am not sure.

To point out specific phrases which I may be misreading, here is an example, from your last response:

it is the immaterial world I have state is without meaning. Because you touch a chair does not mean it carries with it intrinsic meaning. It is you that generates the meaning, not the chair.

The "immaterial world" is the internal world of meaning we each have. I generate my immaterial world, we agree.
It is NOT however, void of meaning. That indicates "without value" to me. The objects we perceive have just as much value as the meanings we attach to them. The subjective world is just as important, if not more important, than the objective one- for I am not sure we can even perceive the full objective world, as our internal subjective one is what influences our focus.


Was it with you that we disagreed on the subject of the value of the practice of meditation?
Searching my internal associations, that might be influencing my perception of this OP.
I experience meditation as the development of the capability to STOP creating meaning for a moment- give it a pause, like rebooting your computer, allowing it to release built up static electricity.

I guess, as much as I share your enthousiasm for the sensual and material world, and being active within it, I always want to disagree with a percieved de-valuation of being passive and stepping out of it sometimes.

Is that a misunderstanding on my part?

I would rather value the things around me than believe and rogue they are nothing.

I hear you! I used to do a lot of camping in the rocky mountains. The beauty and power of nature moves me deeply. So does art.

There are things around us we can't see, and as they say out of sight out of mind. The Earths magnetic field is always there, penetrating our brains and body. Whatever the building blocks of "consciousness" are, they are immersed in the magnetic field like wires. Are we all connected? Yes! This marvelous field, which stores the experience of every man, woman, and child who has ever lived, connects the brains of everyone. Seven billion conductive brains!

The potential exists for global resonance, which would create in essence a 'human hologram'. The individual equal to the sum, all in all! Everyone knowing everything that everyone else knows. Noosphere! The Divine Milieu.

Would you value that?

a reply to: Bluesma

I don't know why I continually pick up messages alongside that which seem to de-value spirituality in general.

I use the term "spirituality" in a pejorative sense when I am speaking about the commonly followed spirituality, but I often use it interchangeably with my idea of spirituality, the one I actually adhere to. I understand the confusion.

The "immaterial world" is the internal world of meaning we each have. I generate my immaterial world, we agree.
It is NOT however, void of meaning. That indicates "without value" to me. The objects we perceive have just as much value as the meanings we attach to them. The subjective world is just as important, if not more important, than the objective one- for I am not sure we can even perceive the full objective world, as our internal subjective one is what influences our focus.

If my previous threads are any indication, I do not see the "inner world" as anything immaterial. I see a body and nothing besides. When I say "without meaning", I mean it literally. One can still value something without meaning, as is shown when people value "immaterial worlds" and "minds"—when there is nothing of these entities to which we can discover or place any meaning in. We can only ever provide the content for these concepts, where these concepts provide absolutely no meaning on their own, and in that sense we are giving meaning to nothings, and that in my mind, is meaningless.

Was it with you that we disagreed on the subject of the value of the practice of meditation?
Searching my internal associations, that might be influencing my perception of this OP.
I experience meditation as the development of the capability to STOP creating meaning for a moment- give it a pause, like rebooting your computer, allowing it to release built up static electricity.

Yes but I never said it was without value, just that it is as about as valuable as any other form of exercise. I value health in general as probably the most spiritual thing someone can do, and yes that involves the areas of thinking. But when people hear the idea of meditation, they imagine the romantic image of the seated sage, with any and all religious connotations and bells and whistles. I find that aspect unnecessary and meaningless, and it is the romanticism of spirituality I usually speak ill of.

I understand what you mean about stopping the mental faculties for a while, or a reset, but I would argue that people stare at televisions for the exact same reason. It is my opinion that we should instead agitate these faculties, whip them into a creative frenzy and learn to use them, rather than try to turn them off.

I guess, as much as I share your enthousiasm for the sensual and material world, and being active within it, I always want to disagree with a percieved de-valuation of being passive and stepping out of it sometimes.

Is that a misunderstanding on my part?

I understand. I am against the not-doing, inner-resignation as it is sold by spiritual authority. In fact, I find it anti-spiritual, and no different than going to sleep. Sleep is the best time to be passive and step out of it, and we do it for a number of hours a day. To me, it is a choice between sleep or wakefulness. We can sort of hibernate or turn off while we are awake, but I really see no value in doing so besides trying to disassociate from the world. Once again, I get enough disassociation when I sleep.

a reply to: BlueMule

The potential exists for global resonance, which would create in essence a 'human hologram'. The individual equal to the sum, all in all! Everyone knowing everything that everyone else knows. Noosphere! The Divine Milieu.

Would you value that?

"Resonance" doesn't provide me with any sort of concrete imagery, and I am unable to answer that question honestly.