It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To be, Or not To be?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Just now, I was thinking about something I was reading in an essay by Justin Mcbrien, in the book "Anthropocene, or Capitalocene?". I'll quote here to give you some context, plus an interesting footnote about Nietzsche.

“The belief in our alienation from nature became embodied in the perspective of the Human being as the monstrous all-powerful offspring of nature. The problem of extinction was rendered intrinsic to human nature rather than to capital. The history of environmentalism is the history of capitalism realizing its own principle of becoming extinction through the conceptual system of planetary catastrophism. This in turn produced a being toward extinction as a permanent characteristic.”

Mcbrien is clearly speaking to a historical phenomenon that may be an intrinsic vulnerability of the dynamics of human evolution. An advantage in the short term - in one persons life - will eventually lead to a period where the "debt" i.e. consumption, extraction and depletion of resources, leads to literal self-destruction. The question of existing for one person - of course, is the issue for that one person. But the issue of the planet - our place on the planet, and the future viability of our species on this planet - to continue the evolution of our being in this universe, includes all of us in question of whether or not we want to go on existing in the only dimension that we have proof of: as an embodied human being. Mcbrien also includes in a footnote Nietzsches interesting (though cynical, as usual) perspective:

“For Nietzsche saw in science “a hard won self-contempt of man as his ultimate and most serious claim to self-respect”…The Anthropocene wants to put us back at the top of the chain of being while banishing us further in what Nietzsche had called “a penetrating sense of our own nothingness”.

Why such a depressive position? In the most simplest terms - a term most Nietzsche scholars could scarcely tolerate - is "development". The first two years of life are rough - super sensitive time periods that serve to set the balance - the tune - of our brainstem-body dynamics, atop which will form the particular qualities of our relational being with others.

If theres trauma in these first 2 years, and if this trauma becomes perpetuated, through the narratives and stories of the parents and community you grow around, eventually, you'll produce a sophisticated clown like Friedrich Nietzsche - a cynic who couldn't help being a cynic - his brain-body was depressed - felt negative, and so his cognitive mind scoured his relational environment - his relations with others being the field upon which he scours - and he produced very complex justifications for his nihilism - which truly spans from the beginning of his work in The Birth of Tragedy, through his popular works, up until the gay science.

Nietzsches work was just Nietzsches own-inner battle with his conscience. The mind was split and two: Dionysus and Apollo, Emotion and Reason. These two clean cut-categories, simplistic assumptions, around which he built a complex sand castle - ultimately, of course nothingness, incoherence, inconsistency, shallowness, with moments of brilliant phenomenological clariity, only to devolve back again into the self-familiar feeling of antagonism - of speaking on behalf of the devil within, as if this position offered any real permanent solution to the problem - the ultimate problem - of why you feel so bad in the first place.

Nietzsche was a tremendous mind, but one which battled with reality on a level below the rational, reasonable and coherent. Psychological trauma, in short, needs to be handled - but it is often not handled, but instead, dissociated from, with the compelling feelings become the basis and core referent of their inner mythology - their reason and basis for acting and being, believing, truly believing, that they are actually "above" the body they exist within, as if the environment experienced today as "passive" (their body) couldn't become the "active" basis of tomorrows torture? Wisdom may be a healthy respect for the power of the other - for the context which creates us.

As Mcbrien notes,

“We have mistaken a historical condition of our economic organization for an innate aspect of the Human being. Planetary catastrophism has become the ideology of capitalism, and in this catastrophism begets catastrophe."

And so, we exist within a world in which two camps of Human beings - an elite class, racked by shame and guilt into a catastrophism - a "who gives a #" nihilism that seeks sensual enlivenment on their way to the complete despoliation of our planet, species, and spiritual condition.

Long ago, the celebrated writer William Shakespeare asked a question that for many, isn't a question - but in the Human social reality we collectively inhabit, has become the axis about which our society moves:

To be, or not to be? That is the question.



Many people accept destruction and chaos (one wonders whether that includes suffering/disease?) and seeking it, or achieving meaning, through the generation of negativity, incoherence, and confusion. This view, of course, is bound to generate confusion, incoherence and negativity in the actor - even if they have a strange 'inverted' relationship to the feelings which they create by the actions they do, the simple thing is, like begets like, and so a mind that is motivated to act a certain way, will merely become a disciple of this way of acting - metabolically "connected" to it to make life meaningful.

Yet, the Buddha, that magical avatar of humanly wisdom, understood how ridiculous these sorts of narratives are. The eightfold path describes enlightened action - and thus limits and constrains, and recognizes the humans essence as being preserved only in the pursuit of constructive and dynamic states that support and serve, rather than tear down and dysequilibrate.

The awake mind questions its desires, and does not simply succumb to their occurrence, or feel that they have to engage these feelings in a narrative. The subject - existing in the stream and as the stream, is accosted - and its being accosted is the "first arrow" - the initial plague, or difficulty, to which the wise-one knows not to be baited into a second level - or person, affective relationship with it. The self will become subsumed in the "need" - the desire - to equilibrate, and by doing so, is apt to take on self-states that come from others, and so, breed the 'demons' that compel people to act in stupid, mindless and incoherent ways.

Life is simple: being is the question, and continue being - and not being afraid of being - for me, seems to be the obvious answer.

Heaven, is always just a moment, and an attitude adjustment, away.




posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Although You obviously put a lot of time and energy into this Thread, I'll have to read it all when I've the time for that....
F+S for effort, for now!



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

You forgot he was an alcoholic?



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
The near future of humans will be still destructive, until humans become more spiritual. There is already unseen revolution going on as people are meditating more and more, and naturally their interest for materialism vanishes. In next phase we will become telepathic and don't need communication devices, food may be just pills, and have free energy. And eventually like many ET races, we can even move in astral without physical body.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte
Maybe since the dawn of civilization, man has always been at a staring contest with the abyss and the abyss always won and still winning up to this day? I guess even the common man had always had this illusory propensity for a scorched earth entitlement.

For someone to have said that he or she have read and understood Nietzsche is laughable, but it's only my opinion. Nietzsche for someone not too smart as me is a very hard read. To read Nietzsche once or twice is to not read him at all. His aphoristic style alone makes the reader thinks that he was someone directly related to the dead god, at least that's my initial impression. He talks down to his readers from an unseen pedestal of authority way above everyone else. For this alone one can say that he is literally mad, a mad genius, in the broadest sense of the word, like any other genius, one can't help but to admire. Granting that there are lots of members here way smarter than than me, to them I would humbly defer.

We have to remember that Nietzsche was a philologist, someone who was adept to several languages including a dead one. Did Justin Mcbrien read Nietzsche in the original German or like most of us from an English translation? Like anyone who is at least proficient in two languages and attempted to translate something, everything that was lost in translation can only be arbitrarily approximated as near as the original. Whatever was lost in translation, in some aspects, what could be considered as gain to another. How do someone translate something that suggest multiple layers of meaning?

Reading Nietzsche is like swimming in the middle of a cold violent sea, it doesn't matter if one is a good swimmer, for the majority will likely drown swallowed up by the enormous waves. We are fortunate enough to read Shakespeare in the original but can we say the same from other people who read him in Swahili, Mandarin, Tagalog or Nihongo?

DeMott, I guess his name was, a literary critic who said something like it is flatteringly self-inflating to claim something akin to intimacy to a great author or book, but in the end like any great masterpieces, we can only attempt to piece together the puzzle that we know that we can never solve.

Most men want to have the cake and eat it too. The only way to be is to not be. To not be is to accept and surrender to life's absurdity. We sometimes presume that we know something but we actually don't, at least not much.



edit on 09 11 2015 by MaxTamesSiva because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

"Yet, the Buddha, that magical avatar of humanly wisdom, understood how ridiculous these sorts of narratives are."

did he.
- he represents the awful realm who creáted Dualism as our prison.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

To be or not to be?
That is the question - are you or are you not?
You are but you are not what thought says you are.

The difference between you and an animal is that you believe that you are in control of what you are. For example, a gay man who was born in a time when being gay was against the law would be ashamed of being gay, would feel ashamed of the feelings that arise naturally. All feelings just happen and because of social conditioning there maybe a voice that arises that exclaims 'no - not allowed'. This is denial of what actually is. Feelings that arise naturally, feelings that simply just happen are often not allowed. The thoughts will try stop the feelings that are 'not allowed' by creating a life in the 'future' - imagination and stories make believe that 'I am better than that'. But it is a lie.
The belief in the 'doer' of thought, feelings and action needs to be examined. If there is a belief that I can control feelings then there will be a belief that 'others' can control feelings and actions also.
But if it is found that no one is doing any thought, feeling or action then the show can unfold without conflict - otherwise there will be conflict and destruction.

I urge you to listen to David Bohm (American physicist) speaking about the problem with thought - it assumes the existence of some thing which does not exist - which makes thought incoherent.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Our striving for a deeper understanding of our nature/psychology/spirit takes a back seat to short-term survival needs, a dopomine rush, ego, base desires for rewards...still, it seems, with episodes of awareness and attempts to save ourselves from self-destruction, always too little too late.



Many researchers believe violence in humans is an evolved tendency that helped with survival.





"It's not because they haven't gotten the information that these are big risks," says Cindy Jardine of the University of Alberta. "We tend to sort of live for now and into the limited future — not the long term."





Bullying. Why do we do it? To gain status and power, psychologists say. And for some, it may be hard to resist the behavior. Researchers have seen bullying behavior in monkeys and speculate that the behavior may stretch way back in our evolutionary tree.


We are poor stewards of our world environments, because our leaders' first obligations are to ensure economic security for the people; environmental concerns follow, but I think these two should be of equal weight when making decisions. We have the power to protest and petition for change and if good men and women do nothing, well then ...To be complacent and remain unaware of our destructive nature, or not to be ...that is the question.

www.livescience.com...



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

How is it possible to know what to petition for? The 'good' of the people where you live may cause 'bad' for people elsewhere.
It may seem like a bad idea for the people to depopulate the planet (humans) but it maybe good for the planet. No matter what is done by the human for good it will cause bad.
At the end of the day - it doesn't matter - it is in total balance.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: InTheLight

How is it possible to know what to petition for? The 'good' of the people where you live may cause 'bad' for people elsewhere.
It may seem like a bad idea for the people to depopulate the planet (humans) but it maybe good for the planet. No matter what is done by the human for good it will cause bad.
At the end of the day - it doesn't matter - it is in total balance.


Depopulation does not have to be the ultimate solution to end self-destruction or depletion of resources. We are clever and can choose to vertically farm our own food, either alone or in groups (victory gardens in cities; on rooftops). We all need to rethink why we choose to live the way we do when alternatives exist.

"Lie down as dead. Enraged in wrath, stay so. Or stare without moving an eyelash. Or suck something and become the sucking."
edit on 2-1-2017 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
"Lie down as dead. Enraged in wrath, stay so. Or stare without moving an eyelash. Or suck something and become the sucking."

I would be interested in hearing your interpretation of the quote you have cited?
Also - who said it?
edit on 2-1-2017 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight
"Lie down as dead. Enraged in wrath, stay so. Or stare without moving an eyelash. Or suck something and become the sucking."

I would be interested in hearing your interpretation of the quote you have cited?
Also - who said it?


Shiva "the transformer" within Zen philosophy, one of the 112 ways to attain enlightenment.

To me, it is just a hint of the various forms of a chosen state of being in the now, for us to wallow, or lose ourselves in and stagnate.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight
"Lie down as dead. Enraged in wrath, stay so. Or stare without moving an eyelash. Or suck something and become the sucking."

I would be interested in hearing your interpretation of the quote you have cited?
Also - who said it?


Shiva "the transformer" within Zen philosophy, one of the 112 ways to attain enlightenment.

To me, it is just a hint of the various forms of a chosen state of being in the now, for us to wallow, or lose ourselves in and stagnate.

So are you saying that 'enlightenment' is the road to stagnation?
And it is impossible to be apart from now.

The realisation that there is only now will be the loss of some thing that does not exist.


edit on 2-1-2017 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight
"Lie down as dead. Enraged in wrath, stay so. Or stare without moving an eyelash. Or suck something and become the sucking."

I would be interested in hearing your interpretation of the quote you have cited?
Also - who said it?


Shiva "the transformer" within Zen philosophy, one of the 112 ways to attain enlightenment.

To me, it is just a hint of the various forms of a chosen state of being in the now, for us to wallow, or lose ourselves in and stagnate.

So are you saying that 'enlightenment' is the road to stagnation?
And it is impossible to be apart from now.

The realisation that there is only now will be the loss of some thing that does not exist.



I was trying to point out that that those particular chosen ways of being is stagnation, and may hinder or prevent one from gaining a higher consciousness, depending on the experience, acceptance of reality, and level of consciousness one allows. As with the sucking, you may become the sucking, or become so overly satiated that you will desire the sucking to cease. Realization of the all within the now may be the end of the path, but we have to contend with all the experiences we allow within the all/now; choice.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
Shiva "the transformer" within Zen philosophy, one of the 112 ways to attain enlightenment.

There is only the 'transformer' - all that is, is constantly changing and transforming but it never ends in a form - there is nothing.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight
Shiva "the transformer" within Zen philosophy, one of the 112 ways to attain enlightenment.

There is only the 'transformer' - all that is, is constantly changing and transforming but it never ends in a form - there is nothing.


There is everything if we allow it as reality.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight
Shiva "the transformer" within Zen philosophy, one of the 112 ways to attain enlightenment.

There is only the 'transformer' - all that is, is constantly changing and transforming but it never ends in a form - there is nothing.


'shiva' is Osiris.

and oh yes he 'transformed'.... - after having stolen adamite aspects.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
As with the sucking, you may become the sucking, or become so overly satiated that you will desire the sucking to cease.

The line about 'sucking' is in fact about there being just 'sucking' which is oneness. Some 'thing' sucks some 'thing' is twoness.
When the one become two the Kingdom shall appear.



Realization of the all within the now may be the end of the path, but we have to contend with all the experiences we allow within the all/now; choice.

Now is what is happening - there is nothing separate in now. Now is the one that appears to be transforming.



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight
Shiva "the transformer" within Zen philosophy, one of the 112 ways to attain enlightenment.

There is only the 'transformer' - all that is, is constantly changing and transforming but it never ends in a form - there is nothing.


There is everything if we allow it as reality.

Now is everything and because there is nothing else, it is also no thing.
edit on 2-1-2017 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight
As with the sucking, you may become the sucking, or become so overly satiated that you will desire the sucking to cease.

The line about 'sucking' is in fact about there being just 'sucking' which is oneness. Some 'thing' sucks some 'thing' is twoness.
When the one become two the Kingdom shall appear.



Realization of the all within the now may be the end of the path, but we have to contend with all the experiences we allow within the all/now; choice.

Now is what is happening - there is nothing separate in now. Now is the one that appears to be transforming.


As with any obsessive activity, I believe it leads to stagnation of attaining a higher consciousness. There may be nothing separate for you because you choose that spiritual reality - I chose another form of being within the all while in the physical form.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join