the prison of life

[Demosthenes]

Look you mockers.

leaving aside the question of whether the article is universal wisdom; do you think it's wiser or less wise than the prevailing mainstream wisdom governing UK society. ?

Or do you think that's a daft question?

 

[Dillinger4]

Its a daft question.

How do you measure wisdom?

 

[nosos]

Sophicific calculus?

 

[Demosthenes]

I don't know how to measure wisdom, - but equally, I don't know how to measure ambient light levels, - and I can still tell when it's a fine day, and when I've gone into a dark room.

Given the total idiocy that passes for wisdom, implicit in the assumptions made by newspapers, TV and mainstream political parties, I think it's quite unfair to dismiss fela's link so dismissively,.

In comparison, I have to say, it seems quite wise to me, - I don't know how to measure wisdom, but I sense it all the same. I guess I just don't have access to the full cognitive processes that make the judgment.
Maybe it;'s just - - if it agrees with my prejudices, then it's wise, - but if so, then I guess it's the same for all of us.

 

[fela fan]

Damn fela. I am sorry I said anything!

You said if there is any wisdom, it is universal.

I don't have any claim to anything, but I am critical and skeptical where I see contradiction. I don't know. That is all.

Hey, no need to get so defensive...!

Look, i don't know anything either. Soon as i think i do, i realise i don't. Things sound good, then i test them out, and it seems not the same.

I'm critical and skeptical too. But as for contradiction, in any way you turn, if you see a human, you will see contradiction. It is one of our conditions of being.

Okay, i can see about the wisdom thing, but what i meant to say was that surely if something is seen as wise, then inherently one is unable to say it is not? In other words something only becomes wise once it has been put to the test and not found wanting, no?

Peace?

 

[nosos]

Or do you think that's a daft question?

I don't think the question makes sense although I can see why you're asking it.

 

[weltweit]

"The question is, why do we regard our ordinary life here as a prison, and how do we get out? "

My life is not a prison, I have no need to escape. My life is free and it is full and it is good, and were it not I could simply walk away from it.

"Buddhism is not just to make us calm and quiet, and feeling happy. It is to peel off the layers of our onions of individuality. If you peel off the various layers, the first layer race, then the layer gender, then nationality, then education, then one's level in society, one's profession, where is this "I"? Eventually you get to something else which is totally beyond "I". This intrinsic awareness, this primordial awareness, which is at the very basis of our being, has nothing to do with "me" and "you". "

I am the opposite, first thing I do when I wake in the morning is to select and start to don the layers of my onion of identity or individuality rather in the same way that I get dressed. I do not always accept all the layers either, some mornings I leave lots of them off altoghether, some I discard for years, some I have discarded for ever.

We do have layers of learnt identity, of that I have no doubt, and many of them are not often needed and can be put aside.

"Venerable Tenzin Palmo was one of the first Western women to be ordained in Tibetan Buddhism, and is a well-known Bhikkhuni. Her life and 12-year-long intense retreat in a Himalayan cave is the subject of a book 'Cave in the Snow: Tenzin Palmo's Quest for Enlightenment' by Vicki Mackenzie."

I found the article quite rambling and missing a central message. It is perhaps not surprising if Palmo spent 12 years in a cave that she now has a lot to say and perhaps it comes out faster and less organised than it could.

The thing that bothers me about those who preach individuals changing themselves will change the world is that this is just not true. You or I can be as enlightenned as we like but the amazon rainforest will still be being chopped down. It just does not make logical sense. Oh weltweit has achieved enlightenment, great now we must stop child labour across the world.

More likely is, weltweit has achieved enlightenment and now weltweit can live in graceful isolated ignorance as to the illegal traffic in ivory elephant tusks in Africa.

 

[Demosthenes]

I don't think the question makes sense although I can see why you're asking it.

Well leaving aside realism about wiseness.

If you construe it as simply a question about how your judgement faculty works, - i.e., - does the article seem wiser to you than the prevailing mainstream conventional wisdom in the west?

Doesn't it?

or are you claiming that you simply don't have any mental habit or means of intuitively comparing how sensible one worldview seems when put up against another. ?

 

[nosos]

Define "prevailing mainstream conventional wisdom".

I don't think you can compare "worldviews" in the sense you're suggesting.

 

[Demosthenes]

Define "prevailing mainstream conventional wisdom".

I don't think you can compare "worldviews" in the sense you're suggesting.

Define it, I don't think I can.

Certainly not in the sense of necessary and sufficient conditions.
I can characterise it, I suppose.

For starters, whatever set of assumptions it is that creates the ideas -that unemployment is a problem-, - that economic growth is to be striven for at all costs-, - that rising house prices are a good thing.- That if we could get rich enough, social problems and so on would disappear.

i'm aware of these assumptions about what's good and important existing and grounding most mainstream discourse, particularly the notion of what's politically possible.

If you're not, I'm surprised.
And myself, I can't help comparing worldviews.
If you can't, that seems to lead straight to total relativism.
Maybe that's all you can have, logically,
But when I say I wouldn't want to live in a nation governed by the nazi worldview, I think it makes sense, and I think it's what's called a moral choice.

 

[Brainaddict]

The thing that bothers me about those who preach individuals changing themselves will change the world is that this is just not true. You or I can be as enlightenned as we like but the amazon rainforest will still be being chopped down. It just does not make logical sense. Oh weltweit has achieved enlightenment, great now we must stop child labour across the world.

Yep, this is one of my biggest problems with this 'enlightenment' crap - it's so incredibly self-indulgent and so often fails to engage with the world.

Which is why, fela fan, we feel entitled to take the piss out of a woman who spent the last 12 years in a cave. A more miserable failure to engage with the world it is difficult to imagine.
You might just be able to justify such a long period of self-obsession if she emerged from the cave so 'enlightened' and perfected that she immediately spread peace to the middle east and love to the middle classes, but from where I'm standing that hasn't happened yet

 

[nosos]

Which is why, fela fan, we feel entitled to take the piss out of a woman who spent the last 12 years in a cave. A more miserable failure to engage with the world it is difficult to imagine.

There's also something interestingly puritanical about the tendancy of western hippys to valorise that sort of ascetisicism. Holding up a woman who spends 12 years in a cave as a moral examplar helps ground their own exisential narcissism?

 

[nosos]

Define it, I don't think I can.

Well, quite. All I'm saying is that reifying generalisations produces a debate about "comparison" that functions at such a high level of abstraction as to be meaningless. In postmodern terms: comparing grandnarratives says nothing about the world.

 

[Demosthenes]

Yep, this is one of my biggest problems with this 'enlightenment' crap - it's so incredibly self-indulgent and so often fails to engage with the world.

Which is why, fela fan, we feel entitled to take the piss out of a woman who spent the last 12 years in a cave. A more miserable failure to engage with the world it is difficult to imagine.
You might just be able to justify such a long period of self-obsession if she emerged from the cave so 'enlightened' and perfected that she immediately spread peace to the middle east and love to the middle classes, but from where I'm standing that hasn't happened yet

I ahve this problem with fela's worldview as well, - it seems quite obvious, that people changing themselves doesn't solve structural problems created by political systems, economic structures, and national/international laws.

But having said that, what the woman said doesn't seem totally worthless.

-thanks BA for pointing out what weltweit said, and weltweit, etc.

 

[nosos]

But having said that, what the woman said doesn't seem totally worthless.

Few things people say who've thought a lot about stuff are totally worthless.

 

[Demosthenes]

Well, quite. All I'm saying is that reifying generalisations produces a debate about "comparison" that functions at such a high level of abstraction as to be meaningless. In postmodern terms: comparing grandnarratives says nothing about the world.

But that leads to total moral relativism doesn't it>?
Are you happy with that?

 

[nosos]

Why does it lead to relativism?

 

[Demosthenes]

Well cause if you can't compare grand narratives/meta-narratives, then there's no grounds for saying that one is better/truer/wiser than another, (except conceivably empirical grounds, where the empirical facts would always be contingent, and so disputable) .

 

[nosos]

There's a difference between epistemic relativism and judgemental relativism: the former holds that our views are conceptually constructed, the latter holds that there's nothing to choose rationally between our views. I accept the first but not the second.

Why do judgements of "better/truer/wiser" need to be grounded in something universal?

 

[Demosthenes]

It only leads to relativism if you believe you need universality to ground objectivity. The "view from nowhere" doesn't exist and where it's claimed to exist, critical analysis shows it to be a particularistic perspective that's entrenched and mystified. Our view is always from somewhere. That doesn't stop us from being able to criticise the views of others.

No, that's not true. -- What leads to relativism is not a lack of universality, or lack of an "objective" viewpoint: But if you can't even compare one worldview/meta-narrative with another, then as far as I can see, there's no way out of relativism.

I don't need any objective viewpoint for me to be able to say that our way of seeing/doing things is better than the nazi way, - I just need that I and others can make the comparison and the judgement.

After that i'd like some account of how we make the judgment, so as to show that it's a rational judgement to make, - but initially the important thing seems to be that you can make the comparison and judgement.

 

[Demosthenes]

lol,
I see you rephrased.

Not sure I follow the distinction between epistemic and judgemental relativism, or its relevance.

But see above, I don't see judgments of better/truer/wiser as necessarily grounded in universality, but if comparison itself is not possible, then as far as I can see you can only be left with total relativism.

 

[nosos]

But see above, I don't see judgments of better/truer/wiser as necessarily grounded in universality, but if comparison itself is not possible

I'm saying you can't compare a worldview with anything outside of itself. If a nazi and an anarchist have an argument about grand ideology they just throw expressive moral insults at each other. If they talk about concrete issues (particular rather than universal things) discussion can happen.

Most nazi treatment of the holocaust relies tacitly on a definition of jews as sub-human to justify itself. I don't think you can have particularly rational or fruitful debate about nazism vs anarchism (when it's a Nazi and an Anarchist shouting at each other) but I think you can have quite raitonal and fruitful debate founded on moral premises you both share. It's a case of arguing to the person you're talking to rather than arguing to the universe.

Does that make it any clearer? I'm not explaining this overly well.

 

[fela fan]

I ahve this problem with fela's worldview as well, - it seems quite obvious, that people changing themselves doesn't solve structural problems created by political systems, economic structures, and national/international laws.

I don't see how this is obvious at all. How on earth, for a start, can that conclusion have been measured?

Political systems, society, and so on are a by-product of a whole bunch of individuals. If those individuals change themselves, then the whole, that is the sum total of the parts, the individuals, will change accordingly. How could it not?

Or are political systems and society a synergetic combination of individuals?

It seems to me most difficult to say that if the parts of the whole change, the whole does not change.

 

[nosos]

I don't need any objective viewpoint for me to be able to say that our way of seeing/doing things is better than the nazi way, - I just need that I and others can make the comparison and the judgement.

My point is that "our way of seeing/doing things" has to be talked about concretely for rational discussion to be possible. If you just point to "our way of seeing/doing things" and say it's better then you have to invoke some universal grounding for it.

 

[Demosthenes]

I'm saying you can't compare a worldview with anything outside of itself. If a nazi and an anarchist have an argument about grand ideology they just throw expressive moral insults at each other. If they talk about concrete issues (particular rather than universal things) discussion can happen.

Most nazi treatment of the holocaust relies tacitly on a definition of jews as sub-human to justify itself. I don't think you can have particularly rational or fruitful debate about nazism vs anarchism (when it's a Nazi and an Anarchist shouting at each other) but I think you can have quite raitonal and fruitful debate founded on moral premises you both share. It's a case of arguing to the person you're talking to rather than arguing to the universe.

Does that make it any clearer? I'm not explaining this overly well.

No, that makes sense, - but I'm not sure I agree with it.

I can see the problem to some extent of a nazi and an anarchist trying to have a meaningful moral argument.

What I can't see is why me, who's neither an anarchist or nazi, can't make the judgement, - I think anarchism is a better, sounder etc. worldview than nazism.

I don't see why you can't make it either.

Note earlier, I said, let's leave aside questions about the "reality" of wiseness, just how does it seem to you, and others, - overall do you prefer our dominant worldview, or the woman's. ? Which do you respect more.
Me, i can't help making judgements of that sort.

 

[Demosthenes]

My point is that "our way of seeing/doing things" has to be talked about concretely for rational discussion to be possible. If you just point to "our way of seeing/doing things" and say it's better then you have to invoke some universal grounding for it.

I would like some grounding for it. But there's problems with trying to ground it empirically. But, if you can't make the comparison, then you certainly can't ground the comparison,- make the comparison first, it seems to me, then try to ground it.

 

[nosos]

I don't see why you can't make it either.

I'm not saying I can't make it: I'm saying talking about Nazis as a better worldview than anarchism isn't saying anything about the world. It's just an intricate way of articulating and codifying your moral sympathies. To actually start talking about the world you have to move beyond (below?) grand-narrative terms. My problem with what you were saying earlier is that you seemed to be talking about the "prevalent wisdom" of the modern western world as if that was a coherent thing and a crucial part of that western world.

or the woman's. ? Which do you respect more.

I've not read the woman's because fela's on ignore

 

[Demosthenes]

I don't see how this is obvious at all. How on earth, for a start, can that conclusion have been measured?

Political systems, society, and so on are a by-product of a whole bunch of individuals. If those individuals change themselves, then the whole, that is the sum total of the parts, the individuals, will change accordingly. How could it not?

Or are political systems and society a synergetic combination of individuals?

It seems to me most difficult to say that if the parts of the whole change, the whole does not change.

Well, I can imagine a world where there's shedloads of enlightened people, still dominated by an economic system that enslaves people who have no property, and pursues economic growth recklessly and irrationally, because it's built into the practices and laws of the system for it to do so. If the englightened people don't change the system, then their enlightenment must be strictly a private affair, - a privilege let's say for those who don't have to worry about the things that concern us lesser mortals, like having somewhere to live, getting enough to eat, etc.

 

[fela fan]

Yep, this is one of my biggest problems with this 'enlightenment' crap - it's so incredibly self-indulgent and so often fails to engage with the world.

Which is why, fela fan, we feel entitled to take the piss out of a woman who spent the last 12 years in a cave. A more miserable failure to engage with the world it is difficult to imagine.
You might just be able to justify such a long period of self-obsession if she emerged from the cave so 'enlightened' and perfected that she immediately spread peace to the middle east and love to the middle classes, but from where I'm standing that hasn't happened yet

No, enlightenment is not 'so incredibly self-indulgent'. It is far more accurate to say that this is simply the perception of enlightenment according to the opinion of brainaddict.

Why do you and so many people put more of their energies into who writes a text rather than what is actually contained in that text? Why do you judge a text, not on the text itself, but to a great degree on who you think it is that writes it?

I think you're stuck in your own prison of your past... 12 years, a cave, self-obsession, enlightenment crap... your defining yourself by your genre. And that is a prison of sorts.

 

[Brainaddict]

It seems to me most difficult to say that if the parts of the whole change, the whole does not change.

Well, if *all* the parts change I suppose change would be inevitable. But it will only ever be a few who can be bothered - I think the history of attempts to 'improve' the human race provides good evidence of this. And a few people changing will have only a small effect - possibly lost in all the other changes going on at any given time.

I think what you're missing is that people are in a relationship with their environment and that by changing the environment (e.g. political and economic institutions) you will change people (over time and somewhat unpredictably). Of course individuals can try to change as well but if you miss out the social part of change then all you're doing is falling into the individualist myth that capitalism and its prime beneficiaries have been promoting for centuries now in order to help preserve their dominance.