"Approach life" from within or without? (i.e. immanently or transcendently)
— 180 Proof

I think these converge at the limit. — csalisbury

Please explain.

The terms I use are so often used and misused that I find most people misunderstand them at their core. I have actually thought a lot about the concepts behind these terms before settling on the terms I’m currently using, and I feel they are each still open to change. god must be atheist mentioned ‘thinking in concepts’, which I think aptly describes my approach, but I also work in communication, so it’s important for me not to just use a word that sort of fits or simply sounds good.

Integrity, patience and self-awareness, for instance, all relate to awareness before we even begin to connect or collaborate with the world. They point to our attitude towards information. In the past I’ve used ‘self-control’ instead of self-awareness (and I’m not convinced this is the right term, either), but I’ve come to understand that it isn’t so much about ‘control’ as it is about learning how we accept and integrate information before acting, and how that affects the way we respond to the world. In a way, it’s about gathering enough information so that our predictions about future interactions are more accurate. I have noticed, for instance, that hormonal cycles change my awareness of quantitative vs qualitative information - not a great deal, but enough that either my spatial or emotional intuition is affected, for instance. Knowing this enables me to factor this uncertainty into how I then interact with the world at certain times.

Integrity is being honest with ourselves - particularly with how our past impacts on our present, and our openness to information from the world based on the sum total of our past experiences. This is basically an understanding of cause and effect in relation to who I am up to this point. With self-awareness, it doesn’t have to stay this way, but we need to interact more accurately with our past in order to start somewhere.

Which brings me to patience - which is recognising that any change we want to happen requires time, effort and attention in the present that we have to find from somewhere. The brain makes predictions about the body’s energy requirements and where our attention needs to be focused every moment of our lives, to the point that we can pretty much go through the motions without conscious effort. If we’re going to adjust this in any way, there will be internal resistance from systems that are used to working autonomously. No change happens overnight, and experiences of pain, humility, loss and lack will feature in any adjustment worth the effort. We need to be aware of how much of this is tolerable at any one time, and therefore how long it’s going to be before things improve. So it’s about an accurate interaction with our present situation. — Possibility

I like self-awareness for self-control. I also have cycles, in that respect, but I don't know what causes them. When I'm low in self-awareness I overcode everything as 'hostile'. I don't have too much more to say, other than that I thought this was helpful. I have struggled a little with the confront your past vs be in the moment thing, and your way of framing that makes sense to me.

Please explain. — 180 Proof

It sounds affectedly gnomic, I'll grant. I'm not sure how to put it. One way I've thought about this is childhood memories. Things seemed much more alive and full then (so there was surely a lot of imaginative blurring going on) but I also, without a doubt, was much more in tune with the concrete aspects of the world. Having a full-throated imaginative relation with the world, maybe, allowed me to be interested in it enough to actually engage with its details. For example: playing with action figures in the woods, with the woods as setting. You attend closely to the details, when you care about playing.

I've been attracted to gnosticism for a while. I guess the DNA of gnosticism is that the real world is removed, or you're removed from it. That sounds transcendent: the goal is to get back to the real world. But I also think that you can be fallen, within the world. 'It was a great wonder they were in the father without knowing it.' A lot of the gnostic myths seem to cast the archons as having some sort of limited perception, where they mistakenly see their limited creations as the whole, while still being embedded in something that exceeds what they can allow into their awareness. Or Christ's thing in the gospels about how the kingdom of god is already present.

So something like : The world that you're fallen from is already there, and you're already in it- The fall was just forgetting how to pay attention. It's like being too drunk at a concert.

The New Existentialism" is worth a read. It's short and to the point. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I read some Wilson at work today, including parts of New Existentialism, but it was only what I could shake out of Google Books' preview. He's very good. And it makes me uneasy. I found that I agreed and was excited with what he was saying. The uneasiness relates to the ego-aspect. It's like there are two things happening simultaneously : A sincere exploration of how meaning works, executed with great attentiveness and uncanny perception + another thing (cf Wilson's introduction to New Existentialism, where he self-consciously describes its value in terms of his entire ouvre) which carefully charts the progress of the former thing as a reflection on the author's importance. The uneasiness is tripled because the sincerely exploring, attentive thing seems to understand exactly how the narrow concerns of thinking importantly of oneself works. And then the self-important thing thinks more importantly of itself for recognizing how self-importance is limiting. You can see how the friction between these two things could erupt into a lifelong restlessness.

I don't mean this as a moral criticism - I mean it as a giant frustration that I bet Wilson experienced too.

edit : link didnt work :(

I've been attracted to gnosticism for a while. I guess the DNA of gnosticism is that the real world is removed, or you're removed from it. That sounds transcendent: the goal is to get back to the real world. But I also think that you can be fallen, within the world. — csalisbury

I'm an epicurean (scientific) materialist, though once upon a youth ago I found gnosticism quite intriguing (my 'existentialist' phase no doubt), so transcendent notions strike me as ad hoc woo-of-the-gaps evasions (i.e. Camus's "nostalgias"). One is real which presupposes belonging to the real world so trying "to get back to the real world" makes no sense to me.

The world that you're fallen from is already there, and you're already in it- The fall was just forgetting how to pay attention. It's like being too drunk at a concert.

I can relate. Aesthetics (philosophical) and making artworks (play) - as you suggest in the 'toy soldiers in the woods' vignette - reminds us 'how to pay attention' - how to attend - to negligent and impermanent things that are too close to see or looking thru/past foreground bright & shiny trivias that obfuscate the deeper dark surrounding background. "The goal", it seems, is not "to get back in the world" but rather, IMO, to engage and challenge the shallow figures & events in the foreground (like artists do) which the real world - with a bedazzling myriad of 'veils', camouflages or mirages - conceals its absymal, chaotic depths from its real creatures, like us, who're too fragile & fleeting to digest (i.e. totalize, encompass). Thus, the absurd persists, even if only tenuously in momentary flashes, or strobic lucidity (Camus again) ...

Are you familiar with Clemént Rosset's short 3 essay book Joyful Cruelty: Toward A Philosophy of the Real? I wonder what your 'restlessness' would make of it.

I'm an epicurean (scientific) materialist, though once upon a youth ago I found gnosticism quite intriguing (my 'existentialist' phase no doubt), so transcendent notions strike me as ad hoc woo-of-the-gaps evasions (i.e. Camus's "nostalgias"). One is real which presupposes belonging to the real world so trying "to get back to the real world" makes no sense to me. — 180 Proof

I've been an existential gnostic, as a lad, but then also came back later. The Nag is rich - like most good things, it shows a different face depending on when you read it. The gospel of truth + the the origin of the world is a good one-two. I did my damnedest to show how 'getting back to the real world' can translate into something simpler, and I stand by that. That one is already real, is, of course true, and I happily fold it into what I"m trying to express. If it's youthful folly, that's what it is, but something more is needed to drive the point home.


I

"The goal", it seems, is not "to get back in the world" but rather, IMO, to engage and challenge the shallow figures & events in the foreground (like artists do) which the real world - with like veils, camouflages or mirages - conceals its absymal, chaotic depths from its real creatures who're too fragile & fleeting like us to digest (i.e. totalize, encompass). Thus, the absurd persists, even if only tenuously in momentary flashes, or strobic lucidity (Camus again) ... — 180 Proof

Yes, I think I agree. But I also think maybe 'abysmal', 'chaotic' 'fragile' 'fleeting' 'totalize' etc. are bringing everything into a comfy semantic field. It's sort of like going far out in your youth and marking spots with flags, and then retiring to the shore and talking about the flags you've set. I don't doubt for a second those flags are earned. But what are they doing here? We all set similar flags.

Artists don't challenge the shallow figures and events. Huffpost does. Jim Carrey has some vicious twitter art. If partisan politics is the endpoint of an encounter with lovecraftian horror, than that's one point against lovecraftian horror (brassier for klobuchar, or something.)

@180 Proof with all due respect, I think you might really need a bad guy. Someone - or something- needs to be an avatar of this lovecraftian whatever. God first, then republicans, so forth. The foreground brawl is aways easier than the aftermath. Maybe I'm wrong. But consider what channels of thoughts slick themselves for you.

of New Existentialism — csalisbury

If you don't have access to the book I can drop off some quotes:

"We cannot talk about contingency until we are in full possession of the facts about the intentionality of consciousness. For what is subject to contingency is the 'false self,' the idea of ourselves built upon the fallacy of passive perception."

which carefully charts the progress of the former thing as a reflection on the author's importance. — csalisbury

I'd be interested in a clarification of this idea.

New Existentialism — csalisbury

"[studying healthy minds (Freud et al only studied unhealthy minds)]...led Maslow to a conclusion that...the need to know is a burning drive that is not necessarily a manifestation of more important drives - the need for security, etc. It is a primary psychological drive in its own right. ...The revolutionary implications of this may not be apparent at first sight. It means that the fundamental drive of human life is not some Freudian libido or death-wish, nor the fear of the unknown and the need for security, but an evolutionary appetite..."

Wilson's italics.

Someone - or something- needs to be an avatar of this lovecraftian whatever. — csalisbury

Yeah, I've had my cosmicist dark nights of the soul, so I feel ya ... :zip:

\ That's the thing - i know for a fact you have, and don't treat it lightly. You know your stuff. So why this blase politics filtered through bush-era blog-angst.

???

There was an online era where atheism and anti-bushism reigned supreme. Whack-a-mole on the stupids,etc. That was the self-identification then.

When you said

"The goal", it seems, is not "to get back in the world" but rather, IMO, to engage and challenge the shallow figures & events in the foreground.'

I read that as something in this vein, brought into our current era.. It seemed like you were saying the goal is to fight the dummies, ala Jon Stewart. I may have been misreading though. What did you mean?

Still, the whole time you have to live. And, if you're hooked on ideas, the world is degraded in favor of those ideas (or good literary recaps) and you get more and more zoned-out. That's me in my 20s anyway. — csalisbury

I remember the first time I heard, from a dearly valued friend I had feelings for, how much she loathed philosophy. Its irrelevance, seeming uselessness, how she felt more practically oriented, more of the order of learning directly from concrete experiences and relationships. I was completely taken back by her statements, haven't heard it expressed so forcefully and bluntly.

But I think I've drawn a bit more to her side of things now, though. Not necessarily her view of philosophizing, but more so her practical orientation. There's another friend of mine who, albeit narcissistic and pompous, I really admire for how much he makes it a point to push himself into new experiences and situations, outside of his comfort zone. His living goal is resilience building, social-skill-improving, health-maximizing and impact-making in the realm of environmentalism. He also acts like a socratic figure, challenging everyone's opinions and getting them to break out of their shells. He's incredibly analytical, articulate, and highly reflective, but has not dabbled in much philosophy. I think this is kind of the ideal I've been striving for in the way I've been living. Something more balanced, intentional, and value driven than the abstract, passive living I've been doing.

What I really want is techniques for how to live, and techniques for how to approach life as it is. That's hard - some inner instinct bucks and shies from that - but what else to do? It feels like the only thing to do is shave off everything that isn't touching on that, and find what works. But the addiction is still there, trying to make things as abstract as possible. — csalisbury

Pierre hadot has a nice book where he outlines different techniques from the greek schools on happiness. I actually find certain ones helpful during my day to day, the 'view from above', the attitude of equanimity, impermanence, meditation on life's finitude.. I actually now have an app that functions doubly as a scheduler which has on the front page the percentage of my life that I've gone through. I'm currently somewhere near the 40% range to 70. It's terrifyingly motivating.

I think the one thing that's helped me the most has been intentionally putting myself in roles and situations that I do not want to actually be in, and that actually challenge me, force me due to the expectation for the role being fulfilled, to adapt and grow in qualities I have been deficient in. I started doing a co-teaching gig for elementary students which keeps me on my toes and forces me to improv ways of explaining, ways of making otherwise dull material interesting and relatable. I love it in spite of their horseplay, and feel like it's helped me grow in empathy, feeling comfortable in front of people, improv and so on. I'd suppose this sort of growth is typical for the time in and out of college, but making it a point to identify deficient areas of your life in relation to what you value, and then attacking it with intention.. I think that is where I'm going as an alternative to living in abstraction verses just passively moving through and accepting the monotony of everyday.

Personal humility is a starting point - I agree with this. Self-awareness, patience and integrity together enable us to recognise the potential distance between where we are and where we aim to be. There is not only humility in this, but also an awareness of lack, perhaps even pain. When we experience all three, we are ready to take the first step.

I should have been more specific, by humility, I mean within the person, rather than in human interaction. It is weird that humility in the person can be so benign and constructive whereas humility/humiliation in human interaction can be so destructive and divisive. Perhaps this distinction points to the importance of a focus within the person when considering these issues, rather than a consideration of human interaction*.

I would point out, you do still seem to be attributing something negative to personal humility?

For humility to be constructive it must become the inviolable touch stone of the spiritual life, this is its natural place. When one realises the personal humility in other mammals, our close relatives, one realises the obfuscation generated by our brains and minds, the Chitta Chatta.

* I acknowledge there is a social route to [edit]personal[edit] humility, but it is only really achieved within religious practice.

"Life as it is" what?

That's hard - some inner instinct bucks and shies from that - but what else to do?
When all else fails ... question your questions?

Put the mind to one side, attend to the feelings.