Know Thyself?

[richrf]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

So is Enlightenment also a remembering?

Hi Subjectivity9,

You may be interested in this passage from Remembering Heraclitus, by Geldard:

"Another theme suggested by the word remembering is its relation to the Greek word for truth, aletheia, on translatoin is "not-forgetting," and another is "to uncover". ... Alethia was the first word assicated with those who practiced philosophy. These were human beings who remembered, who spoke of things forgotten."

Rich

[Absolution]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Thank you for joining us Absolution,
I heard that there is a theory out there, that language is innate to us and even genetically different in certain ways in different peoples. It was also said that, it would be literally impossible for a child to ingest so much information at such a young age, if this were not the case.

So is Enlightenment also a remembering?

Well in science, what is innate from birth, they like to call instinct. And it has been there since early ages of philosophy as well with the theories of the "prime mover" and such. It could be that language is that way for us, if you assume human evolution theories, human ancestors practiced vocal communication since the dawn of mammals and maybe earlier. So given that amount of time, one would think it would be evolutionary ingrained. But that raises another question, do instincts represent true knowledge or just convenient ways of ancestral survival? But knowing thyself may not even need true knowledge, but instincts, what you may hold true even though it may not be correct. The skeptics way would to be to even remove this information, but it may be sufficient for one to stop here to meet the knowing thyself condition.

Originally Posted by William

Thank you Sub, I will respond to your post in it's entirety, but first let me just say this. To know thyself is to trust thyself and all you do or what you are attending to at any particular moment. Now if you are focusing/attending to is unfamiliar to you, you should not be focusing on it, it is to be, you will become familiar with it as you focus on it without outside interference. If it is more than you can, say, handle, leave it alone; don't mess with it. That goes with anything; people, places or things.
When you don't know yourself and trust yourself, you take chances. That is because you are venturing where you should not be and in most cases it is because you trust anothers judgment, not your own, and that is what the conscience it all about. It is doesn't "suit" you, don't try to wear it!
I hope this explains a little more. Perhaps i will add more as i parse you entire post.

William

If knowing thyself takes away from the chance of contemplating knowledge outside of what you already know then knowing thyself may not be as necessary as it has been promoted to be. I keep mentioning Socrates, but in general he viewed that knowledge can only be understood through an initial stance of complete doubt or an admission of unknowing. It can be said this is the only way a person would take a chance and truely find complete knowledge. Maybe there must be perpetual self doubt on one's own knowledge to grow intellectually?

[Subjectivity9]

Thanks Rich,

Heraclitus is one of the Guys that I have been promising myself for a while now (years) to read more about. : ^ ) Can you say procrastination?

This world’s toy box of great ideas is certainly full to the bursting.

Aletheia: In Sanskrit, a = not, so a/letheia would come mean not/forgetting. The Ancient Greek language and thought was certainly influenced by Sanskrit. Whereas "uncover" would probably be an extrapolation on the theme of not/forgetting.

Then we have the Greek myth about drinking from the 'River Lethe' making one forget.

There is such a treasure house of wisdom coming down to us from our ancestors, and so much to uncover within our selves.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 08:43 AM ----------

Hey William,

One of the reasons that I can trust myself is, that I fully realize that I can learn from my mistakes. So I don’t ever have to be afraid of making a mistake. In fact, sometimes you can learn more, and faster, from a mistake. So with this in your arsenal, I can take a chance and not be too fearful to stick your neck out.

Then again I must confess that I believe in a ‘benevolent universe,’ although I cannot prove this. But we all have these ‘Feel Good” emotional understandings. So I forgive me for even this.

I feel that anything can be handled if you bite it off in small enough pieces and start from exactly where you are, don’t jump ahead of yourself. “Every journey begins with the first step.”

If we define our selves to narrowly, we limit our selves much like wearing blinders. “Know Thyself,” is an invitation to realize those parts of yourself that perhaps you hadn’t been aware of. We are so much more than most people believe us to be in our conventional wisdom.

Subjectivity9

[William]

Originally Posted by Absolution

Well in science, what is innate from birth, they like to call instinct.

Hello Absolution and forgive my late hello to the forum, and welcome. I think it would be the same to offer instinct as being of yet undetermined origin, a “natural ability”. We all enter this world with a pre-programming and we are so laboring trying to determine where that programming comes from at it smallest level and if we can only determine that, all our inquiries will be solved. Now “if” it is instinct/natural ability, then to tamper with it would not be natural and force one to do that which comes un-natural and alien to it.

Now, why do we do venture there; that which is unfamiliar to us? Inertia---when external forces command us to. Innately we are not afraid to venture into those areas, though yet inexplicable, that are unfamiliar to us; we sort of naturally are drawn there and adapt to it like we are following a path that is “complimentary” to us, like a sort of polite invitation to explore and we “latch on to it”. I don’t think it is “knowing thyself”, it is “being thyself” and those contrary external forces us to be that which we are not, we get lost and effort to know thyself again, and when we find it.........then we will be true. It just depends on how for off that path one is forced to venture. When we venture too far, we become so familiar we take advantage in ways others cannot understand and lose the as we try to communicate with them and that makes us lonely and isolated. As can be understood the smart we are the more complicated, and confusing the words become. The more we try to uncover the truth hidden in the past, the more complicated it becomes.

Originally Posted by Absolution

And it has been there since early ages of philosophy as well with the theories of the "prime mover" and such.

Exactly. Now just what is that prime mover? It has also been called a prime observer, also. That is also what many think god to be.

Originally Posted by Absolution

It could be that language is that way for us, if you assume human evolution theories, human ancestors practiced vocal communication since the dawn of mammals and maybe earlier.

That popular assumption is, in my opinion, a stab in the dark, as we effort too turn a molehill into a mountain that is too steep to climb. Evidenced by the so very esoteric nature of it; and those who venture there are the most lost, yet they think they are the most pro-found.

Originally Posted by Absolution

So given that amount of time, one would think/assume, it would be evolutionary ingrained.

Forgive me for altering your quote but I think you would agree, they can the same in the context you are using. Having said that, I most agree with what you have said.

Originally Posted by Absolution

But that raises another question, do instincts represent true knowledge or just convenient ways of ancestral survival?

We only have nuances of what truly occurred in that so very distance past as the Earth has a unique way of “covering up” that which truly happened then, as the “sands of time” would erase them for our own good and we should not venture there for the evil it would cause. Why do we? We assume too much for we were not meant to climb that mountain. It’s much easier to walk on level ground.

Originally Posted by Absolution

But knowing thyself may not even need true knowledge,

Exactly. Well put. It is only true if it fits......you.

Originally Posted by Absolution

....but instincts, what you may hold true even though it may not be correct.

It is only incorrect, if it doesn’t fit as we force ourselves to make sense of it. as can be understood as we try to please the inertia imposed by those pro-found who tell us what is right and wrong, that drives us into the ground. Sorry, for the rhyming bit, it just came out as it just had a flow to it. Ha. I’m a poet and didn’t know it. Forgive my levity, some thymes as I effort to find that spice that is life. Ha! For it is god you seek that spice so sweet, as you try to scale that mountain so high as you cry with a sigh, why did I try. Damn, I missed my calling, Ha. It seems all philosophical inquiries lead to god.................eventually, huh?

Originally Posted by Absolution

The skeptics way would to be to even remove this information, but it may be sufficient for one to stop here to meet the knowing thyself condition.

I am not entirely sure of what you said her, but I think I agree? Perhaps if you used other words?

Originally Posted by Absolution

If knowing thyself takes away from the chance of contemplating knowledge outside of what you already know then knowing thyself may not be as necessary as it has been promoted to be.

I think you are saying what I have already mentioned as it would be more to your liking to listen less to others and be yourself; correct?

Originally Posted by Absolution

I keep mentioning Socrates, but in general he viewed that knowledge can only be understood through an initial stance of complete doubt or an admission of unknowing.

If we only knew what Socrates truly thought as all was edited by those mortal gods of those times. Most don’t consider that those times are much like today, as what we truly say is scrutinize by the powers that be to stay in power and when we threaten that power, they create laws to protect them from us as they fear the truth we might offer would cause them to lose that power. As I said above, doubt and unknowing are good things if we find an inexplicable attraction to it that does not make us afraid like following a path you have followed for your entire existence as one discover’s that prodigy and wonder of who they innately are. Fear can be understood as listening with a “False-ear” as we attempt to hear those who try to offer a reason to think like them so they will not feel so all alone as the words are to alien for others to hear and the reason why most do not understand what they say, only their peers, who are few, can understand why and what they do.

Originally Posted by Absolution

It can be said this is the only way a person would take a chance and truely find complete knowledge. Maybe there must be perpetual self doubt on one's own knowledge to grow intellectually?

It truly makes one wonder what is we call “intelligence”, huh? Could it be “insecure quotient” as to what IQ truly means.

Thanks absolution for you cause me to soar, and I like that..............a lot.

Again, welcome to this global ship as we all learn to row together in this sea of strife to understand this thing we call............life. Ha, there I go again and believe me..............it just came out.

William

[Subjectivity9]

Absolution,

If instinct comes to us from birth, reflex comes directly from our spine, thinking comes from our brain, what do we call what comes to us from b/4 our birth? ; ^ ) I call that Spirit.

“Assume nothing, question everything,” that is my motto. But I love to play with ideas, try them on, and walk around in them. Ideas are often like little rooms that you can enter into and visit for a while. Because I don’t believe that ideas are me, I don’t identify with them, I can pick them up and throw them down as needed.

I think that instinct are just mechanisms for survival. If they work, those animals that have them go on to mate and reproduce creating more babies like themselves. Is survival ‘Truth’ with a capital T, meaning Ultimate Truth? Not if there is more to us than merely an animal self.

I have been beating the drum about ‘Transcendence’ here.

What you hold true even when it is not is a “mistake.” Holding a mistake regardless of all proof to the contrary is called neurosis. Now some people believe that they can just make up a pleasant story and live within its walls. But from all indications, neurosis is not a pleasant state to live within. It is actually riddles with anxiety.

‘Knowing Thyself’ does not mean dwelling upon what you think you already know about yourself. It is an invitation to expand your vision.

The human mind, when it thinks it knows something, tends to file it away under accomplished. For the most part there is nothing in this world that is quite that simple. There is always something more to learn, esp. when you realize that everything is always changing, or becoming.

Our Spiritual Self is larger than our mind. So our mind cannot even hope to simply sum it up.

I have heard Socrates described as a Mystic, as well as a philosopher. This would certainly make sense, because ‘receptivity’ calls for an emptying out, a standing naked. How can you receive anything new if you are overly full of the old knowing?

So Socrates was said to be wise (Was it Plato that said this?) because Socrates knew that he "didn’t know." All wisdom begins there.

Subjectivity9

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by richrf

There are differences depending upon the rules of the game. There are rules.

Rich

But earlier you said:

Originally Posted by richrf

There are no rules. And there are no correct ways. There are no right or wrong ways.

Rich

How does this work? And by that I mean, how does this work in a way that can be logically explained to someone such as TickTockMan?

[richrf]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

But earlier you said:


How does this work? And by that I mean, how does this work in a way that can be logically explained to someone such as TickTockMan?

If I want to get along, then I have to know the rules. But then it is up to me to decide to what extent I will play by the rules of others. I can always choose not to participate. So, it is up to me to decide.

If I decide to play along is that correct or incorrect? From my vantage point it is neither. It is a decision I make. However, others may make their own determinations and they may decide that what I am doing is correct or incorrect and that is their choice. Everyone thinks in their own way.

Rich

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by richrf

If I want to get along, then I have to know the rules. But then it is up to me to decide to what extent I will play by the rules of others. I can always choose not to participate. So, it is up to me to decide.

If I decide to play along is that correct or incorrect? From my vantage point it is neither. It is a decision I make. However, others may make their own determinations and they may decide that what I am doing is correct or incorrect and that is their choice. Everyone thinks in their own way.

Rich

This does not really answer my question of why in one post you state that "there are no rules," then, a short time later, state that "there are rules."

Please excuse my apparent contentiousness, but I fail to see how you can even pretend to formulate a decision about anything whatsoever, even the decision whether to make a decision, if you fail to make a distinction between one thing and another.

I just have to ask: would you recognize a picture of yourself?

I await your answer with great trepidation.

Sincerely,
The Artist Formerly Known as TickTockMan.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

This does not really answer my question of why in one post you state that "there are no rules," then, a short time later, state that "there are rules."

Others may have rules that I have to recognize. That does not mean that I think of things being right or wrong or correct and incorrect. However, I do recognize that others see things differently. So it is a matter of vantage point. If you think of things in a way that are right or wrong or correct and incorrect, then there are rules - from your point of view. I do recognize this.

If there weren't such things as rules then there would not be such things as no rules.

Rich

[Subjectivity9]

Hey TT Man,

I wonder if you are familiar with something called “Situational Ethics?”

Because I do believe that is what ‘my friend Rich’ is trying to explain to you right here.

What this means is that, you don’t have any pat rules written in stone. What you actually do is go with the flow.

Oh sure, you might have some intentions when going into any situation, but these are more attitudinal, like to deal with others as gently and openly as you can, (And heaven knows Rich is a gentle, and well meaning soul), but you also try to first see what is shaking in any situation and then do the best you can within each situation.

Am I right in this Rich? Perhaps you can elucidate further on this in some way. This is just my thinking on this particular subject.

Subjectivity9