Political dumbness blog.

[Oeaohoo]

42 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

An enlightened child is admittedly not as advanced as an enlightened adult, at least not most of the time.

That has nothing to do with the state of Enlightenment (not my preferred term), only with its expression in the world.

I can agree with you though: enlightenment in the past meant transcending all human limitations; today it seems to be more about building muscles and going bald whilst churning out endless “meta-theoretical frameworks”! Bravo to the Sacred Law of Progress!

Anyway, this forum has given me what little it had to offer. You are probably the most intelligent person on here, and that isn’t a compliment.

[AtheisticNonduality]

9 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

That has nothing to do with the state of Enlightenment (not my preferred term), only with its expression in the world.

It's arguable the expressiveness of Enlightenment is where its value lies, not in it as itself. An enlightened child is important, with a great deal of substance and numinous luminosities in a dark unconscious Void (an interaction between the dawning unconscious/subconscious and the superconscious ultimate Consciousness-realization). Imagine looking through the eyes of a young child looking at a field and having complete nondual unification with it, being it, understanding intuitively the realness of existence and the Void that it is and the infinity and the Self that is. But the child has not yet lived through life, the form of the child is still limited, the child has not taken all of the world into its sensation, and it is still immature, despite its awakening. You could say all of the stirrings in its unconscious and the pouring-down light of its superconscious are just preparations for what it will really be when it's older.

Enlightenment is valuable as far it develops, in the beginning and the middle but especially at its peak, structurally.

17 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

I can agree with you though: enlightenment in the past meant transcending all human limitations; today it seems to be more about building muscles and going bald whilst churning out endless “meta-theoretical frameworks”! Bravo to the Sacred Law of Progress!

 

18 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Anyway, this forum has given me what little it had to offer.

I'd miss your contributions though.

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

I can agree with you though: enlightenment in the past meant transcending all human limitations; today it seems to be more about building muscles and going bald whilst churning out endless “meta-theoretical frameworks”! Bravo to the Sacred Law of Progress!

Why do I feel so hit? ?

Btw, since you know stuff, do you know about any cyclical theories of the history of philosophy or world history? I heard the philosopher guy who talked to Destiny recently mentioning his "theory" in passing ("there are three main positions in philosophy: supernaturalism, naturalism and postmodernism, and when one gets too dominant, the other two team up to attack that one, and so the cycle continues"), and it peaked my interest.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Oeaohoo I'll be reading The Reign of Quantity . . . this month. Anything I should pre-understand about it?

[Oeaohoo]

@AtheisticNonduality Amazing! I hope that even if you aren’t able to agree with his overall assessment you will still find parts of his analysis valuable and enlightening.

‘Guénon sees history as a descent from Form (or Quality) toward Matter (or Quantity); but after the Reign of Quantity - modern materialism and the “rise of the masses” - Guénon predicts a reign of “inverted quality” just before the end of the age: the triumph of the “counter-initiation”, the kingdom of Antichrist.’

This is the essential premise. Most of all, Guénon does not want to be a “philosopher” with all the vanity and banality that the modern sense of that term, even in the case of undeniably insightful thinkers like Nietzsche, implies. Instead, he sets as his task the simple elucidation of principles; principles which are derived from traditional wisdom and ultimately from the founder of all traditions: God, the Principle of creation itself.

One of Guénon’s greatest merits is his constant emphasis on the aspect of inversion: as just one example, the modern understanding of unity as ‘the uniformity of beings denuded of all their qualities’, which is the essential ambition of all progressive political ideologies, is an inversion of true unity, in which all distinctions are included and transcended. The Reign of Quantity demonstrates how this mechanism of inversion has been applied to every aspect of modern existence, culminating in “The Great Parody” which is “Spirituality Inverted”.

I could go on but Guénon speaks for himself. I’ll look forward to hearing what you have to say about it.

Incidentally, here is a somewhat Leonian passage on the insufficiencies of the scientific mentality: ‘The profane sciences of which the modern world is so proud are really and truly only the degenerate residues of the ancient traditional sciences, just as quantity itself, to which they strive to reduce everything, is no more than the residue of an existence emptied of everything that constituted it’s essence; thus these pretended sciences, by leaving aside or even intentionally eliminating all that is truly essential, clearly prove themselves incapable of furnishing the explanation of anything whatsoever.’