Tag Archives: philosophy

Only when you let go of everything are you free to do anything

Posted on by

Is the process of living truly, of really growing up, a messy—even somewhat dangerous—process? Absolutely. For it is not a clean and simple process—learning to think for ourselves. Because we will make mistakes, and will succumb to our conditioning, and we may think we are right when we are wrong, and we might do wrong things thinking we are right. But this is part of the process, and there is no way of getting around it.

In the realm of ‘child development’ they call this ‘growing pains,’ and that is exactly what adult-children have to go through as well. There is no avoiding it. Some will do it better than others. Some will not be able to do it in this lifetime, maybe not the next, maybe not the next.

If you’re one of the very few people who are actually part of the solution, accepting the fact that you will not see societal fruits of your labor in this lifetime is crucial. Part of this, though, is that you must realize that ‘the path’ (of seeing and living things as they really are) is the goal (in this life-time/dimension). The effort-process is the reward. For in reality, there is no such thing as ‘end,’ or ‘reward.’ They are but illusions as well. There is no end ‘Utopia’ where everyone will just be happy and be living the life of Eden, for let’s not forget that the bliss of Eden was the bliss of ignorance, not enlightenment. For to get to that point of enlightenment is but the beginning, not the end; it is the beginning.

And so you must understand it not in the Christian perspective of getting later on what you work for now, for that is wrong. Rather, you must see that what ‘you’ are ‘getting’ is the work itself, is the doing itself. To know and be and do true to your true not-self is it (in this life). What else could possibly be desired? It is beyond desire.

Only when one truly accepts this can they really do it, for then they are not self-righteously feeling as if they are ‘sacrificing,’ and suffering for a ‘better future’. There is no such thing as ‘future’. There is, and only ever is, now. The future simply does not, and will not, and cannot, exist, as you think of it. This does not mean that one should be myopic, not at all. It means to do, now, mindfully. To do, now, mindfully, will take care of the myopia problem.

Will you be ‘sacrificing’? Probably. There is no getting around it. You will certainly have to/grow to let go of, if not give up, many things that you crave/selfishly desire. But I don’t think you need to give up the things that really matter: food, shelter, warmth, clothing, and best of all, real love. This kind of life does not preclude any of these things. And, especially when it comes to real love, it can be a wonderful life, so much more wonderful, so much more, than the self-deluded life that most people live, for only in living this kind of life is one able to live real love.

The point is to not let your conditioning, your selfish desires, control you; you must control them, you must learn to control yourself, and this takes practice. If you let desire rule, then you’re on the wrong track.

There is nothing wrong with material things, in themselves; what is wrong is to not see them as, and for what, they really are; for when it comes to us humans, it is not the thing itself, but how you see it, that matters, that makes you who and what you are.

And so, you may not need to give up those things you currently desire, but the point is that if you are doing it right, it will be okay if you don’t get them, which is essentially the same as not desiring (getting) it. If it is not okay that you do not get what you desire, then you aren’t doing it right.

“It’s only after you’ve lost everything that you’re free to do anything.”

(Tyler Durden, in Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk)

That is a brilliant—yet often misunderstood—idea, as it is often said from the attitude of losing material things, and losing all hope, but it is not ultimately about that. Ultimately, it is about letting go. And that does not mean having to live a life of poverty or depravity. It means letting go of that to which you cling (physically, emotionally, mentally, ideologically, even ‘spiritually’). It is about letting go of thinking you need what you desire. It means letting go your desire. Only when you let go can you ever then really ‘have’ anything, for you won’t have it in the way you previously understood that verb. And so I would change the phrase a little:

Only when you let go of everything are you free to do anything.

The more you peel away the layers of your conditioned existence, the more illusions you dissolve, the more you understand what is not, the more you feel the love that is reality.

It just doesn’t get any better than that.

.

From my personal notes, 8/23/00

Progress is a Process

Posted on by

Only when people stop giving it lip service, and realize that we are all the same, that we are all one, will things really change. Because at that point things could not help but change. For when you take away the idea of self, of ego, of I, of ‘personal’ ‘property’—’mine not yours’; ‘ours not theirs’—it subverts and essentially negates all of those Western ideas and concepts on which our societies and governments are based and run. There would be, there could be, no capitalism, nor socialism, nor communism, nor any system based at all on the idea of ownership, on ‘me,’ or ‘us,’ or ‘they,’ or ‘you.’

If there is one concept that is the root trouble-maker when it comes to ‘society,’ it is the concept of ownership, for within that concept rests the concept of I, of mine (‘owner’). If there is no me, no self, in the way that Western ideology (mis)understands it, then there simply can be no concept of ownership—it is utterly precluded from existing as a reality—for it is, in really, an illusion.

This is why socialism is the closest of the systems of social organization to reality, but the reason socialism doesn’t work in practice is that the people all need to understand and live these truths. Since that is not the case, it won’t work.

A theory is not wrong because it does not work in a certain practice, with particular conditions; for it is possible to change the conditions and the theory may work just fine. So the problem is not necessarily the theory, but the conditions into which it is thrown. Of course socialism doesn’t work—if for no other reason than the people need to have it imposed upon them, that they still need to be, and want to be, controlled. You can’t toss larvae in the air and expect them to fly. You can dress a child up like an adult, but it will still be, in reality, a child in adult clothing.

The only way for ‘socialism’ to work, and further, for ‘anarchy’ (no central government) to work, is for everyone to ‘get it.’ The only way to achieve this kind of higher level of social organization is to work on helping everyone get it. And that is a slow, and hard, and thankless job. But there is no magic wand to wave over the world that will cause people to wake up the next morning and just get it.

For better or worse, life is process, and as such, we must understand that this, too, is process, is a process, and as a process, we must do the work that we can as being part of that process.

The progress you make may not be what you wished it would be, but then you must at that point realize the work you still need to do on yourself if you are still thinking that way, are still being controlled and led by your ego’s desires and selfish interests.

The only way (I see) to work for the solution is to do what you can do, to help the process of real education, to help people educate themselves properly—that is, to help them learn personal responsibility, how to think for themselves, to see that they actually and really do want to control themselves, to grow up. (This should in no way be understood in the way those slimy Republicans blather on about “personal responsibility”, since that comes from not giving a rat’s ass about people, and what I’m talking about here comes from giving a whale’s ass about people.)

Although it’s a cliché, clichés are clichés because they are often true, and this is no exception: By helping one person you are helping to change the world, for it must happen as a process, and we are a part of that process.

To look for a shortcut is to not get it. That would be yet another indication of lack of true awareness. There are no shortcuts to happiness, to living truly. This is something that anyone who gets it needs to fully accept.

I know that that is one of the things I am personally working on right now. It isn’t easy. It goes against what people call our ‘human nature’. But, as my point has always been, that is not necessarily our entire human nature, it is our conditioned way of being, and what is conditioned can be de-conditioned. But, again, it is a process, and the point is that we need to do what we can to help ourselves and people in the right direction. And to do that means that we need to look at our own lives and examine what we are doing with our time and energy. Are we really working for the solution, or are we thinking we are working for the solution but really working towards the problem?

Are we subverting the system, or are we inadvertently supporting and strengthening it?

It means that we need to realize that we cannot help everyone. We need to choose who we try to help, and work with, and learn from. For it is all also a part of our own path, our own awakening.

This takes much, much effort and concentration. And for better or worse, the more a person realizes these things, the more they will realize, as I have, that they cannot be of this system and work towards the solution, for a part of the solution is the subversion and replacement of that system, not with another system, but with reality, with love, with no longer needing such a system.

The more you realize the truth of things, the less you will be able to live your life the way you have been living it, the less you will be able to fit into the system. If that doesn’t happen, then you’re not on to the truth of things yet. It’s pretty much a guarantee, actually. And that is another reason why most people fail and give up—because they don’t have the strength to do this. They may see a part of the truth, but their egos, their selfish desires, are still more powerful. In the end, they are weak.

.

From my personal notes, 8/23/00

Focusing on Self

Posted on by

Some people get fed up with the world and end up just focusing on themselves. Other people never really outgrew the childish, almost primitive self-regard that precludes ever really focusing on anyone but themselves. But here is where it gets complicated—the only way to outgrow that childish way of being is to focus on yourself, but only in the ‘Hindu’ and ‘Buddhist’ sense; that you must focus on yourself to know and be who you really are, which, if you do it right, will mean that you will realize that the self, the ‘I’ that you thought you were focusing on, isn’t your real and true essence, that it is really an illusion, and your real, true ‘not-self’ is not only the ‘same’ as everyone else’s, but that in a difficult-to-grasp way, it is them as well.

When you can go through that stage, when you can see that truth, then you realize that, on the level underneath, or beyond, this illusory Matrix-world, ‘me’ is ‘you’, ‘we’ are ‘they’, what is right for me is right for you, what is good for me is good for you, because we are all the same underneath.

Then, and only then, will you realize that when ‘I’ focus on ‘me’, ‘I’ am focusing on ‘everyone’.

It is going in a circle in a way, but you are not who, or what, you thought you were when you started, and you realize that it is the way you understand things, the way you live, the way you do [things], that matters; it is the way you understand ‘the self’ and ‘everyone else.’ For, once you understand that I is you, that my not-self is your not-self, then you look at the world totally differently, you look at yourself totally differently, and you realize that you can’t consider only yourself, because you realize that you is everyone, everything, that when you focus on yourself, you are really focusing on everyone. You can’t escape this.

But, let’s be honest, most people don’t get to this point. They just turn back on themselves and consider themselves without getting to the point of realizing the illusory nature of what we call ‘the self.’ And so they end up living selfish lives, which is not the right way. It is in the right direction of focus, but is seen, and understood, and done wrong. Only when you realize that there is no ‘me’ is it okay to think about and talk about me, which we can’t avoid as of now because it is part of the way we communicate, it is part of our grammar. But, as I have said before, people mistakenly look to language for truth when it is really the other way around.

People look at our languages and see that there are these pronouns, that we say ‘I’ and thus they assume that such a thing exists (in a real, non-illusory way). They are looking at the illusion as reality as opposed to looking at the illusion to help us see/get to the reality.

And so it is integral that one looks and focuses on their self, but it is how he or she does it that matters. He must focus on his self with the attitude of deconstructing and seeing it as, and for what, it really is, not feeding, and nurturing, and catering to, it. This is the key. To understand the ego-self in this way is to enter the only door there really is towards beginning to be able to understand what real love really is. And then you can understand that—to paraphrase the Buddha—in love (the verb) there is only loving, no lover and nothing (or no one) loved. It’s just love/loving. And that can only be in the absence of ego-self.

.

From my personal notes, 8/23/00

Questioning Existentially

Posted on by

This is the essence of the importance of understanding illusion; that such a concept—like ‘justice,’ which we assume just exists, and on (and around) which so much policy and organizational issues are ostensibly decided—can actually be nothing but an illusion. We just never took the time to really question it, question it existentially.

The only way to get to the truth behind all of the major concepts such as love, justice, faith, right and wrong, etc., is to first discover the nature of those concepts in the contemporary human psyche, to find the assumptions on which such concepts are currently based; to find out, in other words, how (both existentially and qualitatively) they exist, for us, as opposed to simply whether they exist. What we will find is that they may ‘exist,’ just not at all the way we thought they did, which, of course, will point out that what was believed (in) was not reality—not the thing as it really is—but an illusion (in our own minds).

And so we see that the word, the label, is, itself, arbitrary—it is what the word represents that matters.

This idea is so fundamental and far-reaching that it would pretty much throw everything into a tizzy if it were really considered thoughtfully and bravely. For it addresses why we believe what we believe, on what we base our beliefs, the assumptions on which we build our ideologies (and our societies), and even our understandings of our languages and our words’ relations to that which they are supposed to represent and help us understand.

At bottom, we will find that it all comes down to motivation and value. All is built on these. All illusion(s), that is. For reality can only be found when one is brave enough to realize this, and to deconstruct that which is human-made.

.

From my personal notes, 8/10/00

Personal Property

Posted on by

It seems to me that the idea (I can’t remember who said it, Locke maybe) that there can be no liberty/justice without property is so ingrained in the psyche and ideology of this society that most people could barely begin to question it. But it strikes me that the opposite of that self-serving statement is true—that the only way for there to be real justice (or, ‘liberty’) is without the concept of property, of ‘ownership’. For, though it is rarely (if ever) mentioned, these are merely concepts—they are not real, but are, rather, illusions; in other words: human inventions. And contrary to the arrogance of humanity, the fact that it is human does not make it right, nor real, nor ‘natural.’

One of the things I object to in the idea that there can only be justice with personal property is that it ties the idea of morality—of what is right or wrong—to the concept of ‘ownership,’ and basically says that as long as there is no property there can be no justice; that without property (and the inherent ideological assumptions that support that concept) we would have no context, no touchstone, by which to know what is the right and wrong way to treat each other.

A more ignorant and self-serving idea I have rarely heard. It’s also just plain ridiculous, no matter how ‘logical.’

It seems to me that the only way to limit justice and freedom is by the concept of personal property, that those with it have rights and freedom and those without it do not. Oh, they may have freedom and justice on paper, but what the concept of property brings with it is the practice of hypocrisy, prejudice, racism, and classism. The concept of personal property inserts artificial distinctions between people, between those ‘with’ and those ‘without.’ To say that there can only be justice with property is to say that the ‘American Indians’ were societies without ‘justice.’ It’s absurd.

But let’s focus on the important point here; and that is that there need be no loaded concept of ‘justice’ as long as there is no ‘property;’ that a people may treat each other rightly because they have no need for such concepts. It is a testament to the maturity of a society (and not just its size) the amount of laws and rules it needs to control the populace, as well as the variety and complexity of concepts which justify and require such laws and rules. (There is a gray area between laws and matters of organization that must be examined when it comes to large societies and the issues I bring up here, but that is another, more specific, discussion.)

In this sense, I could even agree with the statement in question in one sense, in that there can be no certain kind of justice as long as there is no property, that “certain kind” simply being that kind that is tied to personal property. It simply begs the question, is guaranteed by (arbitrary) definition. Again, the mistaken assumption of the idea is that without property there can be no justice, but, if approached from the other direction, we get: without property there is only justice; and, further, there is no need for the concept of justice without the concept of property.

We see here how concepts beget concepts, and that things we assume to be existentially ‘natural’ are really just a product of the need to justify a previous concept; that a concept (like ‘justice’) sort of existentially sits atop another concept (‘property’), that this ‘real’ thing (‘justice’) actually requires another concept (‘property’) for its existence, that other concept actually being quite illusory. What we see is a sort of layering, or building block (of concepts).

.

From my personal notes, 8/10/00

Potential

Posted on by

I find the idea of substance as form and matter very interesting (form being actualized potential, matter being potential form). Even further, I find the idea of potential, itself, interesting. Clay does not have the potential to be a live cat, so a live cat could never be clay. But are we not also the result, or consequence, of unactualized potential?

I have much potential that I do not actualize. I have the potential (or opportunity) to smoke crack every day, but I choose not to. Surely, who I am is partially the non-actualization of this potential.

I think it bears significance that there are potentials that are actualized and those that are not. Surely, both make us who we are (as much as who we are not), and some are very much under our control, and are thus a choice on our part. Why do some people actualize some potentials that others do not? It surely is not simply because those people have potentials that others do not—it is not that simple. And yet, people do not all have the same potential, or at least opportunity. They may have the same potential but different opportunity. A girl born in, say, rural China may have within her the potential to be a world-class pianist, but if she never is exposed to a piano, if she is not afforded with the opportunity to actualize that potential, it will most likely lie dormant and escape notice at all. But, we can say that she has the opportunity to get herself out of China and get to a place where her potential may be actualized. It is not necessarily impossible. And so, in this way, she does have some control. Either way, it seems to me that what we are (a human, a cat, a tree, etc.) is much less of a choice than who we are. While we cannot completely separate what we are from who we are, we certainly control the latter more than the former.

Can there be a who without a what? Can there be matter without form? Form without matter? Which is form and which is matter: the ‘who’ or the ‘what?’ Or, is it not limited to these choices? This brings up interesting yet problematical issues. It also could be connected in some way to illusion vs. reality, in the sense that if reality (who we really are) is the absence of illusion (who we (think we) are), we could see who we are as the matter (the potential) and who we really are as the form (the realized potential, though accomplished via negativa—, i.e., who we really are is (‘revealed’) in the absence of our conditioned ego-self), and this is how our paths of ego-illusion are our paths to reality, the self as the path, that the illusory self is the path; it is the potential of the reality of its own absence. It is interesting to combine these ideas, because one is metaphysically positive (form and matter), and one is metaphysically negative (illusion vs. reality).

We can also ask if there can be matter that is not itself formed matter, the actualization of previous potential. Would this be pure potential? Is form physical or metaphysical? Is matter physical and form (shape) metaphysical? It is hard to say that shape is physical. It has to do with physical material, but it itself is more of a force than physical matter. There can be no shape without something shaped. Of course, this is a great debate between the Platonists and Aristotelians—can shape exist independently of matter? Plato says yes, Aristotle says no.

This has everything to do with our understanding of existence. Can form exist without matter? How? Where? Aristotle says there cannot be form without matter (can you imagine matter—anything—that does not have some sort of form?) There cannot be ‘square’ without there being a thing in that shape. And yet, Plato might have said that an example of a circular object is but an actualization of the potential form that had to exist in order for that object to take that shape in the first place. It is not an easy issue to resolve. And as usual with such impasses, I always like to look at the basic assumptions involved, for it is most likely our own lack of understanding is causing the problem. One of these basic assumptions is the metaphysical existence of physical matter as noun-things, something which may not actually be true, which we can see at a quantum level.

Anyhow, it seems to come down to how a thing exists, as opposed to simply whether it exists. Is a line in circular form a circle, or is a circle 2πr (the mathematical expression of “circumference”)? But we speak of the circumference of a circle, so circumference itself cannot be a circle. But—and this is an important point—perhaps we are mistaken to speak of the circumference ‘of’ a circle because maybe ‘a circle’ is really circumference, and it is a grammatical error to speak about a circle’s circumference. It is absurd and meaningless, for it is like speaking about a circumference’s circumference, which is impossible. If this is indeed true, then there is not ‘circle,’ only ‘circumference.’

This is yet another instance of the importance of not mistaking grammar for reality: we make certain metaphysical assumptions when we talk about ‘the circumference of a circle.’ This grammatical way of talking about ‘a circle’ has, itself, defined for us the metaphysical parameters. But, grammar does not make metaphysical reality, does it? We mistakenly make assumptions based on the metaphysical assumptions inherent in the grammar we use to talk about things. This is a major mistake, and a source of great confusion.

In fact, we might say that it is incorrect to speak of a ‘circle’ at all; rather it is more accurate to speak of something being circular—in the above example, it is a line in circular form. And actually, circle, or any shape at all, is a wholly abstract concept, for such concepts are not physical things at all, but rather forms. There is no physical circle, only a physical thing that may be circular, only matter in the form, or shape, of what we call ‘circle.’ Thus, we can say that there are only examples of circle, the circular form. And to Aristotle, there are only examples, only examples are, only examples exist. Examples are what is real. And, in fact, it is incorrect to use the word ‘example,’ for that implies an example of something. Now, when that thing is just an illusory, abstracted concept, as it is to Aristotle, then that’s fine, but it is a problem when that thing is imagined to be a real thing (in fact, the only real thing in the equation), as it is to Plato.

To go with the form and matter discussion, our physical bodies are not all of our ‘matter’—if we take matter to be more than simply material and see it more as potential—for who we are is not simply our physiology. In fact, the form and matter theory becomes problematical in regards to natural, as opposed to created, things. In the brick analogy, the matter of the brick is the clay. A human’s matter would seemingly be his flesh and bone, etc., the material, in other words, of which he is formed. But when we answer the ‘whatness’ question, we answer with this material, for all humans are made up of this material. So the material (matter, thus understood) is the form, if the whatness is the form. What, then, is the matter of organic things?

Anyhow, who we are is more a product, or the process, of our ‘karma’, our choices, the circumstances of our lives. If this is the case, then matter follows form, which doesn’t fit into the theory. It seems, then, that the Aristotelian substance explains ‘what,’ but not ‘who.’ But, in the way that every end is a beginning and every beginning is an end, we can also say that every formed matter is also matter to be formed, every realized potential is also itself potential to be realized—for it is our minds that separate into ‘this’ and ‘that’ what may in reality not be separate.

We can also talk in terms of causes, that everything has a material cause (its whys, where and what it came from) and formal cause (its purpose, function, how it ends up). It is a question of what is behind and ahead of a thing in time. Where do we draw the lines of the thing, if it is itself the material cause of something else and the formal cause of something else? Where does death and birth fit into this?

What does all this have to do with the ‘real world?’ Well, I think that we can see people as being form and matter, as having potential to actualize. I think that we can see this matter as that potential, both in a physical and ‘spiritual’ sense. In that way, this potential, this matter, is who someone is. This matter can be formed in many ways, many of those ways existing as illusions. It seems to me that our formal cause can partly be understood as the realization of that matter, that potential. And in other terms, it could be called ‘enlightenment’—the process of knowing and being who you really are. It really does have a lot to do with my overarching themes and ideas about the difference between ‘who someone i’s and ‘who they really are’, between illusion and reality.

The interesting thing about potential is that if there is such thing as potential, a form as yet unrealized, then Plato is right about his notion that form can exist without matter. For matter enters a mold that was already there. How else could it take on that form if the form was not already there for it to take?

Again, I think the shortcoming here is in my lack of true understanding. For it is simply impossible for us to think about potential without there being something having (that) potential.

Again, I think the solution to the riddle is in the ‘logic’ of reality being the absence of illusion. Such an idea is not within a framework of time, of one being before the other, which is how we think about form and matter, potential either unrealized or realized.

.

From my personal notes 8/1/00

Academia Sucks

Posted on by

In ostensibly—but not really—trying to get to truth, instead of breaking down and dissolving illusions, academia is all about constructing more illusions. The logic here is the simple logic that two wrongs don’t make a right. It is the dark forest of technical terms and jargon that run rampant in academia—and the enormous amount of unquestioned assumptions on which they are based—that I disagree with, for I see that the way to get to reality is by dissolving illusions, not constructing more.

If our conditioned existences are like a house of cards, the way to deconstruct the house is not to add to it, but to remove cards carefully and mindfully.

Remember that the idea is to remove the cards from the table, not to simply rearrange them or let them fall to the tabletop, because they have a tendency to creep back to the edifice and attach somewhere else.

I can see a way of looking at what academia does as being a scaffolding on which we can climb up to the top and work with the cards on top…but this may not really be possible. What we may think is scaffolding is probably just going to end up being more cards that we mistake for scaffolding.

This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why I have less patience, as time goes on, with such scaffolding, with the technical jargon that academic disciplines construct around themselves; because they do not seem to have anything to do with the process of really seeking and seeing truth, and often have everything to do with what is wrong with the world, with what keeps people from pursuing enlightenment. It is also maybe why I feel that “art” is the only way to get to truth.

This speaks to another thing I have been thinking about lately, and that is the difference between art and art criticism. I find myself having less patience with the descriptions of art and how people try to articulate what the art is, or what it means, or what it stands for. Such descriptions and criticism, if done well, can help us to experience the art in ways that we might not have been able to without it, and as such, almost becomes a part of the work (for real art is alive); but, unfortunately, this is rare. What we usually get is more illusions, words and ideas pregnant with assumptions and “certainties” which actually serve to do the opposite of what good art is supposed to do—bring us close to reality/truth (of life, experience, whatever).

It is also one of the reasons why I have thus far chosen to not formally study writing, or theater, or film. “Art,” to me, is a way to help us understand ourselves better, it is a way of forming truth and reality in a way that speaks to us, touches us, helps us awaken. I am not concerned with technique-as-art. I think that many people mistake technique for art. What I am concerned with is truth. If something is true, then it is good. Truth transcends such trivial human concepts of good and bad. If it is true, it is good, if it is not, then it is bad. Many people see only the technique and judge that.

Again, technique is not art. By focusing on technique, one is—like my cat does—staring at my finger as opposed to what I am pointing to. Technique is the finger. Truth is what the finger is (or, at least, should be) pointing to. If it points to truth, then it is art, and how well it does that is the determinant as to whether it is good art or not.

.

From my personal notes, 7/30/00

Are All Opinions Equally Valid?

Posted on by

These days, maybe because of the influence of the PC movement, many people have the belief that everyone’s ideas and opinions are on equal footing and have equal validity. I simply do not think this is true. In fact, if pressed, most people who have the belief that all opinions are equal would have to agree that they are wrong, unless, of course, they are absolutely irrational.

It is simply a fact, given the inescapable truth of context in human thought, that some ideas are less valid than others. And it is also a fact that ideas and philosophies run the human world.

It is ideas and philosophies that dictate and control every aspect of our lives. And given the truth of illusion vs. reality, there are ideas and opinions that are wrong, and those that are right. Of course, one of the things that someone who has the strength to pursue enlightenment realizes is that it is the identification of what is wrong that gets us closer to what is “right,” if such a thing exists. If, as I think, reality is the absence of illusion, then it is possible that, when it comes to human thought, human rationality and logic, there is only wrong, and no “right.”

People who want to say that everyone’s opinion is equally valid are betraying their own fear and weakness, and especially their own ignorance. Again, the basis for what I consider to be right and wrong (not “morally”; it is better to understand these words as “correct” and “incorrect”) is context. The human mind processes (or, at least, understands) information and perceptions in context. That is, I contend, irrefutable. I am not saying that I am talking about Reality (“with a capital R”), but rather the validity of human ideas and opinions, given the context in which they are understood.

The human rational mind does not necessarily process perceptions as how they exist outside of the context of the human mind. So, in this way, I am not speaking about Reality independent of the human mind. The philosophies and ideas that control our lives exist within the context of the human mind, and thus in the realm of the contexts in which the human mind functions. Given context, there are certainly such things as “correct” and “incorrect.”

We do not have any other way of determining whether something is correct or incorrect outside of the realm of context. Am I wrong?

Since it is possible that every idea we have—every concept, opinion, and processed perception—is essentially illusory, this is why I say that it is probable that there is only “wrong” when it comes to human ideas, for illusions are “wrong” in relation to reality, which is “right.” As such, every idea we have is “wrong,” in the sense that it does not speak to reality, but to our ideas and perceptions in a given context, a context which is partially dictated by the physiological makeup of the human brain (see Kant), and partially dictated by our conditioning.

This is, I think, what the Buddhists are talking about when they say that everything is illusion. Many people interpret this as meaning that nothing exists. But I do not think this is what it is saying. Rather, it is more like the Kantian idea of a thing-in-itself vs. how it is perceived by the human mind, and never the twain shall meet. But, I am not convinced that the twain can never meet.

Most people limit human thought to what they consider to be “rationality,” which is based on logic, which is utterly dependent on the contexts of the human mind. But since it is quite obvious that there were things before there were humans, we can say that there is reality outside the context of human thought, though since “we” cannot escape the confines of our minds and the way we think, we cannot know what that reality is not in relation to ourselves. This is, again, because of context. It is also, to me, the brilliance of what Kant pointed out, as well as the Buddhist/Hindu concept of illusion vs. reality.

Many people assume that there is no way for us to escape the confines of the rational human mind, and thus to experience or understand reality as opposed to the matrix of illusions we all live in. I am not so sure I agree with this. The reason I cannot agree with it is the process of enlightenment. While it is the most difficult thing one can do, it is possible to break down the illusions of our conditioned existences. It is possible to see an illusion for what it is, to see that something we really thought was real and true was actually an illusion. That is reality; it is the process of reality. And since this is possible, it is also possible to do it more, and do it better, and that the more one does it, the further away one gets from “the matrix,” and the closer one gets to reality.

Yes, this is a rational, logical train of thought. There is nothing wrong with rationality and logic. What is wrong is to make assumptions about what logic is and what it can and cannot do for us.

I do not think that within the conditioned contexts in which we think we can get to reality. But I do think that we can use logic for what it is—a tool to help us transcend those conditioned contexts.

We do not know logic outside of the context of our conditioned existences. And, as such, we cannot think that we can understand—let alone describe—the merits of logic outside of this conditioned existence. As such, perhaps it is not logic that is the problem, but the conditioning. This is, to me, where Western and Eastern philosophies meet, and where hope lies in getting beyond the impasse at which I think Western philosophy and theology are currently mired.

.

From my personal notes, 7/30/00