Can Transcendence Be Taught?
chronicle.com
chronicle.com
We spoke at length while he was in the hospital, many times. He faced his death with serenity. His primary concern was for his wife's well-being, who he knew would miss him terribly.
All of his knowledge died with him, which I found troubling, but he did not.
But you're troubled you couldn't squeeze the concentrated knowledge out of him like an orange?
You'll have to read all the books yourself i guess.
I was talking about less fundamental truths, such as the realization that one's parents are idiots, life is being wasted, every minute a person is getting murdered somewhere in a most horrifying way, girlfriend is getting ugly, etc. Try to get comfortable with that...
My impression of "transcendence" is the ability to consciously take these signals as input, rather than subconsciously by following feelings. The prerequisite to this is a deep understanding of oneself, the different signals one can perceive, and what real-world phenomena correspond to those signals (vs what the signals themselves say).
There's also a lot of anecdotal evidence that various psychedelics aid in this process, with one theory being that because they often delay or otherwise distort the link between your perception and reality, you have to think logically about how to compensate for the difference between your perception and what you consciously know to be reality. Throw the especially pensive nature induced by some variants of marijuana or LSD into the mix, and you've got a recipe for enlightenment.
By the way, if that sounds plausible, consider that the euphoria associated with consuming those substances may be an evolutionary adaptation. Seeing really is believing; humans have a hard time properly attributing weight to factors they can't directly perceive (even our own suffering isn't enough to motivate us if it's far enough in the future to be abstract to our current selves). As a result, most people don't acquire the ability to consciously perceive their input signals (and compensate for them) until the difference between perception and reality is made literally visible, e.g. by psychedelics.
If you accept you're a conscious imperfect animal, being able to communicate with other conscious beings is in itself a pretty nice deal.
You can't change the truth, so it cannot be put as the problem, the problem is the expectations we are given while growing up just to discover most of it is bullshit.
You could also try to put the ideal in it's place, as an horizon, something you walk towards in order to progress, but it'd be foolish to expect to get there, let alone demand to be there already.
People do that all the time, and for a very good reason. Life in a society where everyone only speaks truth would be impossible (which is why, for instance, atheism is not very popular).
As I read more and more, thought about various things that I read, observe things happening around me, read history and think the need of violence and such stuff, it got me various perspectives. I would hate anything but the truth.
One's opinion about something is not necessarily truth and we get mostly uncomfortable about someone else's opinion. But dont we not want the true fact even if it is uncomfortable?
I'm struggling to understand what you mean by this.
Nah. Ignorance now usually means a whole lot of pain later.
The idea is simple: the organism that sees only what its needs (fitness criteria) can reproduce more successfully than an organism that sees more complete picture (reality) and has to spend energy to process it.
It is not about metaphysics. It is about a math model and whether it is confirmed by observations of actual organisms on the Earth.
Also, I don't think this article was really written from an existentialist perspective (despite raising some important existential questions and mentioning Nietzsche and Heidegger a couple of times).
The authors seem to be more interested in the American Transcendentalists' answers to these questions (hence the title of the essay "Can Transcendence Be Taught?" and an author's book "American Philosophy").
I can see how it could be read differently, though.
Why we live only to suffer and die? Because otherwise old animals would consume resources needed for growth, and thus there's evolutionary pressure for limited lifespans.
It's not that those are hard questions. It's that people don't like the answers.
Deal with it.
Definitely there is. If humans spent a long time learning, and were more productive and fruitful in their later years, developing more intelligent systems, they would theoretically out-compete a civilization that wasn't able to develop such advanced skills and learning - especially related to passing on information.
The missing issue not obvious in genes is the amount of cultural information and learning passed on. A genetically 'superior' race of beings (faster, smarter, more disease resistant) would surely be 'beaten' by a group of lesser beings who were able to cooperate, learn, cognize, master tools, pass on wisdom etc...
Total speculation.
William James writes about this in 'The Varieties of Religious Experience'.
The color blue does not exist outside the realm of our senses. Neither does the concept of a "table".
People who have never met can report having the same experiences with both "Blue" and "Table".
For example, there are mind states called "jhana" that can be reliably accessed by experienced meditators. The language used to describe them is along the lines of "as piti subsides and suka becomes more prevalent, you are entering the 2nd jhana".
We even have language to describe what it's like to experience without an experiencer:
In the seeing, only the seen. In the thinking, only the thought...
I'm simply trying (and failing) to offer a perspective that possibly nothing occurs outside of personal sense experience. The experience of blue does not exist within the wavelengths of light, it exists as consciousness. A rock does not experience blue when those wavelengths hit it.
If it is true that we only exist as our senses and consciousness then a transcendent spiritual experience is as real as anything else.
If I haven't convinced you, then I am merely poor at describing what I'm getting at and for that I apologize.
Transcendentalism is a philosophy espoused by Emerson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism This article is basically just trying to hilight some good points of that philosophy.
For more on what Transcendentalism is, see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/transcendentalism/
(with the caveat that the Internet is a pretty poor place to learn philosophy)
I used to experience a "normal", "physical" reality and now my experience is beyond that.
If you are curious how such perspectives may evolve, you might find this interesting:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six...
This article touches on so many points and looks at so many approaches to the issues it raises that it just can't be adequately summarized in a single sentence or even a paragraph.
Some points that it touches on:
- Why are we here?
- Is there any meaning to life, death or suffering?
- Can science, academia, philosophy, or theology offer satisfying answers to these questions?
- "Are we teaching students everything without teaching them anything regarding the big questions that matter most?"
and many others.
It's a deep article, worthy of careful reading and consideration.
That's a great question. I don't think I have a good answer, and have not heard an answer from anyone else that satisfies me. I recognize that some people feel these questions to be keenly important at certain times in their lives, and feel that way myself, but I am not sure why.
Perhaps it is part of "human nature", or human psychology, or evolution. Some philosophers have spoken of an "anxiety" that comes with existence, a result of being "thrown in to the world", others speak of such concerns being the result of a fear of death.
My own view is rather pessimistic: I think people are very good at deluding themselves, and very bad at figuring out their true motivations (if that's even possible at all).
As to meaning: some people do think there is no meaning, others that the universe is absurd, others still that people create their own meaning, yet others that there is some "objective" or even "god-given" meaning, etc. I'm not sure how one could tell.
I'm interested in seeing how people have approached these questions and tried to answer them, though; and perhaps there is some way to find out after all.
I am reminded of Benjamin Disraeli, who said "All is mystery; but he is a slave who will not struggle to penetrate the dark veil."