Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A Further Contribution.

Expand Messages
  • j15300
    Know thyself as God --complete motto of ancient Greek mystery schools. Http://www.near-death.com/jung.html has Carl Jung s account of conscious understanding
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 5, 2004
      "Know thyself as God"--complete motto of ancient Greek mystery

      Http://www.near-death.com/jung.html has Carl Jung's account of
      conscious understanding of who "I am" after the physical is
      unavailable (his conquering of the "last enemy").

      Http://www.ananda.org/inspiration/books/ay/39.html has a similar
      record of soul-field awareness.

      When one finds oneself at the point of Self-realization, Brouwer's
      fixed point theorem is germane, especially when bijecting soul-field
      awareness as Above, so below, the Above being as the 4-space melding
      of two Moebius bands (= Klein's bottle qua Eternality holding
      physis), the bijectable below being as the dynamic conjoining of two
      circles (= sphere). When such a point of transparent realization of
      who I Am is obtained, even as Mosaic (Living) Light Above, Abrahamic
      (reflecting, God-Obedient) light below, the transparency of Soul's
      soul-field travels, Whitehead-like, Monad-like, through Dyads,
      lattices, of personal and interpersonal testings and development,
      unto the perfect day of Triadicity (Meaning's fullness), thence
      sublimating as resurrection's midnight daily-dying return unto the
      great I Am qua individuation (becoming permanent atom of Being in
      the Body of God); such instauration henceforth ably in-Forming the
      ongoing existence with a degree of Living Light of the Spirit:
      Plato's process of hypo-thesis: under-standing the Living Idea,
      receiving in-Formation, with Mater-realization accompanying.

      Whitehead's process theology: "Let this Mind be in you, which was
      also in Christ Jesus."

      Kudos :)

      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Een Enkelte"
      <eenenkelte@y...> wrote:
      > Dear Kierkegaardians,
      > Transparency
      > Part I - Developing an understanding
      > Part II - The limiting of the self
      > Part III - Dialectics
      > Part IV - Ideality
      > Part V - Transparency
      > An impossible editorial preface
      > If there were a role within a conversation, corresponding to that
      of an editor of an author's production, that editor might draw the
      > reader's attention to the fact that this piece is the best account
      > that this author has so far produced. He would add that though
      this is certainly not to say very much, it is nevertheless to say
      > something. He would consider that, in the author's trying to
      fulfil his task as an author - to find the means of communicating
      with his reader - he had perhaps produced a piece which better
      fulfilled the requirements.
      > Nevertheless, there is no such equivalent, and this is only a
      > contribution to a conversation.
      > Yet, if there were such an editor, who would readily admit that it
      > was impossible for him to exist in this role; he might say that
      this piece was better compared to a long speech in a dialogue. While
      at the same time he would hurry to vouch for it, that the speaker
      would never compare himself to that Greek dialectician, but could
      only wish to be able to hold him up as an example – also to himself.


      Part V - Transparency
      > And what if that understanding which was to be clarified in this
      way was his understanding of his own existence? And what if, in
      > understanding that he must both ask and answer, he recognises the
      > need for a dialectical understanding of his own existence; such
      that he may include himself in the account?
      > Well, then this clarification will be a clarification of himself.
      > And if he should achieve this clarification of his own Ideality
      > (here, an Ideality which includes an idea of himself) to the point
      of arriving at the Absolute, such that he is also, by means of it,
      able to understand himself and his own existence?
      > Well, then he will have overcome all the other explanations that
      > would have produced an understanding that made everything (from
      the subjective point of view) unexplainable.
      > The clarification will result in this; that he is transparent to
      > himself.
      > Very best regards,
      > Een Enkelte.
    • Jim Stuart
      Dear Een, I find your Further Contribution a very significant contribution to the Kierkegaardians group - it is challenging to me as an individual, and it
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 8, 2004
        Dear Een,

        I find your "Further Contribution" a very significant contribution to the Kierkegaardians group - it is challenging to me as an individual, and it has given me plenty to think about.

        This short note is to ask for clarification with regard to the terms "Ideality" and "the Ideal" which are used in the piece. Here are five sections from your posting where these words are used:

        "We interpret (so to speak) experience by means of our ideas, our Ideality."

        "The Actual is the infinitely varied, infinitely changing; and its presence in time is therefore infinitely limited, appearing as a point with no extension.
        Ideality is the permanent, the fixed, the eternal. Eternity's presence in time is infinitely unlimited, touching time at every point, as completion."

        "[The] self in bringing [the] Actual and the Ideal into contact within consciousness (and how else should these two be brought together, except by will, since it is a contradiction that these two should be brought together) posits existence."

        "[T]he self will need to clarify with itself, whether it is willing to be a self with such an Ideality."

        "The Absolute is, therefore, as far as possible from being a feature of an objective reality; since it is the maximum qualification of the self's inwardness in relation to his Ideality, in subjectivity."

        I think these sentences can be read in one of two ways, so I would like you to clarify which way you intend them to be read.

        First way: The ideality of an individual just means the current ideas the individual has. Thus if I 'clarify my ideality', I just reflect inwardly on the ideas I currently have, with a view to deciding if they are adequate, or, alternatively, if some or all of them need replacing by better ones.

        Second way: The ideality of an individual means the person's ideals, that is his values or standards - the things he aims at. Thus, on this reading, if I 'clarify my ideality' I reflect inwardly on my ideals. This reflection could take one of two forms. I could ask myself: 'Am I matching up to my ideals?'; 'Do I need to try harder?'; 'Do I need to feel guilt and remorse at my failures to live up to my ideals?'. Alternatively, I could ask myself: 'Are my ideals the best set of ideals to have?'; 'Ought I to replace some of my ideals with different ones?'

        Thank you in anticipation of your clarificatory remarks.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.