Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 9:31:56 GMT -5
One issue with that schema, though, is that ceasing to push the rock up the hill will instantly result in bodily death not just death of the seeker. So if one is thusly motivated, the source of suffering is really the attachment to life, and given that attachment, there is only conditional acceptance possible. To accept the situation as it is as long as it doesn't lead to death, is not freedom. In that instance, death is freedom. Basically he knows his life is totally absurd and full of suffering in the conventional sense of the word and yet chooses it over death. Why is that? Because he'd rather live with all its toils than not. Freedom entails life. Freedom doesn't exist in nonexistence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 9:35:46 GMT -5
The way I understand Camus' use of "imagine" and "happy" is different. My understanding is that his underscoring of the Sisyphus myth was to highlight the question of suicide. Is it better to live, with all of it's slings and arrows and boulders, or to die? Sisyphus provides an example of someone who chose the former. It is a fundamental question and is first cousins, in my opinion, to Do you exist? and Who/what am I? Alternatively, who/what suffers? The polarity is questioned. Why would someone choose to live under such horrible circumstances? Imagining Sisyphus happy is a way of saying that he walked off the battlefield. The battlefield of rolling the boulder up the hill ceaselessly, forever, is not where he is. It is happening but he is simply happy in being. It's actually one of those misconceived questions. The question of whether to live or die is pretty fundamental it seems to me. And, misconceived. Part of the misconception is rooted in identification with the suffering. Once that's not a factor, the question doesn't crop up. Hence, Sisyphus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 10:19:22 GMT -5
All I can say, regarding Camus and his friends is, "ha ha ha ha ha!" I don't think they had a f**ing clue, but I've had two glasses of wine tonight, and my viewpoint is somewhat skewed. AAR, who cares? Ha ha! I just know that I don't see no rock that needs pushing anywhere (much less uphill)! All I see is a full moon coming over the hills, so Carol and I are going out on the porch to enjoy the view. Well would you rather do that or die? My guess is that you'd choose the former. Now what if instead you had to push a boulder up a hill only to see it roll down where you had to start again, rinse repeat? If you don't do that you'll be dead, presto. I can imagine one strategy for Sisyphus would be to start believing in an afterlife of some sort. If he can convince himself, for example, that he's something akin to awareness or noneother than oneness, dieing is the better option. Not sure if Camus addressed that. But maybe that's what he did and then he found that -- bingo! -- not being the body or temporary life meant that pushing a boulder up and down weren't so bad afterall and well worth the added benefit of living a bodily existence. Dunno.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 14:57:28 GMT -5
my unofficial guess says 99.99% of worldwide peeps take themselves as actually separate; toiling away with their personal boulders....... its the norm, ain't it dude? I wonder where the impetus to challenge that thinking comes from? or the perseverance to see it through......... My official guess says that if you lived in another country that percentage would go down. which borders would that be?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 14, 2014 15:22:07 GMT -5
My official guess says that if you lived in another country that percentage would go down. which borders would that be? Considering the number of peeps in the world, I suspect that 99.99 is pretty close. 99 is probably too low and 99.999 or 99.9999 is probably too high. Whether peeps merely believed (or had faith) that they were not separate, or had directly experienced non-separation, would obviously change the estimate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 15:28:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 14, 2014 16:35:46 GMT -5
Sharon: I thought the issue was identification as a separate entity rather than the claim of having had spiritual experiences. I suspect that if people claiming to have had spiritual experiences were polled, most would say that they were separate entities who had such experiences. I think this is what Farmer was pointing to, but he can clarify this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 18:13:48 GMT -5
Sharon: I thought the issue was identification as a separate entity rather than the claim of having had spiritual experiences. I suspect that if people claiming to have had spiritual experiences were polled, most would say that they were separate entities who had such experiences. I think this is what Farmer was pointing to, but he can clarify this. your interpretation was as I intended spiritual experiences are of little interest to me; seeing through the myth of personhood is
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 14, 2014 19:08:44 GMT -5
So if one is thusly motivated, the source of suffering is really the attachment to life, and given that attachment, there is only conditional acceptance possible. To accept the situation as it is as long as it doesn't lead to death, is not freedom. In that instance, death is freedom. Basically he knows his life is totally absurd and full of suffering in the conventional sense of the word and yet chooses it over death. Why is that? Because he'd rather live with all its toils than not. Freedom entails life. Freedom doesn't exist in nonexistence. Sure. My point (to Camus, really) was that acceptance is not necessarily part of that scenario, as he said it was. Realization of the absurd is not the same as acceptance of the situation. Also, Niz' ax swinging aside, death is not non-existence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 14, 2014 19:25:55 GMT -5
My official guess says that if you lived in another country that percentage would go down. which borders would that be? My unofficial guess would be the same as yours. Some religious/spiritual belief systems describe something else for identity, but beliefs only work in the relatively good times cuz beliefs aren't really known to be true.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 14, 2014 19:46:44 GMT -5
The one who allegedly has had a religious experience gets to define what that is. Apart from that, a religious experience probably has to do with communicating with the man upstairs, since that man is at the foundation of almost all religions, which describes separation rather than oneness. IOW, a religious experience likely doesn't interfere with the separate identity. I say the number is 99.95634%
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 14, 2014 20:01:30 GMT -5
Sharon: I thought the issue was identification as a separate entity rather than the claim of having had spiritual experiences. I suspect that if people claiming to have had spiritual experiences were polled, most would say that they were separate entities who had such experiences. I think this is what Farmer was pointing to, but he can clarify this. Yes, my point as well. Also, I would say that a genuine 'religious experience' would be likely to turn one away from their own religion, since maybe we can agree that nearly all religions are riddled with false illusions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 14, 2014 20:02:49 GMT -5
Sharon: I thought the issue was identification as a separate entity rather than the claim of having had spiritual experiences. I suspect that if people claiming to have had spiritual experiences were polled, most would say that they were separate entities who had such experiences. I think this is what Farmer was pointing to, but he can clarify this. your interpretation was as I intended spiritual experiences are of little interest to me; seeing through the myth of personhood is Praise the Lawd!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 14, 2014 20:12:22 GMT -5
The one who allegedly has had a religious experience gets to define what that is. Apart from that, a religious experience probably has to do with communicating with the man upstairs, since that man is at the foundation of almost all religions, which describes separation rather than oneness. IOW, a religious experience likely doesn't interfere with the separate identity. I say the number is 99.95634% Well then that means that the good news is, at the time of my reply to you, that there were one hundred thirty nine thousand and thirty two red-blooded American body/minds that know better. .. (so that leaves almost 3 million foreigners who misname soccer "football", so they don't count)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 14, 2014 20:53:38 GMT -5
The one who allegedly has had a religious experience gets to define what that is. Apart from that, a religious experience probably has to do with communicating with the man upstairs, since that man is at the foundation of almost all religions, which describes separation rather than oneness. IOW, a religious experience likely doesn't interfere with the separate identity. I say the number is 99.95634% Well then that means that the good news is, at the time of my reply to you, that there were one hundred thirty nine thousand and thirty two red-blooded American body/minds that know better. .. (so that leaves almost 3 million foreigners who misname soccer "football", so they don't count) It would make a sizable club with significant dues revenue.
|
|