Re: new paganism

March 11, 2005

Dear Dan,

The unconscious is pure ignorance? Only if we do not pay attention to it...which

we cannot avoid because it pops up unbidden.

I feel sorry for you or for anyone who finds studying a drag. I found it

sometimes exhilarating, sometimes pure joy, when I sat in the college library

with all those books around me. Sure sometimes it was boring, but hardly ever.

I still feel this way when I pick up a new book on a new subject, or a different

opinion. That ivory tower would have suited me fine except it is a hard place to

put 4 kids and a husband.

The only time it wasn't fun is when my algebra teacher made fun of me in 7th

grade class, or when the Hebrew teacher a few years ago scared the hell out of

me, and I was afraid to move....I'd even get that wrong, I am sure.I also didn't

have a thrill when Ray and I took Russian together in the Air Force college

program, from a real Russian just having come over. When the grades came out Ray

got an A and I a B. So I asked him why, since we did the same work. He said, and

I quote: " He got an A because he is a captain. "

That did it.

Of course , that was before we were married....49 years ago. I wonder if

Russians still think that way?

I wonder what my 7th grade, red -headed math teacher would have thought had she

lived long enough to find out I had to teach 9th grade algebra someday. The

world is a funny place!

You still are an all or nothing guy. To whit:

" Your argument is that there is G-D, and

there is unconsciousness (pure ignorance), and nothing in between. "

What gymnastics did you do mentally to come up with this.?? Human beings are in

between. Not everything they " know " is truth for certain, but they have a lot of

empirical knowledge, and most human beings feel that what they know will have to

do until it is either proven wrong or ceases to serve them.

We all think we know a lot. And we probably do...but it is still not absolute

truth. For that we would have to have infinite minds or grace from the only One

who knows it. We can still get a lot done with provisional truth....except to be

able to preen ourselves on how right we are.

Explain to me how you can know without a doubt that you " have " something? Grab

me a dream, show me what you actually " have " Nothing that can be proven to be

" yours " . Everything changes?

You are in pretty deep, Dan. You do have life, maybe if this isn't an illusion.

What is the really Real?

love

Toni

Re: new paganism

vienna19311 wrote:

Dear Toni,

I don't speak of " absolute truth " except in response to your posts, in

part because it is a redundant expression. Truth is by nature absolute -

that's what makes it the truth. If it's uncertain, then it's opinion,

not truth. (This is like the expression " social justice " ; all justice is

" social, " there isn't any other kind.)

>Dear Dan,

>we are going around in circles again.

>

>If you do not accept Jung's understanding of knowledge, what is yours? And

why do you not have it about absolute truth since it always comes up in your

posts?

>

>I don't " know " that there is something rather than nothing. I imagine it is

so, but if the world is a dream

>

A dream is not nothing. A concatenation of empty appearances is not

nothing. If you dream, ipso facto there is not nothing.

>....well, then we don't have something.

>

>You are taking someone else's word for " something " and " nothing " I imagine

you could find many opposing views.

>

>Now we are back to Jung?: You asked:

> " He thought that man could know something. What's the point of study

>otherwise? Sheer wanking? "

>

>But how does he actually know it? Only by experience, personal experience and

that will not be the exact same as the experience of anyone else.

>

I didn't claim that we could know that the solipsistic thesis was wrong

- I only claimed that we know (OK, I know) that there is not nothing,

that there is something rather than nothing.

>Studying, to me, has never been about certainty.I really do not think we can

have that in our present state, except after much living and grace we may feel

certain that G-d exists. The knowledge that G-d exists...because we have felt

it, see/heard it or we find it in the psyche, where we did not ourselves put it.

>

>Studying is fun,

>

No it's not, not to me. Drag racing is fun. Collecting records is fun.

Study is hard work, and I hate hard work - but the results can be worth it.

> but if we are looking for certainty we will always be disappointed, which to

me is obvious.What we learn is what other people think.

>

>Jung said he " knew " empirically what he learned from his patients. That is

certainly experience.

>

>You said:

> " They can prove partial knowledge. "

>

>Well there you have it. A partial truth? that isn't a truth.

>

Of course it is. Why would you insist on knowing the whole as the whole

before saying you knew anything? Your argument is that there is G-D, and

there is unconsciousness (pure ignorance), and nothing in between.

Best,

Dan

March 11, 2005

Dan, all,

No no not mathematical precision! I have trouble understanding when

you fall short of conceptual precision and precision about the

relationships between different orders.

Let's face it, I'm trying to push you a bit beyond a half a decade or

more worth of tropes. is actually doing the main push; and you

didn't really answer his question very fully.

***

You've sketched out what the different orders are without really naming them.

If we grant that philosophy is a way of life, and isn't some laboring

'machine' in the producing classes (!reminded that both Jung and Marx

thought the medievals were okay,) then the one question is what does

a philosopher do?

(Besides pursue the catch-all wisdom and anything else that has the

words " prudent " or " virtue " in it...as far as a further elaboration

might go.)

***

Here's a thought problem: if two different philosophers are set upon

the same important problem, (and pick one you believe your version of

philosopher might pursue,) and both solve this problem independently,

do they, nonetheless, arrive at the same solution?

Let me right now make part of this problem too that this result

doesn't have to literally be a solution. So, another way to state

this result is to ask a second question, if, short of a solution they

converge on something, do they converge on the same something?

***

Another interesting class of questions, for me, has to do with what

different intentions and goals a philosopher might be oriented to,

and, by what precise definition would be able to both: separate out

what are the paramount goals, and, following from this, separate out

non-philosophers simply because they don't pursue such paramount

goals.

If you note that I'm here discounting the 'way of life' proviso, I am

because, so far, you've identified secondary qualities, not primary

ones; well, as I grapple with your conceptions.

***

Eventually I will return you to the problem of the twixt class, the

3rd one, the one that is neither so ignorant to take anyone's word

for it, or so smart that they think anyone should take their word for

it. Hmmm, I guess this would only be a subset of this 3rd class, eh?

regards,

March 12, 2005

Dear ,

SC wrote:

>Dan, all,

>

>No no not mathematical precision! I have trouble understanding when

>you fall short of conceptual precision and precision about the

>relationships between different orders.

>

>Let's face it, I'm trying to push you a bit beyond a half a decade or

>more worth of tropes.

>

Gottes Muehlen mahlen langsam.... :-).

> is actually doing the main push; and you

>didn't really answer his question very fully.

>

Like , I'm not prepared to write a book.

>***

>

>You've sketched out what the different orders are without really naming them.

>

>If we grant that philosophy is a way of life, and isn't some laboring

>'machine' in the producing classes (!reminded that both Jung and Marx

>thought the medievals were okay,) then the one question is what does

>a philosopher do?

>

He does what Socrates did. That's the simplest, best answer.

But Socrates got himself killed, didn't he? So maybe the philosopher,

whether he wants to or not, must pay some attention to the public order

and public opinion (Plato didn't get himself killed). At that point,

perhaps, the philosopher becomes a political philosopher. There are at

least two ways to understand the " trope " " poiltical philosopher " - he

might be a philosopher that studies political things (a political

scientist properly understood). He might also be a philosopher who is

" poltical " in the sense that he wants to make the regime safe for

philosophy, that he wants to extend his own rule at least far enough to

make the activity of philosophy safe in the city - I thought I had

indicated that before, but maybe not.

Now, Nietzsche and some other uber-moderns seem to think that, no,

philosophy is essentially creative activity. This is a whole 'nother

notion of philosophy that, whatever its merits, is not the ancient one

(imo).

>(Besides pursue the catch-all wisdom and anything else that has the

>words " prudent " or " virtue " in it...as far as a further elaboration

>might go.)

>

>***

>

>Here's a thought problem: if two different philosophers are set upon

>the same important problem, (and pick one you believe your version of

>philosopher might pursue,) and both solve this problem independently,

>do they, nonetheless, arrive at the same solution?

>

Depends upon the problem. If it is a mathematical or scientific problem

(kids' work), they will eventually arrive at the same answer. If it is a

problem not admitting of mathematical exactitude, such as a political

problem (a man's work) they may arrive at differing solutions, but

solutions will be in the same ball park. Neither will arrive at tyranny.

Neither will arive at democracy, unless particular circumstances are

such that it just can't be avoided.

>Let me right now make part of this problem too that this result

>doesn't have to literally be a solution. So, another way to state

>this result is to ask a second question, if, short of a solution they

>converge on something, do they converge on the same something?

>

One can't very well converge on different things, can one?

I think they will tend to converge, yes. Mark the " tend " and don't

assume precision where I intend imprecision.

>***

>

>Another interesting class of questions, for me, has to do with what

>different intentions and goals a philosopher might be oriented to,

>and, by what precise definition would be able to both: separate out

>what are the paramount goals, and, following from this, separate out

>non-philosophers simply because they don't pursue such paramount

>goals.

>

I think that the philosopher's goal is to be free to philosophize, to

pursue his peculiar way of life. For this he requires food and the other

bare necessities of animal life, liberty, and interlocutors. His " end, "

his purpose, is pursuit of the truth - everything else is secondary

(hence he might not make the best husband and father).

Related is the question I raised earlier with regarding the

necessary connection, if any between moral and intelectual virtue. I do

not know the answer to that question.

Non-philosophers love their own as that is usually understood (their

families, their friends, their countries, their religions, their

" ways " ), and they pursue pleasure (also in the ordinary, hedonistic

sense), not wisdom. They will, if in good humor, laugh at the

philosopher and say " Give us this man, Zarathustra. Make us this last man. "

>If you note that I'm here discounting the 'way of life' proviso, I am

>because, so far, you've identified secondary qualities, not primary

>ones; well, as I grapple with your conceptions.

>

>***

>

>Eventually I will return you to the problem of the twixt class, the

>3rd one, the one that is neither so ignorant to take anyone's word

>for it, or so smart that they think anyone should take their word for

>it. Hmmm, I guess this would only be a subset of this 3rd class, eh?

>

I think you mean the gentlemen. They, and not the plebs, are the

philosopher's most likely ally, per Aristotle. They have been " gentled "

by reading the right sort of poetry and having been given the right sort

of upbringing generally. It seems to me that Jung, too, advocates such

" gentling. "

Best,

Dan

>regards,

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may

be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

>H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

March 13, 2005

Dear , at 12:58 AM 3/12/2005, you wrote:

>Maybe I don't understand what you mean by " role. " Philosophy as I

>understand it is a way of life, not what we now call a " social role. "

>The philosopher does not have a role in the way that a dentist or a

>driver or a king has a role. It's questionable to what degree the

>philosopher is even part of the regime, except where compelled. The

>philosopher must be compelled to rule.

I shall try to be a little clearer. I am trying not to exclude 's

points here either, for although his issue with your ideas is possibly more

fundamental, it does bring up convergent points I feel.

If we regard the practice of philosophy as " the search for truth " then we

are compelled to define the philosopher as one who is unstinting and

unbiased in such a search, for philosophy then becomes a discriminative

course which cannot allow itself to fall into error through ignorance of

detail nor lack of breadth of knowledge. So , such as might be called " true

philosophers " in this regard will certainly be few, but potent human

beings. And, as such, dangerous to any established order which relies upon

accepted rituals, laws etc established not so much by determination but by

their having arisen as " natural products " of the collective mind - which,

having an essentially unconscious base, arise as purely human affects due

to the necessary order of relationships required in the human group vs the

natural world.

Now this is essentially the primitive state of man which through its slow

development shows change necessarily reflecting the initial order, and only

via direct and compelling enatiodromia's does it become hastened toward a

change which brings greater consciousness of the underlying order. When

this happens the order is threatened, and discriminations made which sever

the initial connections to the purely accepted " natural " and new boundaries

arise. Thus for instance did the old pagan connections and rituals

connecting the human to the earth become severed and demonised through the

impact of Christianity which now required a God of " man " who was without

evil. Thus did the primal matter of the universe become the carrier of the

darkness, and the initial unconscious wholeness broken - only to be

re-animated and kept alive through the Gnostic and Alchemical arcanas.

Now, we have a situation where the progress of consciousness (In no small

way aided by the Gnostic and Alchemical traditions) has brought about a

" cleansing " of the earth or " matter " through which the evil attributed to

it has become once again lost in the unconscious, whilst at the same time

we see arising an opposing position which places the " goodness " of God into

affected groups, whilst the darkness is once again projected onto opposing

groups.

In other words, man's consciousness disallows the simplistic projections

and divisions of the early Christian notion and can no longer banish the

evil of the creator to matter, but evil having once more raised its head

must be projected and now a hundred million demons lie outside the door.

The philosopher understands this, he understand the processes by which such

things occur, he understands the political nuances they create and the

childishly simple projected logic which maintains such diversities and

divisions. He also knows that the condition of unconscious wholeness which

once maintained the inner stability of the separate and differing tribes,

groups, nations cannot return, as the level of consciousness in man has

brought him so far from the natural order and so closely connected to all

other men in knowledge, that only a wholeness which included this level of

consciousness can return man to a state of union with his roots, and return

his lost soul to the soil of the creator.

Now all this understanding of man is merely a product of the philosopher's

search for truth, in particular his search for meaning - ie, the search for

truth in his own life. He may go on without concern for the sate of the

world, he may even despise his fellow men for their ignorance, and yet

still love them as brothers. He knows they will never ask him for the

answer to their problems for they see no reason to believe their problems

are not only caused by the demons. He also knows that should he attempt to

bring them to any other awareness his words will fall on deaf ears, be they

ears which hear only of gods and demons " out there " or ears which hear only

of the world and its materials and wealth. He listens sadly for the voice

of the alchemist and hears only the questing of voices in search of

material gods, or the mechanics of matter, or he hears only the voices of

those who speak to the air, who raise the spirit of man into the skies and

behold it as a thing of purity in whose light they seem like small dark and

ignorant ants who march to the sound of war drums.

So, to me at least, the plight of the true philosopher is one in which the

world offers him no place, and to me it would seem has ever been the case.

And it is also my opinion that the ancient dictums are true, that knowledge

is essentially dangerous, and that the philosopher can never quite know

enough to know when to speak and thus ought keep his wisdom close. Which

then brings us to the great question - which only the philosopher can

answer - towards what secret purpose then, does he exist?

regards,

March 14, 2005

SC wrote:

Dear ,

>all,

>

>It's very interesting to me to read peoples' knowings from their own

>experience including the experience of investigating what might be

>true, is true for each, and, with considerable pressure added, what

>may be true for everyone as a consequence of one's own knowing.

>

>Dan, your philosopher is oddly conditioned as a day-to-day matter.

>What I can relate to is an inquiry made from outside of the system,

>or, at least, with one foot placed outside the system. To be relieved

>of the everyday duty of earning a living, supporting a family, and to

>benefit from anybody's patronage does probably allow for some

>advantages.

>

>Its hard for me to privilege this philosopher, as you have done. Now,

>if such a person is an esotericist, a magus, or some other person

>disposed to investigate reality beyond the naturalistic reality,

>then, by definition this type of investigator is privileged.

>

>Yet, you haven't set your explanation up this way at all. Despite a

>little bit of counter-argument, (and it isn't convincing,) you've

>posed religion as only a way to mollify and order and dumb down some

>group, which, were it not for their collective spiritual materialism,

>might be trouble-making. And, this is what Jung noted: God

>concretized and not subject to 'alchemical' complex psychology.

>

>***

>

>Any personal position on religion will place a bet on:

>(1) no supernatural world behind the world, thus no chain of being;

>nonetheless: the Divine is revealed, and there is an animating verb

>God; panentheism, etc.

>

>(2) a chain of being that is literally possessed with agency; thus, a

>world beyond materialistic-sense apprehension; and providing

>knowledge of a literal being, God; importantly, this is the realm of

>*objective* religion

>

>(3) none of the above, but both awe and imagination and development

>of awareness is potent; inclusive of the orderly aspiration and

>chaotic nihilisms

>

>Any philosopher will place such a bet, even if the above

>possibilities are mutually exclusive in the case where one of them is

>true, and the other two are not true.

>

>***

>

>I read a terrific book last year with a forbidding title: The System

>of the Anti-Christ; Upton. He's a serious scholar of

>religion, a translator of Persian poetry, and, the foremost

>Traditionalist living today.

>

>This book is a cogent explanation of the position of Traditionalism.

>I estimate it's the best single volume on the subject and it suggests

>itself as a kind of gateway to Guenon, Schuon, etc.

>

>It provides sharp critiques of just about every subject you've

>criticized yourself over many years. This said, its defining order is

>not the Greeks, but, rather, is Indian religion. So it is completely

>and rigorously nailed to position #2 above.

>

>***

>

>#2 is the one I can't embrace, although this isn't because efforts

>haven't been made to convince me. All the religions of the Book are

>#2 in their orthodox orientations. A mystic can exist in any of these

>3 positions.

>

>Each position carries with it requirements. So, among many, #2

>requires a psychological apprehension in modern terms to be besides

>the point. There are right and wrong answers and relations, etc.

>Knowledge is privileged - the Pope is top man for a reason.

>

>The point being: the actual conditions for privileged knowledge are

>what they *have to be* for their to be any privilege at all. They

>would be different in each different possibility.

>

>But, you've sorted your philosopher out into #3. Or, at least, this

>is where such a character goes until you inform us about what is

>their specific interest and particular ways of investigating whatever

>needs to be investigated to 'cause' knowledge.

>

>Even within your own description, (and its secondary conditions

>matter little simply because they could not be decisive with respect

>to objective knowledge,) you've allowed for almost anyone to be a

>philosopher; and this is so even if hardly anyone actually is.

>

I was with you, more-or-less, until this point. Now, you lose me. How

many can actually (really) leave their hearth and home? I can't. Apart

from the fact that reasoning about things requires intelligence, putting

the truth above all other things requires a sort of detachment that very

few can manage.

The philosopher could go along with (1) or (3) above. # 2, as you say,

makes the philosopher " medial, " or, to use more old fashioned language,

makes philosophy a handmaiden of theology. I think that that is neither

the ancient (pre Christian) nor ultra modern (nietzsche and the boys) view.

Best,

Dan

> This

>last point is Upton's main point about the modern age. But, he's

>coming from #2 where the philosopher is medial in a existent

>chain-of-being.

>

>regards,

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may

be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

>H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

March 14, 2005

G Heyward wrote:

Dear ,

>Dear , at 12:58 AM 3/12/2005, you wrote:

>

>>Maybe I don't understand what you mean by " role. " Philosophy as I

>>understand it is a way of life, not what we now call a " social role. "

>>The philosopher does not have a role in the way that a dentist or a

>>driver or a king has a role. It's questionable to what degree the

>>philosopher is even part of the regime, except where compelled. The

>>philosopher must be compelled to rule.

>>

>

>I shall try to be a little clearer. I am trying not to exclude 's

>points here either, for although his issue with your ideas is possibly more

>fundamental, it does bring up convergent points I feel.

>If we regard the practice of philosophy as " the search for truth " then we

>are compelled to define the philosopher as one who is unstinting and

>unbiased in such a search, for philosophy then becomes a discriminative

>course which cannot allow itself to fall into error through ignorance of

>detail nor lack of breadth of knowledge. So , such as might be called " true

>philosophers " in this regard will certainly be few, but potent human

>beings. And, as such, dangerous to any established order which relies upon

>accepted rituals, laws etc established not so much by determination but by

>their having arisen as " natural products " of the collective mind - which,

>having an essentially unconscious base, arise as purely human affects due

>to the necessary order of relationships required in the human group vs the

>natural world.

>

OK.

>Now this is essentially the primitive state of man which through its slow

>development shows change necessarily reflecting the initial order, and only

>via direct and compelling enatiodromia's does it become hastened toward a

>change which brings greater consciousness of the underlying order. When

>this happens the order is threatened, and discriminations made which sever

>the initial connections to the purely accepted " natural " and new boundaries

>arise. Thus for instance did the old pagan connections and rituals

>connecting the human to the earth become severed and demonised through the

>impact of Christianity which now required a God of " man " who was without

>evil. Thus did the primal matter of the universe become the carrier of the

>darkness, and the initial unconscious wholeness broken - only to be

>re-animated and kept alive through the Gnostic and Alchemical arcanas.

>

>Now, we have a situation where the progress of consciousness (In no small

>way aided by the Gnostic and Alchemical traditions) has brought about a

> " cleansing " of the earth or " matter " through which the evil attributed to

>it has become once again lost in the unconscious, whilst at the same time

>we see arising an opposing position which places the " goodness " of God into

>affected groups, whilst the darkness is once again projected onto opposing

>groups.

>

>In other words, man's consciousness disallows the simplistic projections

>and divisions of the early Christian notion and can no longer banish the

>evil of the creator to matter, but evil having once more raised its head

>must be projected and now a hundred million demons lie outside the door.

>

OK.

>The philosopher understands this, he understand the processes by which such

>things occur, he understands the political nuances they create and the

>childishly simple projected logic which maintains such diversities and

>divisions.

>

OK

>He also knows that the condition of unconscious wholeness which

>once maintained the inner stability of the separate and differing tribes,

>groups, nations cannot return, as the level of consciousness in man has

>brought him so far from the natural order and so closely connected to all

>other men in knowledge,

>

Here I'm not sure. If you meant " canot return " in the sense that the

world has become " too small, " thanks to technology, I might agree.

If you mean that most human beings have achieved a higher " level of

consciousness, " from which there is no turning back, I can't agree - I

don't see that. All human beings begin as savages.

The polis may be the regime closest to the " natural order. " Savagery is

not the fulfillment of the natural order, but the starting point. A

horse is more of a horse when kept by human beings than when in the wild.

> that only a wholeness which included this level of

>consciousness can return man to a state of union with his roots, and return

>his lost soul to the soil of the creator.

>

>Now all this understanding of man is merely a product of the philosopher's

>search for truth, in particular his search for meaning - ie, the search for

>truth in his own life. He may go on without concern for the sate of the

>world, he may even despise his fellow men for their ignorance, and yet

>still love them as brothers.

>

Gettin' kinda Nietzschean here, but OK.

> He knows they will never ask him for the

>answer to their problems for they see no reason to believe their problems

>are not only caused by the demons.

>

When the old ways don't work, then they might ask - *if* they regards

him as wise, or as prudent. It is not necessarily a bad thing for him to

be seen as a fool, however.

> He also knows that should he attempt to

>bring them to any other awareness his words will fall on deaf ears, be they

>ears which hear only of gods and demons " out there " or ears which hear only

>of the world and its materials and wealth. He listens sadly for the voice

>of the alchemist and hears only the questing of voices in search of

>material gods, or the mechanics of matter, or he hears only the voices of

>those who speak to the air, who raise the spirit of man into the skies and

>behold it as a thing of purity in whose light they seem like small dark and

>ignorant ants who march to the sound of war drums.

>

>So, to me at least, the plight of the true philosopher is one in which the

>world offers him no place, and to me it would seem has ever been the case.

>

Yes. His " place " is the isle of the blessed - i.e., utopia.

>And it is also my opinion that the ancient dictums are true, that knowledge

>is essentially dangerous, and that the philosopher can never quite know

>enough to know when to speak and thus ought keep his wisdom close. Which

>then brings us to the great question - which only the philosopher can

>answer - towards what secret purpose then, does he exist?

>

Many cats having been let out of the bag, for better or worse, and not

least by Herr Dr. Jung, you already know the answer to this. Would that

one could get there. Hell, I can't even go back to church ;-).

Best,

Dan

>regards,

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may

be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

>H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

March 14, 2005

Dear ,

You ask a good question:

" And it is also my opinion that the ancient dictums are true, that knowledge

is essentially dangerous, and that the philosopher can never quite know

enough to know when to speak and thus ought keep his wisdom close. Which

then brings us to the great question - which only the philosopher can

answer - towards what secret purpose then, does he exist? "

In the end,in my mind, he exists because he is here and there is no other way

for him to live. We all must be able to follow our own truth if we have

integrity, wherever it leads, and like you I believe it leads to death by those

who do not understand him or are threatened by him.

Considering how many millions of people have inhabited this earth, we don't have

many whom we revere as at least attempting to find truth.

Those who still are remembered have their day every few hundred years or so,

when they are " rediscovered " . But then we have to " fix " them to accommodate a

differed time and culture.

AS long as man insists on fighting for his right to be right, there is nothing

more dangerous than someone who insists he has the truth.

Why nobody understands this, and so many come out screaming they are the bearers

of truth, I have no idea.

My problem always is, how did they figure out they had the truth? The absolute

truth. ? I can figure out with fear and trembling what I see as truth, but how

dare I say that that must be yours too. My gut speaks for me only, and I do not

have the Universal Mind.

Sure I can gather some students around me and tell them to go out and teach what

I " know " to be true...but that still leaves most of the population of the world

outside . Or I can conquer the world and force it to see it my way.

Why has it occurred to so few people that there will never be peace in a world

when 2 or more sides proclaim truth? I have met one or two real philosophers

(they thought) whose attitude to everyone else was hardly heartwarming, yet they

had great minds.

Why cannot a philosopher tend his own garden, and speak out when he must, and

teach if he must,but humbly. It is the principle of mana that motivates most of

them, those who aren't poisoned or crucified. Wisdom isn't the domain of great

minds, I think. Wisdom is the clear sign of great love and good example.

There are probably thousands of wise people who do not surface to great fame,

but who "

know " truth when they experience it.

Do the philosopher you describe:

" are compelled to define the philosopher as one who is unstinting and

unbiased in such a search, " If this were possible we might have to agree with

's idea of " objectivity " as attainable.

I know this sounds simplistic in the face of all this great intellectual

argument, but personally I shudder at 's or Dan's kind of authority.

Wisdom comes from the heart as well as the head, in my world.Further, to be

really out of the loop, I suggest, that wisdom is a gift, not a self sought

trait.That kind of philosopher would not make himself the " authority " .

love,