The great beast

[citizenzen]

What purpose does it serve to call this "The Beast"?

Isn't this merely human behavior?

 

[Nick_A]

... None of this is relevant to the fact that unlike you Nick
Kierkegaard did not lay his foundation in rationality, but in
a blind faith in revelation i.e. irrationality. He made irrationality
his foundation, where as you, cling on to rationality and consider
it infallible. But it can never be infallible as proven by Kant himself,
(ironically.)

No, it is accessing objective reason or what inspires faith when subjective reason stops. This is why Simone Weil said:

"The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit."

There is nothing illogical about the higher good. Everything is subject to laws. The point is that it is beyond the limitations of the dual mind or associative thought that dominates the Beast.

In your case, mesmerize or being enchanted by the shadows on the wall, would be closer to it. The word I intended to use was censored by the thought police and refers to the illegitimate offspring of consciousness. You'll know the word I used when you put together the following: b strd ize.

 

[Nick_A]

The Beast makes daily appearances in these forms: sick dependencies, narcissistic attachments to our own works, obsessive self-idolatry regarding the effectiveness with which we create chaos and malice everywhere we go, all kinds self-delusion, cynicism, loss of faith, spiritual inertia, and steadfast passivity in the face of pervasive value erosions.

These things make us lose sight of Love Divine, the Power of Compassion, and the Beauty of Truth.

Now that is something I can agree with you about. We block the light of grace so these acquired negative emotions and habits dominate us and why we remain part of the beast in spite of wonderful thoughts and platitudes to the contrary.

 

[c0de]

There is nothing illogical about the higher good. .

Kierkegaard disagrees. That is the whole point of
the Knight of Faith analogy (refer to his work Fear & Trembling).

While you base your foundation in a rationality which is lacking,
Kierkegaard argues that surrendering our will and reason
to the irrationality of duty to God is the essence of faith.

 

[Nick_A]

Kierkegaard disagrees. That is the whole point of
the Knight of Faith analogy (refer to his work Fear & Trembling).

While you base your foundation in a rationality which is lacking,
Kierkegaard argues that surrendering our will and reason
to the irrationality of duty to God is the essence of faith.

It only appears irrational as part of the Beast in the cave. Once a bit detached from the beast, it becomes rational in a manner surpassing associative thought. The first step, the leap of faith, is always the hardest since the beast and cave life is such a large part of us and dominates our life.

 

[seattlegal]

The Beast makes daily appearances in these forms: sick dependencies, narcissistic attachments to our own works, obsessive self-idolatry regarding the effectiveness with which we create chaos and malice everywhere we go, all kinds self-delusion, cynicism, loss of faith, spiritual inertia, and steadfast passivity in the face of pervasive value erosions.

These things make us lose sight of Love Divine, the Power of Compassion, and the Beauty of Truth.

Good post. I'd give you some good rep points, but I'm still repped out!

 

[Paladin]

It only appears irrational as part of the Beast in the cave. Once a bit detached from the beast, it becomes rational in a manner surpassing associative thought. The first step, the leap of faith, is always the hardest since the beast and cave life is such a large part of us and dominates our life.

Very nice. This goes back to the pre/trans fallacy I was talking about. By maturing in spirit we encompass, validate and then go beyond rationality, we never deny it. Merton spoke of this often.
If Tariki was here we could get some neat quotes

 

[c0de]

It only appears irrational as part of the Beast in the cave. Once a bit detached from the beast, it becomes rational in a manner surpassing associative thought. The first step, the leap of faith, is always the hardest since the beast and cave life is such a large part of us and dominates our life.

Dude, this is not what Kierkegaard actually said. He never said that
faith becomes "rational". You think that being detached from the cave
grants one "objectivity", but this concept of yours is actually based in a
misunderstanding of the Cave analogy. Unlike your claims, Plato's cave is
an analogy which shows that every perception is a cave. It does not
matter if you escape from one, because you will just arrive at another.

This is where Kierkegaard comes in, as he offers the idea that because
rationality is flawed (as Kant proved) the answer is not to base the
foundation of faith in reason or rationality, but blind faith.

 

[Nick_A]

Very nice. This goes back to the pre/trans fallacy I was talking about. By maturing in spirit we encompass, validate and then go beyond rationality, we never deny it. Merton spoke of this often.
If Tariki was here we could get some neat quotes

But what does maturing in spirit mean? How does it differ from escapism normal for cave life?

 

[Nick_A]

Dude, this is not what Kierkegaard actually said. He never said that
faith becomes "rational". You think that being detached from the cave
grants one "objectivity", but this concept of yours is actually based in a
misunderstanding of the Cave analogy. Unlike your claims, Plato's cave is
an analogy which shows that every perception is a cave. It does not
matter if you escape from one, because you will just arrive at another.

This is where Kierkegaard comes in, as he offers the idea that because
rationality is flawed (as Kant proved) the answer is not to base the
foundation of faith in reason or rationality, but blind faith.

Faith isn't and expression of dualistic rationality. Faith normal for cave life is a faith IN something. The faith OF Christ is not normal for cave life. it exists in us as a dormant natural ability that can develop beyond the infantile level it exists in us now if at all.

A perception isn't a cave. If you see a tree it isn't a cave. Habitual interpretations are the norm for cave life. If you knew how limited your perceptions are, you'd see what I mean.

Even a dog has a sense of smell and hearing far superior to yours as does a hawk have sight far superior to yours. So how good are these perceptions of yours for experiencing the external world?

A person's mind is clouded with inner talking and their emotions are filled with negativity.

So we are beings with a limited sensual contact with the external world filled with negative emotions and habitual repetitive thoughts that doesn't allow us to get beyond basic associative thought in order to have a conscious experience of ourselves and you call us rational beings that could be aware of God's will much less carry it out. I gotta get some of what you're drinking.

Rationality isn't flawed. We are just trying to use rationality to explain what can only be understood intellectually through conscious contemplation including reason beyond basic duality.

We are so used to being in the cave and a working cog of the Great Beast we don't know how to affirm it from a higher perspective. For us dual reason is the experience of yes and no and form a decision on that basis. It is a horizontal activity. Yes and no are on the same level. You don't understand what detachment means.

Have you ever thought what it means to affirm existence without denial but truly to affirm what exists without our normal inner commentary? What does it mean to consciously affirm yourself, experience yourself, from a level above yourself without concern for good and bad, right and wrong, but just to affirm reality? That would be the experience of yourself in the cave. This is what Jesus was doing carrying the cross and during the crucifixion. It is what enabled the resurrection. Accepting ourselves as part of the Great Beast and drawing meaning from it makes it psychologically impossible to witness in this way. The influence of the Beast within us doesn't want it and struggles against it. Only certain people can need to the degree necessary to keep the Beast at bay and not lose ourselves to it

 

[Paladin]

But what does maturing in spirit mean? How does it differ from escapism normal for cave life?

Just a phrase really, in and of itself it means nothing. What I had hoped it was pointing toward is the same thing as what you might call leaving the cave. I call it awakening because I like the way the word rolls off the tongue. Just a bit of poetic license really
I gravitate toward these ideas because It's something I see during meditation, basically a no-self that is not empty but encompasses self. It feels strange to have to put it into words to be quite honest, and I'm not unaccustomed to having to write things out.

 

[Netti-Netti]

What purpose does it serve to call this "The Beast"?

Isn't this merely human behavior?

I think it is merely human, but I think the term "Beast" gets at the quality of it being unmanageable and uncontrollable, larger than life, and able to obscure what Nick_A refers to a "the Light of Grace."

Now that is something I can agree with you about. We block the light of grace so these acquired negative emotions and habits dominate us and why we remain part of the beast in spite of wonderful thoughts and platitudes to the contrary.

Maybe the platitudes seem like platitudes because we're out of touch.....

 

[Nick_A]

Just a phrase really, in and of itself it means nothing. What I had hoped it was pointing toward is the same thing as what you might call leaving the cave. I call it awakening because I like the way the word rolls off the tongue. Just a bit of poetic license really
I gravitate toward these ideas because It's something I see during meditation, basically a no-self that is not empty but encompasses self. It feels strange to have to put it into words to be quite honest, and I'm not unaccustomed to having to write things out.

Perhaps you are referring to what I know of as the "middle" or the soul in its inception that can come into existence between spirit and body and reconciling or connecting them. Jacob Needleman refers to it here in his book: "Lost Christianity."

What we need to learn is that merely to look at things as they are with bare attention can be a religious act.
The principal power of the soul, which defines its real nature, is a gathered attention that is directed simultaneously toward the spirit and the body. This is attention of the heart, and this is the principal mediating, harmonizing power of the soul. The mediating attention of the heart is spontaneously activated in the state of profound self-questioning. God can only speak to the soul, Father Sylvan writes, and only when the soul exists. But the soul of man only exists for a moment, as long as it takes for the question to appear and disappear.
​

 

[Paladin]

Perhaps you are referring to what I know of as the "middle" or the soul in its inception that can come into existence between spirit and body and reconciling or connecting them. Jacob Needleman refers to it here in his book: "Lost Christianity."

What we need to learn is that merely to look at things as they are with bare attention can be a religious act.
The principal power of the soul, which defines its real nature, is a gathered attention that is directed simultaneously toward the spirit and the body. This is attention of the heart, and this is the principal mediating, harmonizing power of the soul. The mediating attention of the heart is spontaneously activated in the state of profound self-questioning. God can only speak to the soul, Father Sylvan writes, and only when the soul exists. But the soul of man only exists for a moment, as long as it takes for the question to appear and disappear.
​

That looks interesting, though I think I need to spend a little time with it. Especially the last sentence, it isn't clear to me but if I wait a bit and let it open itself up maybe it will clear.

 

[Nick_A]

I think it is merely human, but I think the term "Beast" gets at the quality of it being unmanageable and uncontrollable, larger than life, and able to obscure what Nick_A refers to a "the Light of Grace."


Maybe the platitudes seem like platitudes because we're out of touch.....

I agree. When the beast within us is dominant its darkness blocks the light

It isn't that the good feelings of the platitude are wrong but rather we are incapable of actualizing them. It is unpleasant to admit this so we prefer to keep referring to wishful thinking without the inner morality to actualize it.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein,

It is the same thing with wishful thinking. Throughout history the same things have been said over and over again and rejected over and over again. At some point I believe it is more profitable to admit the human condition and contemplate what can be done.

 

[Netti-Netti]

The principal power of the soul, which defines its real nature, is a gathered attention that is directed simultaneously toward the spirit and the body. This is attention of the heart, and this is the principal mediating, harmonizing power of the soul. The mediating attention of the heart is spontaneously activated in the state of profound self-questioning. God can only speak to the soul, Father Sylvan writes, and only when the soul exists. But the soul of man only exists for a moment, as long as it takes for the question to appear and disappear.

The basic idea makes sense, but the concept of the soul is very unusual.

In Judaism (e.g., Adin Steinsaltz), the soul is G-d within Creation. It's eternal. In other religious doctrine, we see a similar concept with variations to the effect that part of the soul is actually evolving within the space-time realm, and that the resulting changes will endure into the afterlife. In short, the more contemporary idea of the soul is a synergy of eternal and everlasting aspects.

I think the "attentional process" is the person becoming aware of the Indwelling Spirit through the opening of the spiritual heart. This is sometimes identified as a "mystical experience" or "direct experience of G-d." It can happen with meeting one's soul mate, sorrow or some other psychological trauma, or a religious crisis of some kind.

 

[citizenzen]

I think it is merely human, but I think the term "Beast" gets at the quality of it being unmanageable and uncontrollable, larger than life...

When in reality, it's quite manageable, quite controllable and merely life itself.

It makes me think that you (and others) find an advantage to calling it "THE BEAST"

(Oh dear... I tried to control myself... but the beast swept me away!)

 

[Nick_A]

The basic idea makes sense, but the concept of the soul is very unusual.

In Judaism (e.g., Adin Steinsaltz), the soul is G-d within Creation. It is eternal. In other religious doctrine, we see a similar concept, with variations to the effect that part of the soul is actually evolving, and that the resulting changes will ensure. In short, the more current idea of the soul is a synergy of eternal and everlasting aspects.

I think the "attentional process" is the person becoming aware of the Indwelling Spirit through the opening of the spiritual heart. This is sometimes thought to be a "mystical experience" or direct experience of G-d. It can happen with meeting one's soul mate, sorrow or some other psychological trauma, or a religious crisis of some kind.

The idea of us having a seed of the soul as Meister Eckhart puts it or the soul in its inception reconciles Buddhism's "no soul" and the completed soul of Christendom.

Christianity as I know it puts forth this idea of the seed of the soul which at times and under the right conditions comes into being and we experience it. But without help from the effects of the Beast, it remains for only a very short time. The whole idea of Christianity is how to nourish the soul so it can grow and we can become ourselves and acquire freedom from the cave.

 

[Nick_A]

When in reality, it's quite manageable, quite controllable and merely life itself.

It makes me think that you (and others) find an advantage to calling it "THE BEAST"

(Oh dear... I tried to control myself... but the beast swept me away!)

It always does. You just haven't yet experienced what you lose by it.

 

[citizenzen]

It always does. You just haven't yet experienced what you lose by it.

And what exactly do I lose by it?