Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
PrintPage: 1 2
 Aesceticism | |
|
WANDERER
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 24, 2003 Location: Montreal,Canada Total Topics: 25 Total Posts: 246 |
 #1
First Proposition Let us consider the universe and existence from a purely human perspective. It may be true that the labels of ‘evil/negative’ and ‘good/positive’ have no real meaning other than as a subjective interpretation of events and phenomena from an individual or communal point of view. What is ‘good’ for you may be ‘evil’ for me, and vice versa, but there are certain general ideas that we agree, as living, conscious beings with shared interests, as to their nature. For instance most human beings will concur that darkness, cold, and death are negative forces whereas light, heat, and life are positive ones. {Let us ignore the fact that the labels can be reversed without losing any of the meaning so that we don’t get bogged down with semantics} Taking this shared humanistic perspective as a given and leaving behind more objective philosophical interpretations, we notice that the universe, as it relates to us, is mostly a negative place. Darkness, cold, and death predominate as the most common state of things but also need no effort to exist; they just are. In other words, they appear to be the ‘normal’ condition of the universe in general. Keeping this in mind we must suppose that negativity is the rule of the universe while positive forces are the exception to this rule. This because light, heat and life, as well as all other forces associated with positive ideas, require a sacrifice, a consumption and an effort to come to be and to continue being. When this effort, sacrifice and consumption ceases the universe returns to its natural, previous condition. The universe, in essence, is a place, as perceived by human minds, where positive forces push back the negative fabric in small temporary pockets and establish a momentary equilibrium in which consciousness is made possible. Man perceives this momentary balance of forces as order and mistakenly assumes that it is the general condition of the entire universe itself. Most go even further and suppose a dominant positive essence as the creating force of the universe, whereas in fact the opposite is more likely to be true. In the balance of positive and negative forces and in this constant battle of ‘the positive’ to gain a foothold in a ‘negative’ universe, change becomes a fundamental part of survival and makes evolution a necessary mechanism of continued existence in a universe striving to destroy life and to return to its normal condition of lifelessness as it strives to return to darkness and cold. From this first proposition, it is easy to conclude that life is, in fact, a constant striving and suffering caused by this pushing back of forces that seek to return to pre-existing circumstances. As Schopenhauer put it: “Life is need and need is suffering; therefore life is suffering” It was Schopenhauer also that defined pleasure as a negative idea, since it is merely the absence of suffering and a momentary reprieve from the natural state of consciousness. In other words death and pleasure are synonyms. Indeed life rewards with survival all those that have paid their dues to her in misery and action and embellishes, those of her creations, with superiority that have exerted and struggled on her behalf. It is in this continuous fight against death that life becomes creative, adaptive and ascends to higher and more complicated constructs. Within this interpretation of the universe lies the true spirit of asceticism and its real worth to man. Second Proposition Most, due to dictionary definitions and religious extremism, associate asceticism with a complete rejection of pleasure and luxury and a total denial of life itself. But I will propose a new perspective on asceticism that may prove advantageous and attractive to all seeking personal empowerment. It is true that Buddhism and Christianity have taught an extreme level of self-denial and many other religions and philosophies advocate abstinence as a form of escapism from life’s trappings and temptations, but for me one need not become so severe in order to benefit from asceticism’s merits. Asceticism, as I see it, is more akin to athleticism, where both strengthen an individual through pain and suffering but need only be practiced consistently, not continuously, in order to profit from them. Both athleticism and asceticism require self-control and an exposure to unwanted and mostly undeserved pain and suffering through which a body and a mind gain strength, discipline and stamina, necessary throughout life and under all circumstances. It isn’t a mistake to believe that misery is the sources of all mental and physical beauty given that nature denounces stagnation as death itself and imposes a constant striving and changing through the promise of pleasure. It may be disturbing for us to acknowledge that nature abhors conformity and lethargy and so rewards struggle and exertion with superiority, that is easily distinguishable in all those exposed to physical and mental suffering and becomes most beneficial to an individual who experiences and survives adversity, but it cannot be denied. In contrast the effects of comfort and overindulgence can also be plainly noticeable in individuals lacking any contact with suffering and effort; their intellectual naiveté and insecure, over-optimism will bear witness to their limited experiences in a dangerous and indifferent universe, just as their softness of muscle tone and inability to endure physical hardship will reveal their limited experience with physical effort and exertion. How appropriate that the Greek word ασκησης-askisis[exercise]- is used to denote athleticism but is also the root word for asceticism which denotes a mental exercise or an exertion of the mind. For what athleticism is for the body, asceticism is for the mind; alike but different only in the focus of their disciplines; interdependent but mutually exclusive in their areas of influence. To better clarify the relationship between asceticism and athleticism it may be profitable to juxtapose the two. Athleticism is the training of the body. It hardens flabbiness and denies lethargy through which a body is weakened and becomes soft and vulnerable to external forces and phenomena. Asceticism is the training of the mind. It invokes mental discipline, focuses energies, and denies apathy and pleasure through which a mind becomes complacent and susceptible to external temptations. Athleticism does not require a continuous exertion, even if it was possible, but through temporary strain the body becomes more efficient even at rest. Similarly asceticism does not require continuous self-denial, but through momentary or selective resistance the mind gains discipline and resolve that become helpful even when indulging in pleasure or giving in to need. The effects of athleticism are hard to ignore since they appear in the empirical world accessible to all, through the senses, equally; acknowledging the benefits of exercise and physical effort and the aesthetically beautiful physical form it leads to cannot be argued away no matter how much we wish to do so. Reversely, the effects of asceticism are hard to prove since they appear in the mental world accessibly only, through introspection, to the individual; so acknowledging the benefits of cerebral exercise and mental effort and the intellectual symmetry it leads to cannot be confidently argued for. Despite this, I believe, all can recognize that denial of the will creates a mental framework by which an individual becomes a master of his own being and not merely an instrument of instinctual desire. A man devoid of all self-restraint and discipline becomes a victim of his own emotions and cravings. Like a rudderless ship he is cast to-and-fro by any subtle wind and becomes a man with no direction and no purpose; a helpless victim of his own whims and a vulnerable prey to clever predators. For the ship to be controlled a strong rudder is needed and an even stronger captain to direct it. This rudder is mans mind and the captain must be mans intellect. Final Proposition All men seek to minimize their exposure to pain and suffering and it is therefore a contradiction of goals that this very compulsion is detrimental to survival and the continued promise of pleasure. This conundrum is what plagues human existence in its entirety. We reach for happiness and comfort and yet it is this very striving the causes the opposite condition of suffering and discomfort; we dream of an absence of need and an existence devoid of all torment and yet its realization is the very definition of death; we dream of power and self-reliance and yet we must give up power and become dependant to achieve it. The Greeks understood the irony of existence and they fully expressed it in their art, in their philosophy and in their total acceptance of it as a part of human existence. Man is in a very precarious position; not fully intellectual, not completely instinctual. The choice arises in every thinking mans life as to what path he will choose: will he give in to his instincts and live entirely within the dictations of his nature as an animal, where the mind is simply the facilitator of instinctual desire or will he deny both pain and pleasure and become pure intellect devoid of all need and in complete control of his being ? But there is a third, more reasonable, choice. A choice embraced by the Greeks and now offered, through Nietzsche, by them to us: will we embrace both pain and pleasure as parts of our total being and focus our efforts in enjoying life’s pleasures and experiencing the rapture of consciousness and yet will we not forget that it is suffering that elevates and strengthens us and it is this payment, which we pay willingly, that makes us more than just animals and ennobles us before a universe wanting to degrade, embarrass and destroy us? Whether we like it or not, suffering and pain are the natural participants in life’s experiment. We either recognize them as such and use them to our advantage or we spend a lifetime running from them into futility. It is this aspect of life’s truth that most spend their entire lives escaping from and in the process become weak, gullible, naïve, soft and easily manipulated. How unfortunate for them that even the temporary escape from life’s truth cannot save them from its eventual inevitability. The signs of human disorderly existence are everywhere plain to see; from the lack of self-discipline in nutritional consumption that leads to obesity and disease to the absence of sexual self-control that leads to promiscuity and immaturity. The ‘easy way’ is searched for by all those lacking the discipline to go at it the ‘hard way’ and the realization comes to them too late, that there is no ‘easy way’ and those offering it are either con-artists or manipulators. The controlled exposure to suffering, made possible through athleticism, creates a strong and durable body that will be ready, in a time of need, to meet life’s unforeseen challenges and come out of every battle, a survivor. It will reveal itself to all in its harmony, symmetry and beauty; it will speak of its superiority in graceful movement and efficiency. It will be something to admire and inspire. But more importantly, the controlled exposure to suffering and pain through asceticism, creates a strong and durable mind that will be easily adaptable to a variation of environments and challenges and come out of every confrontation the dominator. It will reveal itself, more subtly than the body but no less magnificently, in its harmony, order, and virtue; it will speak of its superiority with noble ideals and strength of will. It will be something to admire and inspire. |
|
Xev
Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 27, 2002 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 776 |
#2
It was Schopenhauer also that defined pleasure as a negative idea, since it is merely the absence of suffering and a momentary reprieve from the natural state of consciousness. In other words death and pleasure are synonyms. Interesting, I'm beginning to read Schopenhaur. However, it's false. Pleasure is a neurochemical state, as every emotion is. Suffering is another neurochemical state, and by no means the "natural" state. Now, my neurochemistry is a bit - lacking - but I'm quite sure that pleasure involves the release of beta-endorphins and the uptake of serotonin, while "suffering" is a deficiancy in the reuptake of serotonin. A man devoid of all self-restraint and discipline becomes a victim of his own emotions and cravings. Like a rudderless ship he is cast to-and-fro by any subtle wind and becomes a man with no direction and no purpose; a helpless victim of his own whims and a vulnerable prey to clever predators. I've often wondered about this. It seems correct, but it also fits into the dominent ideology too well to go on faith. I propose a thought experiment: Suppose a man has so much power, such a strong will, that he can have whatever he wants, whenever and however he wants. This man loses his self discipline. Is he really a "rudderless ship"? Have you read de Sade? He tackles this issue. I more agree with Nietzsche's observation that one must obey oneself to command oneself. All men seek to minimize their exposure to pain and suffering and it is therefore a contradiction of goals that this very compulsion is detrimental to survival and the continued promise of pleasure. Not so. I'm not a man, but I don't seek to minimize my exposure to pain either. However, your conclusion resonates with me. I've always found the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy to fit my personality. And isn't that, besides truth, the best reason to embrace a philosophy? |
|
Weary Locomotive
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 19, 2002 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 171 |
#3
That it befits you like a garment? No, that is not the best reason to embrace a philosophy, particularly not in the case of the doctrine Wanderer presented, where one is typically required to quite forcibly go beyond one's personality for the sake of aesthetical,religious, or moral goals. I would like to also correct another misunderstanding that occurs in your post if that's alright. You assert that neurochemical explanations of pain and pleasure have completely supeceded and obviated the other, philosophical explanations of the same human experiences. There is no serious basis for this assertion because a scientific explanation of pain and pleasure is really not any more "explanatory" than Wanderer's approximation based on personal experience. You point out that your modest experience with neurochemistry has left you with the vague knowledge of the *mechanism* of the workings of pain and pleasure, that is, what chemically happens and in what order - but Wanderer's goal seems to have been to throw some light on WHY these events are to be taken seriously and HOW they are to be understood by humans in practice in order to derive a certain end result. -WL |
|
WANDERER
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 24, 2003 Location: Montreal,Canada Total Topics: 25 Total Posts: 246 |
#4
Hello my old friend. I wasn't aware that you participated here. Perhaps you were using some other alias. I hope that with your help I can inject some passion and confrontation within this forum and allow the juices of creativity to flow as they did for a time in the other place. Was the old site becoming tedious and repetative? Was my absence felt? I can only allow my ego to think so. I did look in once andfound the same old crap being flung by the same old gang. I did not see any of your recent work. My goal has always been to create practical strategies from abstract ideas and to enhance existence and the act of experiencing. I challenge and confront in order to test and grow through the struggle. My motives are selfish- it is human that they should be- but they can infect and influence if considered openly and honestly. I think you will be pleased to hear that i have started on Nietszche and find much to agree and disagree with as i did with Schopenhauer. But I am always amazed by the power of the human mind and its ability to adapt and comprehend things deeper than it is natural to do so. |
|
Xev
Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 27, 2002 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 776 |
#5
WL: One could certainly make a case that the theories of philosophy are as valid as those of science. I think that's more a case of apples and oranges. There's a old story about a physicist, Robert Wood, who was toasted at a dinner: "To physics and metaphysics" (By "metaphysics" the toaster meant philosophy) Woods described his laboratory. He explained the scientific method to his guests, and sang the praises of experimentation. He concludes that the difference between physics and philosophy? It's not that either physicists or philosophers are smarter - it's that the philosopher has no laboratory. That said, I see your point. That it befits you like a garment? No, that is not the best reason to embrace a philosophy, particularly not in the case of the doctrine Wanderer presented, where one is typically required to quite forcibly go beyond one's personality for the sake of aesthetical,religious, or moral goals. I never said it was - I said it was ONE of the best reasons. If philosophy is partly the search for self-knowledge, then finding a philosophy that resonates with your inner self is, I think, quite important. |
|
WANDERER
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 24, 2003 Location: Montreal,Canada Total Topics: 25 Total Posts: 246 |
#6
Philosophy is science and art and it therefore is superior to both. |
|
Xev
Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 27, 2002 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 776 |
#7
Philosophy is not a science the way astronomy or experimental physics is a science. I'd also hesitate to call it an art...and I'd DEFINITELY hesitate to call it superiour to science when philosophy is so damned murky. |
|
Spaces
Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 01, 2002 Total Topics: 62 Total Posts: 646 |
#8
"Let us consider the universe and existence from a purely human perspective."___Wanderer Purely human? Well, we've got a problem right off, don't we? You noticed this problem too since you follow it with the more neutral "shared interests" as a matter of defining the perception involved. You speak of "forces" but in some respects these are conditions and as such possessing a completely different quality vis-a-vis their experiential standing. I likewise won't quibble on the semantics "languagewise" for the sake of expedience but such attributions are usually temporal conditions in what can be termed field semantics of experience. That type of semantics has a real problem with, "the universe, as it relates to us, is mostly a negative place." With a statement like that and paper macheing it with "humanistic perspective" is somewhat pushing the glue. The unalloyed human state is still something being sought and if you need any proof of that just look at some of the postings in this forum where well over half the participants are having a difficult time figuring out whether there's a God, whether love is real or whether their brains are actually in Mason jars in the custody of who knows whom, what, or where. Yet, I understand your establishing the premise and from that locality I consider it. "...where positive forces push back the negative fabric in small temporary pockets and establish a momentary equilibrium in which consciousness is made possible." Again, you say to ignore the reversal of labels but if instead the fabric were positive and the forces negative this would make for quite a different quilting party. You are also aware of this as noted and I am also aware that you generally apprehended it but relate it with a specific air; this is a common occurrence. Nothing wrong with this but asceticism as process is specificity bound and generalizations are tantamount to using molasses as a lubricating agent. "...change becomes a fundamental part of survival and makes evolution a necessary mechanism of continued existence in a universe striving to destroy life and to return to its normal condition of lifelessness as it strives to return to darkness and cold." Normal condition of lifelessness? One thing's for sure, you'll never be the host of a children's show: "Bonjour mes enfants! Accueillez s'il vous plait, Monsieur la Mort!" Funeral Home commercials make lousy segues from tigers peddling frosted flakes. "Indeed life rewards with survival all those that have paid their dues to her in misery and action and embellishes, those of her creations, with superiority that have exerted and struggled on her behalf." Not always. It also remains to be seen whether this would provide for a "higher" construct as outcome. Much struggling has been for naught and the record of this is well-ingrained in human consciousness to the point where desperation breeds desperation and those caught in the crossfire are too busy scrambling to ponder rewards. To the victor go the spoils and considering the quality of today's spoils they're nothing to write home about. In many instances the "superiority" is of one over particulars, not necessarily generally. Being individuals it could be said the particulars would suffice but alas they don't because the individual is already on a timeline with a non-negotiable termination point whereas the timeline itself and its still-present wards continues regardless of the individual's participation and thus provides an apparently non-ending continuum of particulars---of which the individual will not be aware. Now, if you want to bring in issues of the afterlife, transcendence and the like then that will certainly provoke a reassessment of "survival" itself. Asceticism in its psychological, or more accurately, psycho-physiological technical sense is about minimizing the reference. Once the elements, objects, conditions, etc. are reduced to the state of a reference devoid of individual-generated attributes the assessments are clearer, better defined and repositioning more effective. A kind of low-current asceticism is always in operation in the human disposition being evident in the selection process. The truly radical departure in this is that the minimization can proceed all the way to where there is only one reference left, you. As you can tell, this type of hyper-asceticism can be dangerous and for those who embark on it the best of luck. "...all can recognize that denial of the will creates a mental framework by which an individual becomes a master of his own being and not merely an instrument of instinctual desire." A few elements here are a tad imbalanced for my taste. The type of framework that denial of the will would craft would already be suspect due to the implied passivity in the guise of aggressiveness and that this would engender mastery is questionable. Also, equating will with instinctual desire is another one that requires some pondering. The big question for me would be which source is powering the denial. If it's reference-related (and darn hard to find one that isn't) then you've got to examine the reference and see its connections. If the connections seem to be of a positive-negative design then I don't think even Underwriters Laboratories would approve that for a mental framework. "Asceticism, as I see it, is more akin to athleticism..." True, but just about anything can be "exercised"; the basic reference there being modification. "How unfortunate for them that even the temporary escape from life’s truth cannot save them from its eventual inevitability." It is that very realization which compels some of them to the loaf of bread, jug of wine and thou scenario because the only thing they know about "tomorrow" is that inevitability. Recognize then that much, often too much, depends on the negotiating of the inevitable tomorrow. With such going on, asceticism whether elected or imposed is going to be immediately classified as a mode among the many other modes; effective for some and utterly worthless to others. But more importantly, the controlled exposure to suffering and pain through asceticism, creates a strong and durable mind that will be easily adaptable to a variation of environments and challenges and come out of every confrontation the dominator. It will reveal itself, more subtly than the body but no less magnificently, in its harmony, order, and virtue; it will speak of its superiority with noble ideals and strength of will. It will be something to admire and inspire. Again, there are no guarantees. There may be a "confidence" accrued that embodies all the qualities you've mentioned but out in the field the variables can get squirrely. Harmony, order, virtue, superiority, noble ideals, strong will, admiration and inspiration all from asceticism? Quite a bargain and if that were the case then The Village People would have sung Y-M-A-A instead. Perhaps in a few cases but as a general rule, hardly. Relative to the fullness of life asceticism clocks in as an abstraction and thus its status as a private concern. All good and well but at some point it has to prove its flexibility positionally. By the way, am I right in suspecting that the unstated pivot of your propositions is religious rather than secular? Asceticism has its merits and its complications. It can regenerate and disintegrate. If it wins any beauty contests you can be assured of a high-maintenance date. Spaces |
|
Interlocutor
Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 23, 2002 Total Topics: 41 Total Posts: 879 |
#9
Humans are eminently adaptable. Our survival throughout our history has been dependent not on our foresight, but on our capacity to deal with problems as they arise. This is not to suggest that humans are incapable of foresight, or that we should not strive to eliminate the conditions for problems before they arise. If that be true however, what is the real value of this asceticism? This philosophy of asceticism which you entertain goes beyond the operative elements of typical virtue -- performing actions and resolving desires in moderation -- to the deliberate denial of desires, such that we should purposively suffer, and thereby seems to suggest that virtue can be attained by some fast track. Perhaps you don't mean to contrast this asceticism with traditional virtue. Perhaps you believe that virtue is attained as Aristotle suggested. Or perhaps you think virtue is in itself a path of indulgence, which if countered by extreme lack or suffering would fail. On the other hand, pehaps this is exactly what you are referring to. I'm unclear on it. But if it is, why not just reference the Nicomachean Ethics? Since humans are so adaptable, the argument could be made that we should indulge while we have the chance, as opposed to continually denying our desires. For if we do encounter suffering, could we not learn to live and be happy without indulgence? Further, it could be that not indulging is contrary to the "positive" of life, so that suggesting we should ignore our desires for the sake of a contingency we can't predict is absurd, for it would be unnecessarily denying desires and introducing a "negative" without immediate threat. Or so it could be said. |
|
WANDERER
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 24, 2003 Location: Montreal,Canada Total Topics: 25 Total Posts: 246 |
#10
To SPACES So errrr…I guess…ahhhh you’re…. against…. hmmmm asceticism? I’m not talking to children …… am I? If I were what a rosy picture I could paint. Monsieur la mort? I believe you didn’t get the life affirming element in my post. My post was purely a personal perspective tested and tried in the field and not just theorized in the laboratory. I appreciate your comments. To INTERLOCUTOR Asceticism is adaptation. I am not proposing asceticism as a denial of all pleasure but of a method of acquiring self-control. Both pleasure and pain must and can be embraced; pleasure because it gives life value and pain because it gives it purpose. Without immediate threat?! Life is a constant condition of threat. |
Page: 1 2
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.