Wednesday, February 3, 2010

knowledge vs wisdom and preference vs objectivity

wisdom is a divine experience, and every word that comes out of our mouth is an attempt to tap into this wisdom... the buddha or jesus used words to create a wordless state of consciousness within their disciples. wisdom is instant, knowledge is accumulated, wisdom only appears when the ego disappears, the mind is only interested in knowledge... wisdom is intrinsically true, you cannot learn it, it grows in your heart it is an experience, it makes you mature and innocent at the same time, the win win situation.

knowledge can be true in the same way our preference can be true, but we cannot argue preference or taste, it is personal. wisdom is tapping into the metaphysical objective reality that lies behind all existence

it is simple to be knowledgeable,  all you have to do is read... but wisdom is risky, it is without qualities (feminine)

words are indicators for those who meditate, but to everyone else they are dangerous because they believe in the words for what they say and they miss the spirit

11 comments:

  1. I'm a little confused when you use the term "ego." Are you refering to the freudian ego, the budist ego, or level of self-importance?

    ReplyDelete
  2. it is not a specific denotative definition of ego, it is the essence of ego that i am referring to; closer to the connotation of ego... the thing that reacts rather than responds to situations, the thing that instantly turns a feeling into an emotion without the consideration of what option produce the best results (contingent on the situation, perhaps rationally combined with intuition and sense experience) the thing that sees the separation from me to you in an emotional rather than strictly physical sense. the ego senses energy without differentiating positive or negative energy, it is the thing that overreacts to reality, what makes us feel lonely and blinds us to the truth that there are people all around me that would be willing to reach out if i were willing to reach out to them. the ego is that thing that doesn't allow us to reach out because itisn't socially acceptable, our ego dominates our society and goes against human nature, it is an evolutionary accident that has been successful in surviving in humans and even animals (what we consider an intelligent animal is really just an emotional animal) it is an a disease (think of cancer), it plagues us our whole lives and often drives us to our demise. it makes us take advantage of each other, it has an insatiable appetite, it feeds on the material energy and causes excess on either end of the spectrum, addiction, violence, shame, the 7 deadly sins (if you want to go to religion) all the ugliness in the world!!!
    the buddha was right about salvation being in the abstinence of material pleasures, but his followers took it to mean abstain from the material world which is just as bad because it is the opposite and a rebellion... in the material dimension moderation produces the most progress, but in the metaphysical dimension only maximum happiness and minimal suffering are desirable

    ReplyDelete
  3. and freud was right that the majority of people are incredibly unconscious of the factors that influence their lives, this is the contribution of the people you asked about in my philosophy, thank you for your comment

    ReplyDelete
  4. What do you mean by "feminine" when you write, "wisdom is risky, it is without qualities (feminine)?"

    ReplyDelete
  5. masculine nature is action, feminine nature is the essence behind action, it is receptive, without qualities, it is metaphysics, time (things (masculine) happen in time) space (things exist in space) emotion (things provoke emotions). because it is without qualities it is risky, there is no material form to agree or disagree upon so there is no evidence to prove your case, which is why metaphysics is overlooked and therefore deemed unworthy of further study, it appears to these people to be completely subjective (in the traditional sense). ie. it is risky to kill someone in self defense because it has the same material effect as murder and yet the essence sets the 2 intentions infinitely apart. the balance of masculine and feminine qualities produces the most progress in the sense that it would not be any more or less desirable to have a developed body with an underdeveloped mind and vice versa.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is it possible that through knowledge, we can become wiser?

    ReplyDelete
  7. no, not wiser, but it is not to say knowledge is not useful. in the material world, the more knowledge you have the higher the propability you have of being correct, but you can never be right, because you cannot know that you know enough to know that you do or don't know... people who desire knoweldge accumulate it as if it were money and will defend it with their life. knowledge is necessary for rationality because our imagination takes shape in the language we use to think about an object and in social constructs as an extention to communicating with yourself. knowledge is masculine because you are actively thinking about the object (as opposed to meditation)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm confused about the role of essence in the murder vs. self defense example. You say that action is masculine, while essence, which lacks qualities, is feminine. But in the murder example, it appears that the qualitative difference between self defense and murder derives from the essence of the act, while the act itself, according to the example, lacks the degree of quality necessary to distinguish between the two types of killing. Isn't this inconsistent? Also, isn't femininity a quality?

    ReplyDelete
  9. action by nature is masculine, its existence can be observed and analyzed through empirical data. but the motivation/ intention for the action is feminine, metaphysical because its qualities in them selves cannot be perceived with our senses. so if something is without qualities it does not mean it does not exist but that its qualities are metaphysical. if we decide that the human construct of the word qualities denotes material qualities (something that science can determine) then i will use a different word, but i use qualities as a metaphor from material to metaphysical dimension describing the relationship from the attributes of something to the something (object/subject) so when we speak about metaphysics we have "umbrella terms" that we never really acknowledge but only the material examples that are displayed that we can analyze. we talk about the emotion anger, how do we know if someone is angry other than through their actions? is someone who is really good at holding back their anger less angry than someone who has a short fuse? if someone represses their emotions successfully it is because of a combination of them being good at not displaying their emotions or the observer wasn't aware enough to notice even the slightest expression. either way, for something to exist all the contributing factors have to adds up to 100% perhaps there are more factors too, but in this time/space i assume these to be the dominating factors. our individual perception (based on experience) cannot compensate for all the factors but the ego binds the person to his/her perception into thinking that the factors and sometimes factor (singular) are wholly responsible for the action, this is quite possibly the greatest human flaw. when this occurs the person no longer seeks truth, but to be correct and in its corner, it has bias, prejudice, preconceived notions, unrealistic expectations, judgments etc supporting the conviction.

    it isn't the action that lacks qualities, but the essence which would be the motivation, intention etc that does. the action takes place in time and space, but the answer to why it happens is not immediately available on the surface because its qualities are metaphysical. "why does the universe go through all the bother to existing?" that is a question written by a quantum physicist. "imagine the quality of the energy that expresses itself by creating the immense vastness of the many planes of existence solely for the love of the possibility of you and me" that is by a mystic. both profound insights, notice the difference?

    ReplyDelete