"...in parallel, toward the upmost" is a great line. It indirecrly reminds me of this one from TSZ's prologue: "But I need living companions, who will follow me because they want to follow themselves-and to the place where I will."
@@SharperPenImageConsulting Thanks! It is a riff on Aristotle's 'friendship of virtue,' as well as the romantic (Christian, but also pagan?) concept of moving toward God in parallel. It is also somewhat Platonic, in that we desire the Form of the Good, and so to move in parallel, reaching across when we can in beneficence, is the highest form of friendship. We all want goods, but when we will the other to hold the best goods (in their conception of what is good) with us, as friends, then we are beginning to attain an understanding of love which has some substance. To relate your above connections to one I know you love: "If you are noble, I will love you; if you are not, I will not hurt you and myself by hypocritical attentions. If you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own. I do this not selfishly, but humbly and truly. It is alike your interest, and mine, and all men's, however long we have dwelt in lies, to live in truth. Does this sound harsh to-day? You will soon love what is dictated by your nature as well as mine, and, if we follow the truth, it will bring us out safe at last.-- But so you may give these friends pain. Yes, but I cannot sell my liberty and my power, to save their sensibility. Besides, all persons have their moments of reason, when they look out into the region of absolute truth; then will they justify me, and do the same thing." - "Self-Reliance," by Ralph Waldo Emerson, the magnificent The main reason men do not seek virtue, especially their own virtue, is acedia (sloth, as St. Augustine puts it), or sadness over a spiritual good. We resist the effort it takes to 'become our selves,' as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche would later expand on in modern, romantic language. This is reflected in Nietzsche's "Schopenhauer as Educator," paragraph one: "WHEN the traveller, who had seen many countries and nations and continents, was asked what common attribute he had found everywhere existing among men, he answered, "They have a tendency to sloth." Many may think that the fuller truth would have been, "They are all timid." They hide themselves behind "manners" and "opinions." At bottom every man knows well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvellously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time. He knows this, but hides it like an evil conscience;-and why? From fear of his neighbour, who looks for the latest conventionalities in him, and is wrapped up in them himself. But what is it that forces the man to fear his neighbour, to think and act with his herd, and not seek his own joy? Shyness perhaps, in a few rare cases, but in the majority it is idleness, the "taking things easily," in a word the "tendency to sloth," of which the traveller spoke. He was right; men are more slothful than timid, and their greatest fear is of the burdens that an uncompromising honesty and nakedness of speech and action would lay on them. It is only the artists who hate this lazy wandering in borrowed manners and ill-fitting opinions, and discover the secret of the evil conscience, the truth that each human being is a unique marvel." Sparkle on!
@@SharperPenImageConsulting “Joy, oh my joy! May I walk with you, my brothers and sisters, that we may become our selves, in parallel, by moving toward the upmost,” is a riff on Aristotle's 'friendship of virtue,' as well as the romantic (Christian, but also pagan?) concept of moving toward God in parallel. It is also somewhat Platonic, in that we desire the Form of the Good, and so to move in parallel, reaching across when we can in beneficence, is the highest form of friendship. This central concept of moving toward our highest state, together with others, who are also moving toward their own eudaimonia, be that Christian or pagan in nature, is a necessary component of what we might call ‘true friendship,’ also known as ‘friendship of virtue’ to those familiar with Aristotle's ‘Nicomachean Ethics,’ and why this form of friendship is often thwarted within an individual before it ever gets to the point of making contact with the other, rendering ‘true friendship’ impossible. We all want goods, and when we want the other to hold the best goods (in their conception of what is good) with us, as friends, then we are beginning to attain an understanding of love which has some substance. This relates to the concepts Ralph Waldo Emerson lays out in his essay, ‘Self Reliance,’ "If you are noble, I will love you; if you are not, I will not hurt you and myself by hypocritical attentions. If you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own. I do this not selfishly, but humbly and truly. It is alike your interest, and mine, and all men's, however long we have dwelt in lies, to live in truth. Does this sound harsh to-day? You will soon love what is dictated by your nature as well as mine, and, if we follow the truth, it will bring us out safe at last.-- But so you may give these friends pain. Yes, but I cannot sell my liberty and my power, to save their sensibility. Besides, all persons have their moments of reason, when they look out into the region of absolute truth; then will they justify me, and do the same thing." Ralph Waldo Emerson makes it clear that one of the challenges in attaining true friendship is overcoming the expectations of others which render us false, so that our public personality does not align with the inner wants, needs, and values that speak from within, beyond the reach of language, and therefore beyond the reach of explicit linguistic manipulation by ourselves or others. But no matter how long we have dwelt in lies, it is in all our interest to dwell in truth, but that will not come without a certain level of pain as we release old, worn-out illusions. To have the bravery to stand honestly, even at the risk of being despised, is therefore a necessary component of ‘true friendship,’ while this truthfulness must not be taken to mean we are honest with all persons, as most people are not worthy of the truth of the human subject, as they cannot handle it, lacking compassion and awareness of both themselves and others. That is why, however - we may be honest about where we stand in caricature, and from there whittle down to finding those whom we love as true friends. As an example from personal experience, we can find this in the case of a homosexual seeking friendship of virtue. Since there is real virtue built up among intellectuals, artists, scientists, athletes, and those who are pulled by their longing within themselves become themselves, and to perish thereby, as a sacrifice by which greater may arise through themselves, but little virtue among those who identify mainly with sexuality alone, it is advantageous to first prioritize finding those who are virtuous by becoming virtuous, while maintaining integrity about one’s aesthetical preferences, so as to channel the homosexual’s sexuality to something which is upbuilding. This applies, I hope obviously, to hetero-erotic desire. We must have integrity and virtue in combination, publicly displayed, with proper ‘meekness,’ if we are to inherit the friend. However - few are willing to put forward this effort to attain virtue, or to endure the painful effort necessary to become honest about their tastes. This is the main thwarting of friendship of virtue. In order to understand how we can overcome this malaise, we need to understand why virtue-pursuit is so repulsive to so many. The main reason men do not seek virtue, especially their own virtue, is acedia (sloth, as St. Augustine puts it), or mourning over a spiritual good. We resist the effort it takes to 'become our selves,' as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche would later expand on in modern, romantic language. This is reflected in Nietzsche's "Schopenhauer as Educator," paragraph one: "WHEN the traveller, who had seen many countries and nations and continents, was asked what common attribute he had found everywhere existing among men, he answered, "They have a tendency to sloth." Many may think that the fuller truth would have been, "They are all timid." They hide themselves behind "manners" and "opinions." At bottom every man knows well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvellously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time. He knows this, but hides it like an evil conscience;-and why? From fear of his neighbour, who looks for the latest conventionalities in him, and is wrapped up in them himself. But what is it that forces the man to fear his neighbour, to think and act with his herd, and not seek his own joy? Shyness perhaps, in a few rare cases, but in the majority it is idleness, the "taking things easily," in a word the "tendency to sloth," of which the traveller spoke. He was right; men are more slothful than timid, and their greatest fear is of the burdens that an uncompromising honesty and nakedness of speech and action would lay on them. It is only the artists who hate this lazy wandering in borrowed manners and ill-fitting opinions, and discover the secret of the evil conscience, the truth that each human being is a unique marvel." In order to attain the desired ‘true friendship,’ then - we must risk the effort that is required of us if we are to become honest in speech and deed. We must be willing to endure life and limb so as to attain to the upmost. If we are unwilling to die for the freedom of becoming our selves, then we are not worthy of the privilege. Now, this does not mean throwing out prudence, but it does mean that if we want the other to be virtuous and beneficent toward us, we must become so virtuous and beneficent in our own right first, so as to attract the virtuous. As Aristotle warned, becoming a friend of virtue toward others does not guarantee that others will be a friend of virtue toward us. It is, however, the necessary and sufficient set of qualities within our own command that will give us access to friendship of virtue. Therefore, the best we can hope to become is virtuous and honest, leaving others to find their way to themselves, and if we are virtuous and lucky, we may perhaps obtain that searched-for friend of virtue. You are a unique and beautiful individual made in the Image of God. What have you done to bring forward greater than you as you now are for love of the other in gratitude for this chance to attain the highest? Sparkle on. May you become who you are! (I wrote this low-quality essay just to get it out there)
I feel like the big contradiction with seeking enlightenment is what got you to seek it in the first place. My family, people around me, where I was born, are all elements of chaos waiting to fill the blank slate which is my consciousness. if it wasn't for this chaos, would i even seek to understand myself, the same way most people live their lives without ever fully understanding themselves? Either nothing has any meaning at all or there is a divine spark beyond life which directs you toward path of enlightenment. And if nothing has meaning, then I might as well make my own meaning and say the divine spark is the meaning, which, in a way turns the contradiction into a harmony of undeniable truth. That's just my 5 cents. Anyways youtube seemed to have recommended something solid to me, you earned my sub for sure.
@@BukLauXinZhaoKungPaoChicken right. There’s no denying the effects of others in shaping their world and self, and the way this is part of a larger net or web of relations (and dependence). The word enlightenment carries a lot of baggage, for what I see as largely particular “personality type” tendencies (historic Buddha Shakyanuni is typed INFP, for instance), meaning, the notion and “search” belongs to the introvert and the perceiver, the one doing the valuation and revaluation. It’s only married to myth in superstition and tradition, whose baggage is already outdated for modern (and nihilistic) man, even though Buddhist psychology has its own genius. Maybe “chaos births the dancing star” is a better way to state it for the moment, but I’m working on an essay, and the words that come to mind, are something like, “if the world is to have meaning, it must be the meaning of the one generating the value.” It’s not traditional enlightenment. It’s revaluation that allows for novel interpretation, returning to childhood anew, unburdening the heart (from a cynical world and people). I think the notion that it (enlightenment) can be “channeled” easily projects religious superstition forward in a negative manner, and perpetuates an even stronger suspicion of mine, that, like a lot of things, people can practice “work” or “religion” or any behavior really without knowing “how it works,” or short or long term ramifications of said behavior. Ie. “We did it this way a long time because we had to, and had no better ideas or conceptions itself, and in religion, it is ‘wrong’ to change anything,” because that’s generally how group or cult worship goes. Eventually, the engines that push a culture forward, simply, fail, or cease to have meaning as the world around them changes. I find it to be highly personal and instinctual. By that I mean, If you haven’t, check out the videos here on the channel “introversion vs extroversion” and “the evolutionary theory the world is not ready for,” then I’d recommend them for further framework of what I’m saying here. Anyway. Thanks for checking out the channel. See you around : )
Loved this! Your speaking voice is great - and i love that stache!!
@@tylerclark3391 Thank you, and thanks for checking out the channel.
Joy, oh my joy! May I walk with you, my brothers and sisters, that we may become our selves, in parallel, toward the upmost.
"...in parallel, toward the upmost" is a great line. It indirecrly reminds me of this one from TSZ's prologue: "But I need living companions, who will follow me because they want to follow themselves-and to the place where I will."
@@SharperPenImageConsulting Thanks! It is a riff on Aristotle's 'friendship of virtue,' as well as the romantic (Christian, but also pagan?) concept of moving toward God in parallel. It is also somewhat Platonic, in that we desire the Form of the Good, and so to move in parallel, reaching across when we can in beneficence, is the highest form of friendship. We all want goods, but when we will the other to hold the best goods (in their conception of what is good) with us, as friends, then we are beginning to attain an understanding of love which has some substance.
To relate your above connections to one I know you love:
"If you are noble, I will love you; if you are not, I will not hurt you and myself by hypocritical attentions. If you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own. I do this not selfishly, but humbly and truly. It is alike your interest, and mine, and all men's, however long we have dwelt in lies, to live in truth. Does this sound harsh to-day? You will soon love what is dictated by your nature as well as mine, and, if we follow the truth, it will bring us out safe at last.-- But so you may give these friends pain. Yes, but I cannot sell my liberty and my power, to save their sensibility. Besides, all persons have their moments of reason, when they look out into the region of absolute truth; then will they justify me, and do the same thing."
- "Self-Reliance," by Ralph Waldo Emerson, the magnificent
The main reason men do not seek virtue, especially their own virtue, is acedia (sloth, as St. Augustine puts it), or sadness over a spiritual good. We resist the effort it takes to 'become our selves,' as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche would later expand on in modern, romantic language. This is reflected in Nietzsche's "Schopenhauer as Educator," paragraph one:
"WHEN the traveller, who had seen many countries and nations and continents, was asked what common attribute he had found everywhere existing among men, he answered, "They have a tendency to sloth." Many may think that the fuller truth would have been, "They are all timid." They hide themselves behind "manners" and "opinions." At bottom every man knows well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvellously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time. He knows this, but hides it like an evil conscience;-and why? From fear of his neighbour, who looks for the latest conventionalities in him, and is wrapped up in them himself. But what is it that forces the man to fear his neighbour, to think and act with his herd, and not seek his own joy? Shyness perhaps, in a few rare cases, but in the majority it is idleness, the "taking things easily," in a word the "tendency to sloth," of which the traveller spoke. He was right; men are more slothful than timid, and their greatest fear is of the burdens that an uncompromising honesty and nakedness of speech and action would lay on them. It is only the artists who hate this lazy wandering in borrowed manners and ill-fitting opinions, and discover the secret of the evil conscience, the truth that each human being is a unique marvel."
Sparkle on!
@@SharperPenImageConsulting “Joy, oh my joy! May I walk with you, my brothers and sisters, that we may become our selves, in parallel, by moving toward the upmost,” is a riff on Aristotle's 'friendship of virtue,' as well as the romantic (Christian, but also pagan?) concept of moving toward God in parallel. It is also somewhat Platonic, in that we desire the Form of the Good, and so to move in parallel, reaching across when we can in beneficence, is the highest form of friendship. This central concept of moving toward our highest state, together with others, who are also moving toward their own eudaimonia, be that Christian or pagan in nature, is a necessary component of what we might call ‘true friendship,’ also known as ‘friendship of virtue’ to those familiar with Aristotle's ‘Nicomachean Ethics,’ and why this form of friendship is often thwarted within an individual before it ever gets to the point of making contact with the other, rendering ‘true friendship’ impossible.
We all want goods, and when we want the other to hold the best goods (in their conception of what is good) with us, as friends, then we are beginning to attain an understanding of love which has some substance. This relates to the concepts Ralph Waldo Emerson lays out in his essay, ‘Self Reliance,’ "If you are noble, I will love you; if you are not, I will not hurt you and myself by hypocritical attentions. If you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own. I do this not selfishly, but humbly and truly. It is alike your interest, and mine, and all men's, however long we have dwelt in lies, to live in truth. Does this sound harsh to-day? You will soon love what is dictated by your nature as well as mine, and, if we follow the truth, it will bring us out safe at last.-- But so you may give these friends pain. Yes, but I cannot sell my liberty and my power, to save their sensibility. Besides, all persons have their moments of reason, when they look out into the region of absolute truth; then will they justify me, and do the same thing."
Ralph Waldo Emerson makes it clear that one of the challenges in attaining true friendship is overcoming the expectations of others which render us false, so that our public personality does not align with the inner wants, needs, and values that speak from within, beyond the reach of language, and therefore beyond the reach of explicit linguistic manipulation by ourselves or others. But no matter how long we have dwelt in lies, it is in all our interest to dwell in truth, but that will not come without a certain level of pain as we release old, worn-out illusions. To have the bravery to stand honestly, even at the risk of being despised, is therefore a necessary component of ‘true friendship,’ while this truthfulness must not be taken to mean we are honest with all persons, as most people are not worthy of the truth of the human subject, as they cannot handle it, lacking compassion and awareness of both themselves and others. That is why, however - we may be honest about where we stand in caricature, and from there whittle down to finding those whom we love as true friends.
As an example from personal experience, we can find this in the case of a homosexual seeking friendship of virtue. Since there is real virtue built up among intellectuals, artists, scientists, athletes, and those who are pulled by their longing within themselves become themselves, and to perish thereby, as a sacrifice by which greater may arise through themselves, but little virtue among those who identify mainly with sexuality alone, it is advantageous to first prioritize finding those who are virtuous by becoming virtuous, while maintaining integrity about one’s aesthetical preferences, so as to channel the homosexual’s sexuality to something which is upbuilding. This applies, I hope obviously, to hetero-erotic desire. We must have integrity and virtue in combination, publicly displayed, with proper ‘meekness,’ if we are to inherit the friend.
However - few are willing to put forward this effort to attain virtue, or to endure the painful effort necessary to become honest about their tastes. This is the main thwarting of friendship of virtue. In order to understand how we can overcome this malaise, we need to understand why virtue-pursuit is so repulsive to so many. The main reason men do not seek virtue, especially their own virtue, is acedia (sloth, as St. Augustine puts it), or mourning over a spiritual good. We resist the effort it takes to 'become our selves,' as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche would later expand on in modern, romantic language. This is reflected in Nietzsche's "Schopenhauer as Educator," paragraph one:
"WHEN the traveller, who had seen many countries and nations and continents, was asked what common attribute he had found everywhere existing among men, he answered, "They have a tendency to sloth." Many may think that the fuller truth would have been, "They are all timid." They hide themselves behind "manners" and "opinions." At bottom every man knows well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvellously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time. He knows this, but hides it like an evil conscience;-and why? From fear of his neighbour, who looks for the latest conventionalities in him, and is wrapped up in them himself. But what is it that forces the man to fear his neighbour, to think and act with his herd, and not seek his own joy? Shyness perhaps, in a few rare cases, but in the majority it is idleness, the "taking things easily," in a word the "tendency to sloth," of which the traveller spoke. He was right; men are more slothful than timid, and their greatest fear is of the burdens that an uncompromising honesty and nakedness of speech and action would lay on them. It is only the artists who hate this lazy wandering in borrowed manners and ill-fitting opinions, and discover the secret of the evil conscience, the truth that each human being is a unique marvel."
In order to attain the desired ‘true friendship,’ then - we must risk the effort that is required of us if we are to become honest in speech and deed. We must be willing to endure life and limb so as to attain to the upmost. If we are unwilling to die for the freedom of becoming our selves, then we are not worthy of the privilege. Now, this does not mean throwing out prudence, but it does mean that if we want the other to be virtuous and beneficent toward us, we must become so virtuous and beneficent in our own right first, so as to attract the virtuous.
As Aristotle warned, becoming a friend of virtue toward others does not guarantee that others will be a friend of virtue toward us. It is, however, the necessary and sufficient set of qualities within our own command that will give us access to friendship of virtue. Therefore, the best we can hope to become is virtuous and honest, leaving others to find their way to themselves, and if we are virtuous and lucky, we may perhaps obtain that searched-for friend of virtue.
You are a unique and beautiful individual made in the Image of God. What have you done to bring forward greater than you as you now are for love of the other in gratitude for this chance to attain the highest?
Sparkle on. May you become who you are!
(I wrote this low-quality essay just to get it out there)
I feel like the big contradiction with seeking enlightenment is what got you to seek it in the first place. My family, people around me, where I was born, are all elements of chaos waiting to fill the blank slate which is my consciousness. if it wasn't for this chaos, would i even seek to understand myself, the same way most people live their lives without ever fully understanding themselves? Either nothing has any meaning at all or there is a divine spark beyond life which directs you toward path of enlightenment. And if nothing has meaning, then I might as well make my own meaning and say the divine spark is the meaning, which, in a way turns the contradiction into a harmony of undeniable truth.
That's just my 5 cents. Anyways youtube seemed to have recommended something solid to me, you earned my sub for sure.
@@BukLauXinZhaoKungPaoChicken right. There’s no denying the effects of others in shaping their world and self, and the way this is part of a larger net or web of relations (and dependence). The word enlightenment carries a lot of baggage, for what I see as largely particular “personality type” tendencies (historic Buddha Shakyanuni is typed INFP, for instance), meaning, the notion and “search” belongs to the introvert and the perceiver, the one doing the valuation and revaluation. It’s only married to myth in superstition and tradition, whose baggage is already outdated for modern (and nihilistic) man, even though Buddhist psychology has its own genius. Maybe “chaos births the dancing star” is a better way to state it for the moment, but I’m working on an essay, and the words that come to mind, are something like, “if the world is to have meaning, it must be the meaning of the one generating the value.” It’s not traditional enlightenment. It’s revaluation that allows for novel interpretation, returning to childhood anew, unburdening the heart (from a cynical world and people). I think the notion that it (enlightenment) can be “channeled” easily projects religious superstition forward in a negative manner, and perpetuates an even stronger suspicion of mine, that, like a lot of things, people can practice “work” or “religion” or any behavior really without knowing “how it works,” or short or long term ramifications of said behavior. Ie. “We did it this way a long time because we had to, and had no better ideas or conceptions itself, and in religion, it is ‘wrong’ to change anything,” because that’s generally how group or cult worship goes. Eventually, the engines that push a culture forward, simply, fail, or cease to have meaning as the world around them changes. I find it to be highly personal and instinctual. By that I mean, If you haven’t, check out the videos here on the channel “introversion vs extroversion” and “the evolutionary theory the world is not ready for,” then I’d recommend them for further framework of what I’m saying here.
Anyway. Thanks for checking out the channel. See you around : )