Q5: "In a world saturated with imagery, performance, and curated identities, what are the implications of rejecting appearances in favor of evidence, and can this stance ever be fully maintained without falling into cynicism or emotional detachment?"
All 'evidence' is (re quantum theory) subjectively both an 'appearance' to the individual, and also altered by the observer themself. Humans are subjective experiencers of experiences.
"Evidence" (by which I assume is meant concrete measurable scientific valid-for-all-time true knowledge) is not fixed - it is subjectively perceived.
Therefore to 'reject appearances in favour of evidence' is a meaningless supposition. It's all appearances, even so-called 'hard rational scientifically measured evidence'.
It also means cynicism is only possible if one believes that the religious cult of science always wins the day by forceful manipulation of the stories spouted every time the latest scientific discovery is narrated by a compliant media. As for emotional detachment, this is only possible by hard-core psychos, or after a lobotomy; neither category of whom are worthy to waste our life-energy on.
‘If self-deception is portrayed as a barrier to becoming fully one-self, what ….?’
I suggest, ‘self’ is the barrier to finding the ‘fullness’ we seek. What is ‘self?’ When an infant is born there is no self, no ‘I’, an infant is born, self- less. By conditioning and environmental influences an acquired notion of ‘self’ is formed. ‘Self,’ who I think I am, is a necessary social construct imposed on infants that identifies and defines social identity. Nevertheless, it remains a social construct, an illusion that rubs against an inner spirit knowing that yearns to know the truth. It is why we suffer, why we ever yearn for more. To Understand.
In terms, therefore, of ‘becoming fully…’, the task must be, to deconstruct the self. To become self-less in order to define personal authenticity.
Quote № 01: “Das Leben des Menschen kann nicht "gelebt" werden, indem er das Muster seiner Spezies wiederholt; er muss leben. Der Mensch ist das einzige Tier, das sich langweilen kann, das unzufrieden sein kann, das sich aus dem Paradies vertrieben fühlen kann. Der Mensch ist das einzige Tier, für das seine eigene Existenz ein Problem ist, das er lösen muss und dem er nicht entkommen kann. Er kann nicht in den vormenschlichen Zustand der Harmonie mit der Natur zurückkehren; er muss seine Vernunft weiterentwickeln, bis er Herr der Natur und seiner selbst wird.” — Erich Fromm, “Man for Himself”
1. Es ist ein ziemlich schräges Denken, der Mensch müsse "Herr der Natur" werden, obwohl er doch selber ein Teil von ihr und zu 100% abhängig von ihr ist.
2. Der Mensch ist das einzige Tier, das glaubt, sich permanent im Kampfmodus befinden zu müssen.
3. Wie muss man drauf sein, um auf die Idee zu kommen, dass die "eigene Existenz ein Problem" darstelle, das zu lösen sei?!
Es ist der Verstand einiger dieser Spezies, der solches ausbrütet.
🌿
Erich sagt: "er [der Mensch] muss seine Vernunft weiterentwickeln"
Genau so gut könnte er fordern, die Hände weiterentwickeln zu sollen.
Verstand, Vernunft, Denken stehen uns - wie die Hände - als Unterstützung zur Verfügung. Es liegt an uns, ob wir sie dahingehend missbrauchen, dass wir Probleme kreieren, wo von Natur aus... gar keine sind.
🌿
"Auch das Denken schadet bisweilen der Gesundheit." ― Aristoteles (Nikomachische Ethik)
Q3: I think the lasting nature of a poem, from Frost's perspective, raises an even more important, enduring question: what precisely is the “right reader?” If the reader of a poem is the only individual who can find the value in the words we have written, then understanding who that person is will allow us to predict the lasting nature of a poem. Then again, does a poem carry more weight if a greater number of people have an “immortal wound” than a poem where only a few are impacted? I think we should spend less time thinking about how many people will be unable to get over our poem, and more time ensuring that our poems are worthy of that characterization. And if we do not write poems, we could apply the same principle to our everyday words and interactions. Sure, everything say doesn't need to be like the beat from an intense movie scene. But sometimes it should be that intense. Maybe even more so.
But I think this much is true, that we should do everything we can to encourage our species to be exposed, and vulnerable to the power of words; we should help others to consider, and then willingly choose to use words and hear words, that cut deeply into our souls. If we do, I think we may have a chance of pruning from our nature the jaded spirit which makes us deaf and numb to the beauty of our world, and the bleeding souls around us.
Q5: "In a world saturated with imagery, performance, and curated identities, what are the implications of rejecting appearances in favor of evidence, and can this stance ever be fully maintained without falling into cynicism or emotional detachment?"
All 'evidence' is (re quantum theory) subjectively both an 'appearance' to the individual, and also altered by the observer themself. Humans are subjective experiencers of experiences.
"Evidence" (by which I assume is meant concrete measurable scientific valid-for-all-time true knowledge) is not fixed - it is subjectively perceived.
Therefore to 'reject appearances in favour of evidence' is a meaningless supposition. It's all appearances, even so-called 'hard rational scientifically measured evidence'.
It also means cynicism is only possible if one believes that the religious cult of science always wins the day by forceful manipulation of the stories spouted every time the latest scientific discovery is narrated by a compliant media. As for emotional detachment, this is only possible by hard-core psychos, or after a lobotomy; neither category of whom are worthy to waste our life-energy on.
HAHAHAHAHA!!! 😂😂😂😂😂
‘If self-deception is portrayed as a barrier to becoming fully one-self, what ….?’
I suggest, ‘self’ is the barrier to finding the ‘fullness’ we seek. What is ‘self?’ When an infant is born there is no self, no ‘I’, an infant is born, self- less. By conditioning and environmental influences an acquired notion of ‘self’ is formed. ‘Self,’ who I think I am, is a necessary social construct imposed on infants that identifies and defines social identity. Nevertheless, it remains a social construct, an illusion that rubs against an inner spirit knowing that yearns to know the truth. It is why we suffer, why we ever yearn for more. To Understand.
In terms, therefore, of ‘becoming fully…’, the task must be, to deconstruct the self. To become self-less in order to define personal authenticity.
🔥
Quote № 01: “Das Leben des Menschen kann nicht "gelebt" werden, indem er das Muster seiner Spezies wiederholt; er muss leben. Der Mensch ist das einzige Tier, das sich langweilen kann, das unzufrieden sein kann, das sich aus dem Paradies vertrieben fühlen kann. Der Mensch ist das einzige Tier, für das seine eigene Existenz ein Problem ist, das er lösen muss und dem er nicht entkommen kann. Er kann nicht in den vormenschlichen Zustand der Harmonie mit der Natur zurückkehren; er muss seine Vernunft weiterentwickeln, bis er Herr der Natur und seiner selbst wird.” — Erich Fromm, “Man for Himself”
1. Es ist ein ziemlich schräges Denken, der Mensch müsse "Herr der Natur" werden, obwohl er doch selber ein Teil von ihr und zu 100% abhängig von ihr ist.
2. Der Mensch ist das einzige Tier, das glaubt, sich permanent im Kampfmodus befinden zu müssen.
3. Wie muss man drauf sein, um auf die Idee zu kommen, dass die "eigene Existenz ein Problem" darstelle, das zu lösen sei?!
Es ist der Verstand einiger dieser Spezies, der solches ausbrütet.
🌿
Erich sagt: "er [der Mensch] muss seine Vernunft weiterentwickeln"
Genau so gut könnte er fordern, die Hände weiterentwickeln zu sollen.
Verstand, Vernunft, Denken stehen uns - wie die Hände - als Unterstützung zur Verfügung. Es liegt an uns, ob wir sie dahingehend missbrauchen, dass wir Probleme kreieren, wo von Natur aus... gar keine sind.
🌿
"Auch das Denken schadet bisweilen der Gesundheit." ― Aristoteles (Nikomachische Ethik)
Thank you. Dickens’s timely quote landed well this morning.
Q3: I think the lasting nature of a poem, from Frost's perspective, raises an even more important, enduring question: what precisely is the “right reader?” If the reader of a poem is the only individual who can find the value in the words we have written, then understanding who that person is will allow us to predict the lasting nature of a poem. Then again, does a poem carry more weight if a greater number of people have an “immortal wound” than a poem where only a few are impacted? I think we should spend less time thinking about how many people will be unable to get over our poem, and more time ensuring that our poems are worthy of that characterization. And if we do not write poems, we could apply the same principle to our everyday words and interactions. Sure, everything say doesn't need to be like the beat from an intense movie scene. But sometimes it should be that intense. Maybe even more so.
But I think this much is true, that we should do everything we can to encourage our species to be exposed, and vulnerable to the power of words; we should help others to consider, and then willingly choose to use words and hear words, that cut deeply into our souls. If we do, I think we may have a chance of pruning from our nature the jaded spirit which makes us deaf and numb to the beauty of our world, and the bleeding souls around us.
Love this! Reminds me of the anecdotes I discovered in my great-grandfather’s memoir about his friendship with Robert Frost. check it out:
https://thesecretingredient.substack.com/p/what-my-great-grandfathers-memoir