Alkemydia: The Way of I-deas

Nietzsche - Why Did God Have to Die?

2009-04-28T18:01:00.000-07:00

I remember reading On the Genealogy of Morals several years back. It was, in essence the first real attentive eye that I gave to Nietzsche. Why I conveniently avoided him became clear to me sometime after, and again, in a future piece, I may delve deeper into this. Anyhow, unfortunately, I did not follow his advice. I read things out of order...out of context. I was not impressed, or shall I say, more correctly...I did not LIKE On the Genealogy of Morals. Still, something in me prompted me forward several years after that (and still some years ago). Thus Spoke Zarasusthra came next. And, in the midst of all this, I was in some sort of a crisis - perhaps the selfish kind that comes from too much time to think, even when one does not have the time, so to speak, but in any event, I was experiencing a crisis - in my own little corner of the world.

I will go into what I got out of Thus Spoke Zarasusthra another time in more detail. But what struck me so strongly when I read this was what I felt to be a deeply, almost ineffeable experience of what dear Mr. N. was attempting to do. He was doing the unspeakable...the unthinkable. And, he was a genius. And, although I am aware of the implications this bent may have...I conclusively decided (at least at that time, and still now, for now) that he is not, by any means, an aetheist.

Why did I decide this. Well, I did not decide. Rather, I experienced it. I experienced him. I experienced what, I believe, was the first intent of this piece of artistic genius. Fredrich took me to a place that I thought I would never go. Or, let me rephrase this - I was not aware of this place in the first place.

God is dead. That is where I went. However, it was for a PURPOSE. This was not the end of the story. No, in fact, this was the original creative act for which I had to thank, (or curse), our friend, Nietzsche.

Can we go to this place? Can I contemplate the nonexistence of my self...my Self? Can I rest there? And if I can't, what does it mean? Where do I go when I do that? And for that matter - Who Am I? And...oh my goodness, is this not the prime statement of the Divine - the I Am-ness...the essential question that drives and penetrates our consciousness and leads to our eventual so-called enlightenment? Yes, it seems that it where I was going. But - from the back door. From the garage...From the sewer.

Ok, maybe I cannot go to this place. But I must. I must go to this place. I must be willing to give up the things, the formulas, the beliefs that keep me sane - that keep me human....that keep Me. He is forcing me! He is taking away my security blankets...my mind as well. Can I keep up with this?

I had to use my power of imagination. I had to go there. And I went. And it was very dark. However, Nietzshe is compassionate in his work. He spells it right out - and you'll forgive me if I do not go back just now for a reference, perhaps later - in essence, he DOES write out...right there in his masterpiece, that the people must follow him to that place and then...and only then, should they - or would they - (as a necessity) - remove him. It is ONLY then, that we can know. Not believe, know. AFTER we go...THERE.

One could say this message is not so original, however, the originality in Nietzsche is his ability to have put us there. There - the most terrifying place of all. Why hast thou forsaken me? - is the question that comes to mind. And, what happens next....

This is where God is alive.

When to Speak/When to Stay Silent

2009-04-28T16:18:00.001-07:00

How many of us ponder this one? It seems so urgently important to me.

Goethe's Theory of Color

2009-04-28T16:14:00.000-07:00

We typically view darkness as the absence of light. However, Goethe approached this from another angle. According to Goethe, darkness is contained within the light. A resonant concept on many fronts, and although discounted by many, Godel and Heisenberg were among those who found Goethe worthy of serious consideration with regard to this matter. I happen to agree, at least in theory, for now.

When to Take Action

2009-04-28T15:48:00.000-07:00

This for me, is one of the big questions. There seems to be a fragile precipice that lives between contemplation and action, and the crossing of this boundary makes, at least it seems to me now, all the difference.

What is the reason for the importance of sensitivity when it comes to the "when" of things? Is it because we are based in a time-laden experience, thus infusing meaning into something, which, after all, is a subjective matter? Why does the timing of action become so critical?

If one is "too spontaneous," one risks a great deal. If one sits on one's proverbial laurels for too long, one also risks a great deal. When does one know enough to "begin"...when does one "wait"...Discernment seems to be quite important. Understanding would seem to be a level "below" that, whereby only with correct understanding can one make choices to take action that are grounded in time in the most effective manner. Control too would appear to play a large part in this. Control borne of Will.

I was thinking along these lines today and recognized that Development of the Will was a phrase long ago passed onto me by my marvelous professor who entered my life so very many years ago. I believe I am only now starting to grasp the gravity of this issue. And, I am still jumping back and forth over this precipice.

Yoga, Vivekenanda and the Impulse to Help

2009-04-28T11:07:00.000-07:00

I have a friend who has recently become interested in Yoga/herself (and by Yoga - I mean what I will call the "true Yoga" - union with the Divine). I write "herself" after "Yoga", because her Self is, it seems, beginning to become apparent to her in a new way, and as she finds this within, her journey compliments my own - to me, this is the real essence of friendship. The wonderful thing about this too is that she has been sharing with me her experiences and her questions. I, therefore, have had the opportunity to open my heart in the way I enjoy most...sharing what I feel it true and beautiful.

I had the great fortune of being able to deepen the interest of someone I care about to the wonders of Ramakrishna, Yogananda and so...so...much more, and I am so thankful for this. I've mentioned to her my experience with the Mahayogi Yoga Mission, and the belief that I have that true Yoga is so much more than I have even a glimmer of....Anything that I can do to further this mindset (namely of openess, wonder and sincerity)- particularly when someone comes to me with a question - makes me feel truly honored. As I tell her, I learn by her every question.

My friend asked me a question on something Vivekenanada (Ramakrishna's devoted disciple) had said. Interestingly, another dear friend of mine had circulated this quote in a group email. I feel as though the subject matter is immensely important. At least for myself...perhaps for others too:

This is the (beginning of) the quote:

"Is it not a blasphemy to say that the world needs our help? We cannot deny that there is much misery in it; to go out and help others is, therefore, the best thing we can do, although in the long run, we shall find that helping others is only helping ourselves. […] "

And here was my response to my friend, when she asked me what it means to me:

"Quite frankly, I have to struggle with this too. I've had the benefit of kind and loving people, far wiser than me, pointing out that one's focus and work on one's self is the key. The impulse to "help others" is of course, noble, good and important, but far too often its impulse appears to come from self-deception, in the sense that we are much more ready to "feed our ego" by "helping" the world/others, etc. (i.e., implying that we have "more than" in the way of knowledge, spiritual development, understanding, wisdom, etc.) - usually a clear sign we are trying to escape dealing with ourselves and the fact that we are NOT in the position we imagine ourselves to be. Most of us (including me) have a very hard time looking inward, and we are all too ready to involve ourselves in superficial discussions, social interaction and "learning" which feeds the ego, rather than true self exploration and development. Then we consider ourselves ready somehow to teach or guide or help the world - when it is a transparent way to escape our own unwillingness to become a truly spiritual person - which, unfortunately has the sad result of creating hypocricy and conflict. This is why so many so-called spiritual and cultural movements find themselves rife with political strife. That is my take on it. If, for instance, a one-to-one caring is not present (i.e., if people cannot relate to each other or help each other in a way that is authentic at a personal one-on-one intimate or even anonymous level (i.e., no ego gratification involved), which by its essence forces a more intimate confronation with one's real motives and self, then people cannot by this very fact, allow themselves to believe they can really help anyone on a broader scale.) One must continually face oneself, and recognize where this feeling "of wanting to help others" really originates. That is why it can be blasphemy in the highest degree for one on the Path. And a person on a true and sincere mission to grow spiritually has a very acute recognition of this, in my opinion. This is why Ramakrishna and Vivekenanda are two of the teachers I admire most. Of course, coming back to the point of all this - I continually question my motives as well. In Sufism, we are taught to be very much honest with ourselves about the motives of why we involve ourselves in spiritual endeavors with others. If it is for social nourishment, we should not lie to ourselves and say it is spiritual. Most of us, including me, in my observations, are still challenged to be really and vigorously self-honest on this point."

Reading this back, I believe I should add that as we are challenged, we continue to grow...and as long as we are examining ourselves honestly (trying at least) our attempts to share - learning from and teaching each other through our experiences - are valuable and important.

How to connect the dots: A satire on epistemological concerns

2009-04-28T10:43:00.000-07:00

I wonder sometimes, how to connect all these dots. It has struck me, at times, and particularly lately, when reading a book called Infinite Ascent (which reviews the history of mathematics), that the dots themselves are quite impossible to define. A quick glance at quantum physics (and I say that with a cringe due to my surprise and concern regarding the "easy access" and "easy understanding" offered and claimed by many, when I suspect that the frameworks of such understanding are not so easily mastered)...but I digress.

As I was saying, a quick glance at quantum physics will bring us to the subject of the wave/particle issue. For me, this is a wonderous problem. Do I claim to understand it? No. I honestly find that the more I understand, the truly baffled I become - and yet, on some level, it seems that some kind of understanding grows concurrently. An ego trick? Perhaps.

So, the wave/particle problem. It seems that we cannot really define a "dot"....let's say a discrete particle - in the way we would like to. It seems that discrete and continuous are coexisting. Hm, what does this mean for us?

Well, I intend to explore the meat of this more directly another time, but for now, I want to offer up the "loose idea" here as a kind of premise for what I am thinking about. Which, as I stated above, is the challenge of "connecting the dots." And here is what I mean:

There are so many things for us to learn in this world. There are so many parts to this puzzle.
However, let's throw out a loose (very loose) reference to the concept of Advaita Vedanta, and the concept, again too abstract for real analysis at this point (or any perhaps), of the unity of all things. Well then, with an intuitive incling of all things being one, how do we approach s0-called understanding when we must extract out the pieces due to the nature of our frustratingly limited perc(at least when used traditionally) perceptual mechanisms which serve as the continuing (and distorted) monitors of our experience? In other words, can we get to the wisdom of the One, while exploring the fragmented pieces? Can we examine the objective (er, the omnijective, perhaps - to coin a term from Mr. Talbot)...with the subjective? Can we become omnijective ourselves to forge new paths on such fantastical terrian?

Here there seems to be a primary episotemological challenge. Do we need new ways of knowing - of understanding - of learning - of unlearning - of unknowing?

What I am getting at here is that I believe we do. And I believe those dots are already connected. In fact, I do not think there are any dots at all. But in the meantime, let's look at them anyway. Or....not.

Epistemology

2009-04-28T10:24:00.000-07:00

When I was in my first year of college, I met a guy working in the stockroom of Stern's, a department store. At the time, I was working in the electronics department. Without commission as an incentive, and largely without customers in a relative wasteland of a store, I had ample time on my hands to think. And, to talk to my new friend, C.

I cannot recall how I began talking to C. I imagine I may have had on the counter a book by Charles Tart - Altered States of Consciousness, which, I am sure, would have piqued the interest of my soon-to-be fellow explorer of things mystical and true. C. was a bit of a godsend for me.

Let me backtrack a moment...I ended up in the situation I was in because my mother had gotten cancer. I had postponed going away to school to follow my, at the time, dreams - and stayed home to attend Stony Brook University. I was not a fish out of water; I was a bird out of the sky. There is enough time to go into this later.

In any event, C. told me that I must meet a certain man. This man was a revered (and I am not using the term lightly) professor at Stony Brook University. C. seemed to think that this man held some wisdom that was seriously worth investigation. Of course, I was intrigued, as my path, for as long as I can remember breathing, had always been one which had me on a course to seek the true nature of reality/God. Professor D. apparently taught several "philosophy" courses, one of which was Mahayana Buddhism.

Flash forward: First day of class. A line streamed outside the door. Many, many students had decided to audit Professor D.'s class; the lucky ones however, had successfully registered (me being one of them) - registration, as chance would have it, in this particular class, meant a guaranteed "A." This man, indeed, appeared to be a living phenomenon here at my University. I did not know how much more even than that he was (and is) at the time, with regard to the shaping of my life that would grow out of this association.

There he stood, a regal looking Spaniard with penetrating eyes and a face that emanated the kind of radiance one might expect from a saint. His presence was, however, not disconcerting, but immensely comforting. He turned his back to the class, piled against walls and overflowing at the desks and picked up a piece of chalk. Slowly, across two blackboards, he wrote in tall capital letters, one word: Epistemology.