21 Responses to “Wilber, Teilhard; exploring two different, yet similar philosophies.”

1. MaBu888 Says:
   February 18th, 2010 at 6:24 pm

   Definitely. I replied to phcou, hence my very weird tone.

2. thepathlesspath Says:
   February 18th, 2010 at 7:15 pm

   Yeah, to re-affirm that point… Cartesian is not what integral is at all. In fact, a good philosopher to look at might be Jean Gebser, and what he says about that type of rationality (abilities and limitations).

3. MaBu888 Says:
   February 18th, 2010 at 8:12 pm

   phcou are you sprading conspiracy theories about us integrally oriented philosophers being in cahoots with the so called modern enlightenment? Modern enlightenment has had its days we say. It has stopped being of special value for many, and for good reasons. We are not at all cartesian.

4. thepathlesspath Says:
   February 18th, 2010 at 8:48 pm

   There are times to be vague and times to be direct.

5. MaBu888 Says:
   February 18th, 2010 at 9:25 pm

   The natural differences that cause exotericism to be necessary are not quite that natural to begin with. Life condicions had demanded that humans bow down to authoritarian control, but now that education and technology have primary importance, at least in some parts of the world, a caste system makes no sense, because a caste system is not conducive to good living condicions in a society with technology and education.

6. 9macrina9 Says:
   February 18th, 2010 at 10:04 pm

   thank you for this! and all this series!

7. MaBu888 Says:
   February 18th, 2010 at 10:36 pm

   I acknowledge the distinction, too, between the esoteric and the exoteric. That same distinction holds true in eastern civilization. This arises, in my view, due to the different life condicions and hence different value systems and respones to life condicions. A caste system seems not to be a viable answer to the problems of the world, of which there are many.

8. phcou Says:
   February 18th, 2010 at 11:13 pm

   Socrates says ” take this an an example of what i mean: everyone would surely say that if a man takes weapons from a friend when the latter is of sound character, and the friend demands them back when the man is mad, one shouldnt give back such things, and the man who gave them would not be just, and, moreover, one should not be willing to tell someone with this character the whole truth”

9. MaBu888 Says:
   February 18th, 2010 at 11:53 pm

   That was most clear. However, I already am aware of many perspectives that watch beyond theso called modern enlightenment. The way I see it, there is an inherent danger of pigeonholing all other people who are not you – the way you articulate your well founded negativity towards the modern enlightenment.

   I think I recongize depth and beauty in your short stories that I am yet to comprehend.

10. phcou Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 12:38 am

    My vagueness only reflects the pre-modern understanding of nature and the necessity for the esoteric/exoteric distinction. My shorts stories to you are written with this in mind

11. phcou Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 1:37 am

    it is not knowledge of how to ranks one’s duties in light of what reason tells us(hence the atheist polemics and your desire to let everyone know of the non-existence of Jesus is an example of lack of responsibility and differs from the pre-moderns in that while they too knew the non-existence of the gods, it was kept from the public because of its dangerous effects) but of realizing and actualizing the most salient right, the right to preserve oneself.

12. phcou Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 1:44 am

    . This distinction between the many and the few is denied by the modern enlightenment, and the erasure of the distinction between the different natural types has had problematic results for our age. As the worldwide promulgation is a matter of “ignorance and not sin” the knowledge that was previously the possession of a few now becomes the knowledge of everyone. This knowledge that would rid us of our ignorance, is not knowledge as it was understood by the pre-moderns,

13. phcou Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 2:39 am

    Ah yes! us moderns and our desire for clarity and precision. My emphasis on vagueness derives from the pre-enlightenment understanding of the differences between the natural capacities of humans, i.e., the difference between the philosophers and the non-philosophers and the necessity to communicate different things to different people (in light of their type of character). The natural differences among human beings makes exotericism necessary.

14. thepathlesspath Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Probably The Phenomenon of Man, or To Build the Earth. The former is very thorough and encompassing, but heavy in scientific and philosophical lingo. The latter is poetic and inspiring. I guess I just really enjoy both.

15. MaBu888 Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 3:31 am

    idork haz naild it.

16. MaBu888 Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 4:19 am

    Let me guess, phcou, the follow up, if there is going to be one, would be just as vague.

17. TheObnubilators Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 5:13 am

    what do you think is the best book br Teilhard to read?

18. idork Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 6:00 am

    Yeah, he’s a very dangerous person. Once he came over to my house with a machete and threatened to poison the air condition system with laughing gas. I told him this was cliche as the Joker had already done it in issues 45 and 78 of the original *take note, ORIGINAL* Batman series, to which he got very angry and smashed my vast collection of vases, including one from the Tang Dynasty, which, I’ll have you know, was extremely expensive.

19. thepathlesspath Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 6:06 am

    Hey, I’m not sure what you mean by that?

20. seigneurvoland666 Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 6:22 am

    nice lecture

21. phcou Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Wow, you’re quite a dangerous person, aren’t you?

Leave a Reply