Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Here is a link to a tweet I posted earlier tonight.

Here is a slightly expanded version:


Content free-spirited creativity emerges in the absence of enslaving moral law and other false idols. Nothing must be done that isn't done. Spiritual freedom is the source of true art and beauty. With spiritual freedom, the whole world may appear as an eternal work of beautiful art, inexorably perfect.

Just sounds like jargon. All puff no meaning.

The beauty of freedom is in the creative diversity it not only allows but also engenders. Nothing must be done that isn't done and yet one has choice of what to do and not to do, in other words of which few things to choose to do from the infinite list of things one can do.

Must and choice are incompatible. Spiritual slavery is thus always based on some kind of lie, illusion, falsehood, or deception.

You cannot go wrong, but you can create the feeling that you have. Even in the most heavenly heaven, a self-deceiving liar can see hell, and really suffer in their own made-up nightmare.

Spiritual freedom and the nightmarish trap of the comfort zone generally seem incompatible.

WHy don't you just say what you think you mean?

To realize one's spiritual freedom is in part to embrace discomfort and self-responsibility, to accept the dizziness of freedom and let go of the enslaving idea that one simply needs to find the right answer rather than the more complex reality that one needs to creatively create an answer, an answer on a pseudo-test that has no wrong answer, the sandbox of life, the grand eternal art piece that is true reality, chiseled by transcendental consciousness, a transcendental consciousness that seems to be a source of unconditional love and forgiveness and thus also of liberating content inner peace.


Do you agree? If not, why not?

In order to agree or disagree you need to have made a clear statement.

[evolution]

Here is a link to a tweet I posted earlier tonight[/url].

Here is a slightly expanded version:


Content free-spirited creativity emerges in the absence of enslaving moral law and other false idols. Nothing must be done that isn't done. Spiritual freedom is the source of true art and beauty. With spiritual freedom, the whole world may appear as an eternal work of beautiful art, inexorably perfect.

The beauty of freedom is in the creative diversity it not only allows but also engenders. Nothing must be done that isn't done and yet one has choice of what to do and not to do, in other words of which few things to choose to do from the infinite list of things one can do.

Must and choice are incompatible. Spiritual slavery is thus always based on some kind of lie, illusion, falsehood, or deception.

You cannot go wrong, but you can create the feeling that you have. Even in the most heavenly heaven, a self-deceiving liar can see hell, and really suffer in their own made-up nightmare.

Spiritual freedom and the nightmarish trap of the comfort zone generally seem incompatible.

To realize one's spiritual freedom is in part to embrace discomfort and self-responsibility, to accept the dizziness of freedom and let go of the enslaving idea that one simply needs to find the right answer rather than the more complex reality that one needs to creatively create an answer, an answer on a pseudo-test that has no wrong answer, the sandbox of life, the grand eternal art piece that is true reality, chiseled by transcendental consciousness, a transcendental consciousness that seems to be a source of unconditional love and forgiveness and thus also of liberating content inner peace.


Do you agree? If not, why not?

If one thinks or believes that they 'need' to creatively create an answer, then they are Truly still enslaved.

[Count Lucanor]

But "spiritual freedom" can often mean "spiritual laziness".

That sums up the best understanding of the issue.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I imagine one will probably produce less beautiful or less creative poetry if they are strictly ordered to either only use blank verse that absolutely cannot follow any kind of pattern or rules or strictly ordered to use iambic pentameter specifically, or told that they absolutely cannot use either of those and must find another option, or told that they must write poetry at all or told they must not write poetry at all for some reason and must instead express themselves only with poetry.

There seems to be a mistake here, or I'm misinterpreting. Blank Verse is iambic pentameter but unrhymed.

My mistake. I was thinking blank verse meant anything goes. Thank you for the correction.

Do you agree? If not, why not?

It has a solipsistic sheen to it ...

I am not sure if you are giving that as the reason you agree or the reason you disagree.

Nonetheless, to be clear, I am not a solipsist. In fact, I not only work under the belief that other humans are conscious, but also that animals are too, which is a crucial part of the reason I am a vegetarian.

If I thought I lived in a world of philosophical zombies, I'd be much more willing to enslave them, or eat them.

But since people aren't zombies (in my belief), I respect their freedom, politically and spiritually, and see them as my political and spiritual equals.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Count Lucanor and Ecurb,

But "spiritual freedom" can often mean "spiritual laziness".

That sums up the best understanding of the issue.

Those possibly equivocal words could mean the same as each other when other people besides me use those words. But not how I use them.

Generally, all words are very equivocal, but to remain logical we must be careful to avoid a fallacy of equivocation, especially when interpreting each other's words.

What I would call laziness is not at all compatible with what I would call spiritual freedom.

I use the terms self-discipline and spiritual freedom interchangeably to refer to the exact same thing. So if you are reading any of my words and aren't sure you are getting my intended meaning, please switch out "spiritual freedom" with "self-discipline", and see if that fits better to understand my intended meaning in the given sentence.

Sorry for any prior confusion about what I meant by what I wrote, and I hope this clarification is helpful!

[Sy Borg]

Ecurb and Count, do you mean "philosophical laziness" rather than "spiritual laziness"? I would have thought that at least our innermost selves would be immune from expectations to be productive. Is there a final spiritual goal we must achieve before drifting off to the choirs invisible, and failure to work towards that goal is "lazy"?

As a corollary to Scott's observations above, a person who is trying to feel more free - to release some of tonnes of baggage we collect in a lifetime - may become undisciplined. At first. However, as observed by the Hedonists and Skeptics, when we are undisciplined, the punishment comes naturally, eg. hangovers as punishment for overdoing it, aches and pains as "punishment" for lack of exercise.

[baker]

Do you agree? If not, why not?

It has a solipsistic sheen to it ...

I am not sure if you are giving that as the reason you agree or the reason you disagree.

I'll put it this way:
Where do you get your creative spiritual ideas from?
Do you read what other people have written? Do you take their ideas and internalize them? Have you done this in the past, and do you intend to do that in the future?

[Ecurb]

Those possibly equivocal words could mean the same as each other when other people besides me use those words. But not how I use them.

Generally, all words are very equivocal, but to remain logical we must be careful to avoid a fallacy of equivocation, especially when interpreting each other's words.

What I would call laziness is not at all compatible with what I would call spiritual freedom.

I use the terms self-discipline and spiritual freedom interchangeably to refer to the exact same thing. So if you are reading any of my words and aren't sure you are getting my intended meaning, please switch out "spiritual freedom" with "self-discipline", and see if that fits better to understand my intended meaning in the given sentence.

Sorry for any prior confusion about what I meant by what I wrote, and I hope this clarification is helpful!

The cloistered nun speaks to other humans only one day out of the year. She passes her days in solitary prayer and meditation. Her prayers and meditations are crafted and influenced by the practice of others, many of whom were equally disciplined, who can guide her on her spiritual quest.

Now I have no idea what the "results" of her dedication might be. However, I admire her diligence, and think that if spiritual enlightenment is possible, she is more likely to achieve it than the dilletante who doesn't believe in "traditional spirituality".

Our language poet knows he can’t write sonnets as well as Shakespeare, or odes as well as Keats, or epics as well as Homer. Who can? It’s too hard. So he persuades himself that the kind of poetry he can write is the wave of the future.

Our personal spirituality lover knows he can’t give up everything he owns and become a saint, like Francis of Assisi. He knows he can’t meditate for months on end like a Buddhist monk. So he persuades himself that the spirituality he can practice is the wave of the future.

There is something both cowardly and noble about our heroes. It is cowardly to reject the past because it is threatening. The giants of the past are not only the windmills against which we tilt, but also the chargers we ride to the joust. It is sane to be in awe of giants, but cowardly to fear them. The hero, like Ozymandias of old, cries, “Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.”

Of course if our works are puny and pitiful (as they always are), it’s hard to work up much volume or enthusiasm on the Ozymandian shout. Most of our own works make us despair, not other people.

That is why the language poet and the seeker of spirituality are noble. Their works may be desperate bunk, but their hearts are in the right place. They may not be able to write poetry, or know God, but they have the souls of poets, the hearts of saints and the ambition of geniuses.

Of course every mailman, and every factory worker has the soul of a poet. For, even more important, each of us has the soul of a human being. What we don’t have is the ability to write poetry.

Every clerk, every waiter, and (even) every U.S. Senator has the spirituality of priest or shaman. For, more important, each of us has the spirituality of a human being. What we don’t have is the ability to talk to God, or see the future, or telepathically bend silverware. We have all “heard the mermaids singing, each to each,” but most of us are unable to understand the words, or remember the tune.

The world is a strange place. We all delude ourselves. We all believe many things which simply aren’t true. But one thing is true: we can see the wave of the future only by looking into the past. As with the waves of the sea, or the winds of the air, we know what’s coming only by knowing what has come. “There is nothing new under the sun…. All rivers floweth into the sea, and yet the sea is not full, for unto that place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.” So it is for the sea; so it is for the human soul.

[Count Lucanor]

Hi, @Count Lucanor and @Ecurb,

But "spiritual freedom" can often mean "spiritual laziness".

That sums up the best understanding of the issue.

Those possibly equivocal words could mean the same as each other when other people besides me use those words. But not how I use them.

Generally, all words are very equivocal, but to remain logical we must be careful to avoid a fallacy of equivocation, especially when interpreting each other's words.

What I would call laziness is not at all compatible with what I would call spiritual freedom.

I use the terms self-discipline and spiritual freedom interchangeably to refer to the exact same thing. So if you are reading any of my words and aren't sure you are getting my intended meaning, please switch out "spiritual freedom" with "self-discipline", and see if that fits better to understand my intended meaning in the given sentence.

Sorry for any prior confusion about what I meant by what I wrote, and I hope this clarification is helpful!

I find it very hard to conciliate these two concepts: discipline and freedom, and that these words could be used interchangeably, as if they were synonymous. Not in the context of this discussion. You see:

People always find themselves thrown into the world, their existence is inexorably tied to it. No one lives in a bubble of their own self. Both discipline and freedom become meaningful in our exchanges with that world, which is our life. To have discipline, even if it refers to the innermost parts of the self, involves dealing with the world. It clearly implies having to negotiate with those "external" conditions, and even though we can focus more on our "internal" responses, their autonomy is heavily influenced and limited by the fact that we are ourselves part of that world. Our conceptions of an "inner" and "outer" world work only as valuable metaphors that stem from epistemological assumptions, but they are not tenable from an ontological perspective. The world is a continuum and we are just part of it.

That was the point of departure from which we could start the discussion about artistic creation, which is anyway creation inside the world, or better said, its creative transformation. In this context, absolute freedom to operate without much regard to the existing conditions, the enslaving law, is a sort of anarchy that pays no tribute to the much required discipline to operate within the world. Unlimited freedom is contrary to discipline, which in any creative enterprise implies not the tendency to leave things as they are, but to surpass them, to leave their cultural boxes, to innovate and create a new reality. It requires an effort, a focus on the problems and the ability to find a solution not conceived before. To value creativity is to value the efforts to transgress the inherited conditions, the initial constraints, and that's why untamed creative freedom looks as laziness: it bypasses the constraints instead of dealing with them. It implies no efforts, no challenges, no achievements, no merits.

While we value creativity, renovation, transformation, we can also value permanence, continuity, order and rules. It is necessary for practical life. For that we need to discipline ourselves, too.

[Count Lucanor]

Ecurb and Count, do you mean "philosophical laziness" rather than "spiritual laziness"? I would have thought that at least our innermost selves would be immune from expectations to be productive. Is there a final spiritual goal we must achieve before drifting off to the choirs invisible, and failure to work towards that goal is "lazy"?

Don't know exactly what will be the difference between philosophical and spiritual laziness. If I were to come up with types of laziness I would call only two: mental and physical laziness. I could add another type, social laziness, which will be described as trying to gain maximum social benefits while spending the least amount of personal energy in a given activity. You can see lots of examples of the latter in the art world, but also in all other areas of social life. In any case, when referring to Ecurb's comment, I meant any type of laziness in relation to any circumstance in which me must act as the situation demands. No particular goal in mind, but life itself as it comes, which requires an effort.

As a corollary to Scott's observations above, a person who is trying to feel more free - to release some of tonnes of baggage we collect in a lifetime - may become undisciplined. At first. However, as observed by the Hedonists and Skeptics, when we are undisciplined, the punishment comes naturally, eg. hangovers as punishment for overdoing it, aches and pains as "punishment" for lack of exercise.

I actually endorse the idea of personal freedom as the necessary means to progress in life. But I also endorse the idea of finding the limits, a balance between our liberties and our possibilities. Any shift to the extremes, either complete debauchery or complete submission to the status quo, will not go well.

[Sy Borg]

Ecurb and Count, do you mean "philosophical laziness" rather than "spiritual laziness"? I would have thought that at least our innermost selves would be immune from expectations to be productive. Is there a final spiritual goal we must achieve before drifting off to the choirs invisible, and failure to work towards that goal is "lazy"?

Don't know exactly what will be the difference between philosophical and spiritual laziness. If I were to come up with types of laziness I would call only two: mental and physical laziness.

That sounds about right to me. Not sure what I was thinking with "philosophical laziness". Ultimately, the only problem with laziness is where someone does not do their fair share of work, throwing the extra load on another. Once we have completed our obligations towards others, how intensely we choose to live is our own business.

As a corollary to Scott's observations above, a person who is trying to feel more free - to release some of tonnes of baggage we collect in a lifetime - may become undisciplined. At first. However, as observed by the Hedonists and Skeptics, when we are undisciplined, the punishment comes naturally, eg. hangovers as punishment for overdoing it, aches and pains as "punishment" for lack of exercise.

I actually endorse the idea of personal freedom as the necessary means to progress in life. But I also endorse the idea of finding the limits, a balance between our liberties and our possibilities. Any shift to the extremes, either complete debauchery or complete submission to the status quo, will not go well.

Yes, and balance is never permanent, be it the balanced emotions of individuals or a balanced policy mix for governments and corporations. Balance is a brief, blissful refrain before the pendulum swings again. Ideally, the amplitude of the oscillations within certain limits, which (also ideally) comes with experience.

[Tegularius]

Don't understand why spiritual freedom - which is only an expression - has anything to do with artistic creativity or creativity of any kind. It's usually the norms and values of an age which act as catalyst that highlight the talents available. One can be supremely creative, providing one has the ability, for the most mundane of reasons, money and status. That has never changed except that there's very little or nothing left that can be classified as supremely creative.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Content free-spirited creativity emerges in the absence of enslaving moral law and other false idols. Nothing must be done that isn't done. Spiritual freedom is the source of true art and beauty. With spiritual freedom, the whole world may appear as an eternal work of beautiful art, inexorably perfect.

Just sounds like jargon. All puff no meaning.

I know what I mean. And I know that I mean something.

I am sorry if you did not catch or did not understand my meaning, or worse--in addition to not understanding my meaning--have concluded I didn't intend to convey anything at all, but am instead presumably something of a trickster. I could be misunderstanding you, but it seems like you may be accusing me of intentionally not having intention behind my words, in other words not having an intended meaning at all that is meant by me to be conveyed by the words I posted. If that's the case, then you will either have to take my word for it that I have an intended meaning (i.e. that I meant something by each sentence I posted), or we will have to agree to not speak about it further or discuss anything else in this topic.

I am not sure if you are giving that as the reason you agree or the reason you disagree.

I'll put it this way:
Where do you get your creative spiritual ideas from?
Do you read what other people have written? Do you take their ideas and internalize them? Have you done this in the past, and do you intend to do that in the future?

I am not sure what you mean by "creative spiritual ideas". Can you explain what you mean a bit to me?

For reference, I use the term spirit (and by extension words like spiritual etc.) to refer to consciousness. Thus "my spirit" = "my consciousness".

I use the term "spiritual freedom" as a synonym for "self-discipline". So for example take the title of this thread, "The artistically creative diversity of spiritual freedom". I would just as well write "The artistically creative diversity of self-discipline". Those two phrases mean the exact same thing to me.

With those clarifications in mind, do you mind helping me understand what you mean by "creative spiritual ideas"?

Those possibly equivocal words could mean the same as each other when other people besides me use those words. But not how I use them.

Generally, all words are very equivocal, but to remain logical we must be careful to avoid a fallacy of equivocation, especially when interpreting each other's words.

What I would call laziness is not at all compatible with what I would call spiritual freedom.

I use the terms self-discipline and spiritual freedom interchangeably to refer to the exact same thing. So if you are reading any of my words and aren't sure you are getting my intended meaning, please switch out "spiritual freedom" with "self-discipline", and see if that fits better to understand my intended meaning in the given sentence.

Sorry for any prior confusion about what I meant by what I wrote, and I hope this clarification is helpful!

The cloistered nun speaks to other humans only one day out of the year. She passes her days in solitary prayer and meditation. Her prayers and meditations are crafted and influenced by the practice of others, many of whom were equally disciplined, who can guide her on her spiritual quest.

Now I have no idea what the "results" of her dedication might be. However, I admire her diligence, and think that if spiritual enlightenment is possible, she is more likely to achieve it than the dilletante who doesn't believe in "traditional spirituality".

Our language poet knows he can’t write sonnets as well as Shakespeare, or odes as well as Keats, or epics as well as Homer. Who can? It’s too hard. So he persuades himself that the kind of poetry he can write is the wave of the future.

Our personal spirituality lover knows he can’t give up everything he owns and become a saint, like Francis of Assisi. He knows he can’t meditate for months on end like a Buddhist monk. So he persuades himself that the spirituality he can practice is the wave of the future.

There is something both cowardly and noble about our heroes. It is cowardly to reject the past because it is threatening. The giants of the past are not only the windmills against which we tilt, but also the chargers we ride to the joust. It is sane to be in awe of giants, but cowardly to fear them. The hero, like Ozymandias of old, cries, “Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.”

Of course if our works are puny and pitiful (as they always are), it’s hard to work up much volume or enthusiasm on the Ozymandian shout. Most of our own works make us despair, not other people.

That is why the language poet and the seeker of spirituality are noble. Their works may be desperate bunk, but their hearts are in the right place. They may not be able to write poetry, or know God, but they have the souls of poets, the hearts of saints and the ambition of geniuses.

Of course every mailman, and every factory worker has the soul of a poet. For, even more important, each of us has the soul of a human being. What we don’t have is the ability to write poetry.

Every clerk, every waiter, and (even) every U.S. Senator has the spirituality of priest or shaman. For, more important, each of us has the spirituality of a human being. What we don’t have is the ability to talk to God, or see the future, or telepathically bend silverware. We have all “heard the mermaids singing, each to each,” but most of us are unable to understand the words, or remember the tune.

The world is a strange place. We all delude ourselves. We all believe many things which simply aren’t true. But one thing is true: we can see the wave of the future only by looking into the past. As with the waves of the sea, or the winds of the air, we know what’s coming only by knowing what has come. “There is nothing new under the sun…. All rivers floweth into the sea, and yet the sea is not full, for unto that place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.” So it is for the sea; so it is for the human soul.

That's beautiful. And wise. Thank you for writing and sharing it. I especially like the following sentences:

Of course every mailman, and every factory worker has the soul of a poet. For, even more important, each of us has the soul of a human being.

Every clerk, every waiter, and (even) every U.S. Senator has the spirituality of priest or shaman. For, more important, each of us has the spirituality of a human being.

I not only agree fully with those statements, but to me those sentences and your post as whole are all poetry in and of themselves.

Hi, @Count Lucanor and @Ecurb,

But "spiritual freedom" can often mean "spiritual laziness".

That sums up the best understanding of the issue.

Those possibly equivocal words could mean the same as each other when other people besides me use those words. But not how I use them.

Generally, all words are very equivocal, but to remain logical we must be careful to avoid a fallacy of equivocation, especially when interpreting each other's words.

What I would call laziness is not at all compatible with what I would call spiritual freedom.

I use the terms self-discipline and spiritual freedom interchangeably to refer to the exact same thing. So if you are reading any of my words and aren't sure you are getting my intended meaning, please switch out "spiritual freedom" with "self-discipline", and see if that fits better to understand my intended meaning in the given sentence.

Sorry for any prior confusion about what I meant by what I wrote, and I hope this clarification is helpful!

I find it very hard to conciliate these two concepts: discipline and freedom, and that these words could be used interchangeably, as if they were synonymous

To clarify, I am not saying I use the words "freedom" and "discipline" interchangeably (i.e. as synonyms), but rather I am saying that I use the terms "spiritual freedom" and "self-discipline" interchangeably (i.e. as synonyms).

If you maybe suspect you are not understanding what I mean by "self-discipline"/"spiritual freedom" (two phrases I use to refer to the same exact thing), please see my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom. Using the analogue of self-government in terms of political freedom, I think that topic might better explain how I use the terms in question.

People always find themselves thrown into the world, their existence is inexorably tied to it. No one lives in a bubble of their own self. Both discipline and freedom...

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you using the word discipline to refer to "self-discipline" and the word "freedom" to refer to "spiritual freedom", which to me are synonymous, or are you using the words "discipline" and "freedom" to refer to something else? If so, what is that something else?

[Tegularius]

Of course every mailman, and every factory worker has the soul of a poet. For, even more important, each of us has the soul of a human being. What we don’t have is the ability to write poetry.

Most of the people I've met during my life emphatically do not have the soul of a poet. In addition, if soul is meant to proclaim the inherent nobility of a person then clearly not everyone has a soul.

Also, even if the rare ability to write poetry still exists, it's usually as a personal catharsis in the form of a sickening sentimentality of one kind or another. Prose now-a-days can sound more literate than that which strives for poetry.

The world is a strange place. We all delude ourselves. We all believe many things which simply aren’t true. But one thing is true: we can see the wave of the future only by looking into the past.

I agree that the world is a strange place, almost surreal at times and upon such a stage delusion is rampant often forced by wishful thinking, a very human and dangerous trait.

What is certainly not true is that we can see the wave of the future by looking into the past. We have no idea how the future will look especially now facing major climatic changes and species extinctions. These are not single events catastrophic as they are. Instead, they'll cause a crescendo of consequences like nothing encountered in the past. There are just too many black swans encircling the planet and everything on it which no-longer connects with the past to decrypt what the future will be like.

We may also arrive at a period when our own massive failures will reveal just how ludicrous the human soul fantasy is and always was.

[Sculptor1]

Content free-spirited creativity emerges in the absence of enslaving moral law and other false idols. Nothing must be done that isn't done. Spiritual freedom is the source of true art and beauty. With spiritual freedom, the whole world may appear as an eternal work of beautiful art, inexorably perfect.

Just sounds like jargon. All puff no meaning.

I know what I mean. And I know that I mean something.

I am sorry if you did not catch or did not understand my meaning, or worse--in addition to not understanding my meaning--have concluded I didn't intend to convey anything at all, but am instead presumably something of a trickster. I could be misunderstanding you, but it seems like you may be accusing me of intentionally not having intention behind my words, in other words not having an intended meaning at all that is meant by me to be conveyed by the words I posted. If that's the case, then you will either have to take my word for it that I have an intended meaning (i.e. that I meant something by each sentence I posted), or we will have to agree to not speak about it further or discuss anything else in this topic.

It seems likley to me that, rather than use plain English you have descended into obsurantism.
You've employed a cluster of jargon which has not been defined, and gathered this jargon to offered what seems at once platitudinous and tautological.

Are you an artist that you feel qualified to pronounce on matter of artisitc diversity? Or are you trying to say something about life in general?