From our studygroup, May 14th 2011
Meta-Metaphysics of ACIM & the linguistic dilemma
"Much of Course commentary posted on the Net is so full of elementary philosophical errors, its almost a joke.
Moreover, it should be an indication in order not to spew meaningless platitudes its first necessary to have a thesis statement, synopsis, or abstract of the overall paradigm you are purposing and advancing and wish to hang your individual notions and concepts.
Why? Basic linguistic philosophy. Words are meaningless symbols pointing to other words without a reference. You can't begin to have a reference without an overall paradigm. And even with a paradigm there is no demonstration that a word symbol like "God," is "pointing to," anything but other words.
After all in language to give the word symbol "God," meaning it has to be described in other words. There is no indication in any practical manner that the word symbol "God," points to anything but other words. As such "God," as Derrida says is not reality, but a "linguistic dilemma," where "reality" itself is a linguistic dilemma.
In fact, Derrida would say the notion of personal self is a linguistic dilemma. In other words, we interact with symbols not reality, and even what is claimed to interact --personal self- or even God self or consciousness doesn't exist, and as such all is discourse.
Nor does "direct experience," resolve the situation. An "Experience of Oneness," is suspect not only because both personal self AND God self are illusionary and linguistic dilemmas, but clearly the experience is described in terms of arbitrary word symbols which in turn give the illusion of meaning to the experience. In other words, this "experience" described as of Oneness or direct experience of God can just as easily and and with as much meaning be described as a "hormonal rush," or a "side effect of certain chemical imbalance of the body."
In other words, another linguistic dilemma in a closed loop system of language.
To be sure, there is no claim here that anything written above is anything but total philosophic bs. Which is the point. Its all total philosophic bs, including what you write, and Renard writes and Wapnick writes and even Jesus writes because its a closed language system with words just pointing to other words.
The second point is all metaphysics involves DECONSTRUCTING apparent reality into new constellations of meaning and this must be and can only be a linguistic process of symbol manipulation and as such is subject to the constraints and paradoxes sited by philosophers like Derrida.
The third point. All deconstruction of apparent reality is fraught with danger and ambiguity, paradox, lies and deceits. After all and clearly, the so called personal self contemplating its own non existence and deconstruction, is in no way either destroying itself or deconstructing itself and personal self or ego remains intact and the same after such contemplations.
Fourth point: Once deconstruction of reality or apparent reality begins and is accepted then there is no end to deconstruction. New constellations of meaning can be deconstruction as easily as the old, and alleged irreducible, indestructible linguistic constructs such as "God Self," or "Reality," are themselves subject to analysis, reductionism and a breaking into component parts. This bottomless pit of unrestrained deconstruction of idea constructs is what I believe is what is meant by the "mad idea." And clearly "God as an idea," can be deconstructed.
In other words and clearly the typical ways and method of doing or articulating religion and metaphysics is stuck in the uncertainty and paradox of whether reality can or should be deconstructed.
As such one can say glibly, that "real" Reality cannot be deconstructed, destroyed or analyzed, reduced or broken into component parts, but this obscure and denies this is what we are doing in religion, spirituality and metaphysics, and consequently "Reality," has a self referencing definition of what cannot be deconstructed, which is in turn can be rendered or demonstrated as "Unreal," by the "mad idea" of deconstruction of any proposed candidate or condition we call "Reality."
As such and clearly, "God Self," can be deconstructed as easily as "ego self." because deconstruction is a linguistic process manipulating word symbols pointing to other words symbols and consequently producing not truth (another word symbol) but linguistic dilemmas. In other words and clearly we are NOT deconstructing reality through our metaphysical belief and "truths." In fact we don't even know if there is any 'reality,: beyond words symbols, and if there is any "truth," the truth is in the end, we don't know what the hell we are doing. Which accurately describes the condition of uncertainty and lack of communication inherent in the condition of perception.
Fifth and finial point. In consideration that nearly all course student realize or suspect that the endless manipulation of word symbols of ACIM by so called teachers and "enlightened" commentators is a Tower of Babel of bullshit, contradiction, ego inflation and ego agenda, a humbleness of inflated ego certainty is demanded.
In other words, we don't know, are totally confused, while any honesty or self reflecting reveals the horror of the bottomless pit of uncertainty and isolation caused by our need, desire and first instinct to deconstruct reality to our fit our whims and desires. Which is exactly what we did and what was done when we applied deconstructive methodology and thinking to the offered course material.
What we did was confuse a linguistic process where reality and any Reality can be deconstructed to uncertainty and paradox with an ontological Reality which (we are taught) cannot be deconstructed.
As such the author, Jesus did not leave us in a lurch, or an unresolvable paradox predicated on misuse of unlimited creative power. Instead he addresses all the above philosophical concerns and leads us out of a self-referencing, closed linguistic universe which grips the mind in perception (not duality.)
If read closely, the author's methods have nothing to do with deconstructing reality. The point here is ACIM is clearly not metaphysics but meta-metaphysics."
Meta-Metaphysics of ACIM & the linguistic dilemma
"Much of Course commentary posted on the Net is so full of elementary philosophical errors, its almost a joke.
Moreover, it should be an indication in order not to spew meaningless platitudes its first necessary to have a thesis statement, synopsis, or abstract of the overall paradigm you are purposing and advancing and wish to hang your individual notions and concepts.
Why? Basic linguistic philosophy. Words are meaningless symbols pointing to other words without a reference. You can't begin to have a reference without an overall paradigm. And even with a paradigm there is no demonstration that a word symbol like "God," is "pointing to," anything but other words.
After all in language to give the word symbol "God," meaning it has to be described in other words. There is no indication in any practical manner that the word symbol "God," points to anything but other words. As such "God," as Derrida says is not reality, but a "linguistic dilemma," where "reality" itself is a linguistic dilemma.
In fact, Derrida would say the notion of personal self is a linguistic dilemma. In other words, we interact with symbols not reality, and even what is claimed to interact --personal self- or even God self or consciousness doesn't exist, and as such all is discourse.
Nor does "direct experience," resolve the situation. An "Experience of Oneness," is suspect not only because both personal self AND God self are illusionary and linguistic dilemmas, but clearly the experience is described in terms of arbitrary word symbols which in turn give the illusion of meaning to the experience. In other words, this "experience" described as of Oneness or direct experience of God can just as easily and and with as much meaning be described as a "hormonal rush," or a "side effect of certain chemical imbalance of the body."
In other words, another linguistic dilemma in a closed loop system of language.
To be sure, there is no claim here that anything written above is anything but total philosophic bs. Which is the point. Its all total philosophic bs, including what you write, and Renard writes and Wapnick writes and even Jesus writes because its a closed language system with words just pointing to other words.
The second point is all metaphysics involves DECONSTRUCTING apparent reality into new constellations of meaning and this must be and can only be a linguistic process of symbol manipulation and as such is subject to the constraints and paradoxes sited by philosophers like Derrida.
The third point. All deconstruction of apparent reality is fraught with danger and ambiguity, paradox, lies and deceits. After all and clearly, the so called personal self contemplating its own non existence and deconstruction, is in no way either destroying itself or deconstructing itself and personal self or ego remains intact and the same after such contemplations.
Fourth point: Once deconstruction of reality or apparent reality begins and is accepted then there is no end to deconstruction. New constellations of meaning can be deconstruction as easily as the old, and alleged irreducible, indestructible linguistic constructs such as "God Self," or "Reality," are themselves subject to analysis, reductionism and a breaking into component parts. This bottomless pit of unrestrained deconstruction of idea constructs is what I believe is what is meant by the "mad idea." And clearly "God as an idea," can be deconstructed.
In other words and clearly the typical ways and method of doing or articulating religion and metaphysics is stuck in the uncertainty and paradox of whether reality can or should be deconstructed.
As such one can say glibly, that "real" Reality cannot be deconstructed, destroyed or analyzed, reduced or broken into component parts, but this obscure and denies this is what we are doing in religion, spirituality and metaphysics, and consequently "Reality," has a self referencing definition of what cannot be deconstructed, which is in turn can be rendered or demonstrated as "Unreal," by the "mad idea" of deconstruction of any proposed candidate or condition we call "Reality."
As such and clearly, "God Self," can be deconstructed as easily as "ego self." because deconstruction is a linguistic process manipulating word symbols pointing to other words symbols and consequently producing not truth (another word symbol) but linguistic dilemmas. In other words and clearly we are NOT deconstructing reality through our metaphysical belief and "truths." In fact we don't even know if there is any 'reality,: beyond words symbols, and if there is any "truth," the truth is in the end, we don't know what the hell we are doing. Which accurately describes the condition of uncertainty and lack of communication inherent in the condition of perception.
Fifth and finial point. In consideration that nearly all course student realize or suspect that the endless manipulation of word symbols of ACIM by so called teachers and "enlightened" commentators is a Tower of Babel of bullshit, contradiction, ego inflation and ego agenda, a humbleness of inflated ego certainty is demanded.
In other words, we don't know, are totally confused, while any honesty or self reflecting reveals the horror of the bottomless pit of uncertainty and isolation caused by our need, desire and first instinct to deconstruct reality to our fit our whims and desires. Which is exactly what we did and what was done when we applied deconstructive methodology and thinking to the offered course material.
What we did was confuse a linguistic process where reality and any Reality can be deconstructed to uncertainty and paradox with an ontological Reality which (we are taught) cannot be deconstructed.
As such the author, Jesus did not leave us in a lurch, or an unresolvable paradox predicated on misuse of unlimited creative power. Instead he addresses all the above philosophical concerns and leads us out of a self-referencing, closed linguistic universe which grips the mind in perception (not duality.)
If read closely, the author's methods have nothing to do with deconstructing reality. The point here is ACIM is clearly not metaphysics but meta-metaphysics."
No comments:
Post a Comment