Comments on: Love and finitude

By: Regenia Kinnison

Regenia Kinnison — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:36:54 +0000

Wonderful data! I’ve been searching for some thing like this for a while now. Thank you!

By: Siobhan

Siobhan — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:07:08 +0000

Correction to my last comment above: It should read Simeon the Stylite.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:52:44 +0000

Once in a while even the most stable relationships assume a disturbing life of their own, going into downward spiral, or at least losing altitude. Further, such seasons of relational regression (maybe disintegration) at times corresponds with our best efforts at stabilisation, healing and personal amendment of life. That’s been my experience. To be sure, it flies in the face of popular ‘can do’ relationship books, Dr Phil, and so on. Moreover,sharing this scarcely sounds a note of comfort for those in free-fall, struggling at the relationship controls. So why bother? Well, what comfort does come, such as it is, takes the form of an affirmation of our collective humanity, viz. the futility of some of our best effforts, no matter how sincere or full of solemn oaths.Kierkegaard (if I understand Bert correctly, as I’d rather read the latter than wade through Soren)offers a gritty, durable philosophy (religion?), avoiding both the aesthetic (personae) option and the ethical treadmill of renewed (often self-flagellating) resolutions, enabling us to come to terms with our humanity and finitude, and perhaps that which transcends it too.As a religious (Christian) philosopher Kierkegaard gives the lie to that caricature of the religious person as living in cloud cuckoo land – the place of happy endings. He’s quite an austere, blood-and-guts fellow. I like it. Then again, the Danish weather can be bloody awful.

By: Siobhan

Siobhan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:40:33 +0000

I believe there is great good to be found in many spiritual traditions; there is none to be found in dogma.

For those who are interested in the questions raised above, I would recommend several books. “The Wisdom of Insecurity” and “Does It Matter?”, both by Alan Watts deal with the questions of attachment and impermanence. “The Meaning of Happiness” and “This Is It” are practical, witty and non-dogmatic spiritual wisdom.

Watts, originally schooled as an Anglican priest, was a serious student of Taoism and Zen. No friend of Dogma, Watts moved beyond the confines of religion to open the western mind to the wisdom of other traditions.

I would especially recommend Watts’ autobiography “In My Own Way”. His ‘pilgrim’s (rake’s?) progress’ takes us with him down the various paths he trod in his quest to understand the place of humans in the cosmos and the nature of ‘reality’. It is funny, engaging, profound without being abstruse, and as with all of his books, includes the reader in the debate.

@Bert,

I’m still wonder if humans are capable of either unconditional love or unconditional forgiveness. I think it is possible for humans to feel unconditional love in relation to animals and human infants but from the time that a sense of ‘right and wrong’ or ‘appropriateness’ develops I think we enter into a sort of covenant with others to refrain from doing them harm. To breech that covenant must entail consequences. The alternative is amoral anarchy…

By: Siobhan

Siobhan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:34:11 +0000

Does this mean we should strive to live in ‘splendid isolation’? It may be physically possible to do so as for example hermits and anchorites have done. But even they were not completely independent. Food and water would be brought to them by others who recognised that ‘serving’ another without regard to reward was a way to reduce the power of the Ego.

Additionally, by serving the needs of the hermit or anchorite, the ‘carer’ was growing in compassion without attachment to the object of that compassion. [ The story of St. Stephen 'Stylite" is instructive in this regard.]

I should make clear here that despite my references to various religious traditions, I do NOT subscribe to ANY religion. I find the pure form of Tibetan Buddhism attractive for its great wisdom and long tradition of the cultivation of consciousness as a means to reduce human suffering. For those who are about to object that Buddhism is a religion like any other I would say no, it is not. Buddhists do NOT believe any kind of God. Their ‘deities’ are archetypes–not literal beings.

Buddhism was and is a philosophy above all else. The rituals are interesting for the way in which they engage consciousness. Some will perceive only the entertainment value, others will understand the subtle communication between levels of consciousness evoked by combinations of sound, movement and colour combined with a detached state of mind.

The message is always: impermanence, compassion, and the unity of consciousness. Therefore, Do No Harm.

By: Siobhan

Siobhan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:07:22 +0000

@Andile,
Thank you for your comment. You make a good point about painful events and memory. We do seem to hold on to hurt longer than we do joy.

The Buddhists would tell us all suffering results from ‘attachment’ to the ‘impermanent’. That applies particularly to human relationships. When we open ourselves to intimacy with another person, we are taking a risk. There are no ‘guarantees’ in life–no matter the marriage ‘vows’ say.

No doubt it is wiser to live in a state of non-attachment to avoid the pain of betrayal or abuse at the hands of another. However, non-attachment does not exempt us from the obligation to cultivate compassion for all suffering which Buddhists locate in the sense of ourselves as being isolated from others. Profound levels of interdependence characterise all life in the universe(s) so to deny our own interdependence sets us up for disappointment and hurt.

Consciousness contains all possibilities, including the capacity to hurt ourselves and others either by choice or–more subtly–by failing to choose thereby acting from UN-conscious motives.

The more conscious we are, the less likely we are to inflict harm because we are less likely to need to justify ourselves by ‘keeping score’ (Derrida’s ‘economic’ model of ‘forgiveness’). To harm another is to invite harm at the hands of another. Likewise, to recognise that we are all capable of all things helps keep our expectations in perspective within intimate relationships.

Pain arises from disappointed expectations.

By: Musa

Musa — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:03:52 +0000

Shall we forgive Blip,he knows not what he says?

One can’t really blame him, the new twitter generation has the concentration span of a gnat.

By: Narnia Bohler-Muller

Narnia Bohler-Muller — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:53:24 +0000

@Blip – Bert IS shooting from the hip. Don’t really understand why you cannot see that. Then again, we live in a society where we are expected to say something in sms style in order to attract and retain attention, Its is SO sad!
@Bert, I think that Jansen’s gesture was radical, but I also believe that one cannot throw money ar victims and expect them to smile and forgive. So was this Derridean forgiveness? I think Jansen was aiming in the right direction, but missed the mark. I am expecting the equality court ro come up with community service as a ‘sentence’ -get them out there working with HIV/AIDS orphans and see if this changes there view of themselves and the world – one can only hope…)

By: Blip

Blip — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:19:06 +0000

You’re right, Bert. Boredom does stem from incomprehension.

Now, if someone writes a book — or a blog — what is he/she trying to do? Transmit all the stuff swishing about in their head into the head of the reader via the printed page.

It needs to be kept as simple as possible.

40 words rather than 400 pages.

Few, or no, puzzling and arcane brainiac -isms and -ologies.

Shoot straight.

By: Andile

Andile — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:30:37 +0000

Siobhan, quite an insightful comment with which I couldn’t agree more. If aneconomic forgiveness is really to occur the person who has suffered the injury should have gone through the process of trying to understand why they were (or at least think they were) subjected to the hurt. The significance of understanding is that one can then begin to clear the “doubt” which would cause the inevitable resurfacing of the event in their memory to conjure negative emotions directed at themselves and the perpetrator. I say inevitable because I think its near impossible to erase the memory of significant events in our lives especially negative ones as it is human nature to give heavier weighting to negatives in comparison to their positive equivalents (and more so for events where unconditional forgiveness is most appropriate). So if both the forgiver and the forgiven are to benefit from unconditional forgiving, the forgiver should allow themselves to come terms with the possible underlying reasons for the event of hurt and not simply suck it up, be the better man and forgive.