|
|
31 Aug 2008 @ 15:53, by martha. Philosophy
When I make my run for the Presidency I can't wait to read the headlines. I have a very mixed ancestry so the headliners will need to call me 'Irish-English-German-Native American-Basque-Canadian-American". Just think of all the groups I can get votes from since lots of Americans come from these different nationalities. To save the investigators time let me break it all down for you. More >
|
|
|
|
27 Aug 2008 @ 20:05, by martha. Philosophy
Old-Style Thinking (OST) is a concept Patricia Sun ([link]) has been talking about for several decades. It is characterized by fundamentalism, which is a form of fear. Such concepts as "my way is the only way", "you are for me or against me", hating a religious group, suppressing human rights or not allowing a woman to make her own choices about her body are some examples. Our world is filled with Old-Style Thinking causing war, pollution, power over others and the destruction of earth. More >
|
|
|
|
11 Aug 2008 @ 12:11, by anandavala. Philosophy
Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.
Contexts of Understanding
In relation to any 'reality' there are always two apparent
contexts. A few examples are that one cannot have a story without a
book being read, or a movie without a movie reel in a projector, or a
virtual reality without a computational process. In each of these
examples the first is an empirical context (objects, places and
events) and the second is a transcendent context (that which creates
and sustains the empirical context).
There is also a unified context, which is the context that
contains both apparent contexts. For example, a room containing both
a book and a reader with an imagination is the context in which the
reading of the book operates (transcendent) and the imaginative
experience of the story manifests (empirical). These are all just
simple worldly examples to illustrate some aspects of the situation.
In the case of our own reality and world-experience things are more
subtle but still manifesting an apparent empirical and transcendent
as well as a unified context. The two apparent contexts are just
different perspectives on the one unified context, hence they are not
actually separate contexts, but only appear to be separate.
Although there is one unified context and two apparent contexts,
when contemplating the nature of our reality most people are unaware
of the unified context and fixate on only one of the apparent
contexts and assume that it is the only context. Some are grounded in
one apparent context and deny the other, thereby only understanding
half of the situation, and some attempt to mix both apparent contexts
into one and thereby get very confused.
Below is a simplified map of the contexts and a brief commentary
using the VR
analogy. More >
|
|
|
|
4 Aug 2008 @ 09:07, by johnjoseph. Philosophy
Why is Dialectic Important
In an article a while ago I contrasted the Taoist approach to solving problems with the Confucianist one. Taoism tries to grasp the essence of anything it analyses or any problem it is trying to solve. Confucianism, on the other hand, seems content with looking at and considering secondary, superficial, irrelevant and numerous inessential aspects of a subject or thing. Occasionally this leads to a solution, but usually this is arrived at only after years of piecemeal efforts by different people. The Taoist approach often yields a quick answer to the solitary enquirer.
The Confucianist way is analytical but reductionist, it splits things into a myriad of incoherent aspects that seem to lack a connecting thread. This is the method of traditional science. It is also very anxious to eradicate qualitative aspects of the matter in favour of purely quantitative ones. As part of this it gets rid of any analysis of the problem into complementary opposites or dialectical categories.
One can say that there is almost a phobia, as yet unnamed, which people have when dealing with qualitative and dialectical angles of the problem or idea. And I will tell you why. This fear, almost pathological, of qualities and opposites is very similar to the fear of intimacy which you find in a neurotic person, usually men. Because dialectical analysis, literally, is a way into the heart or Essence of a thing. And just as many people shun intimacy, likewise many people feel very uncomfortable with the essence of anything, preferring instead all sorts of distractions, secondary aspects and irrelevancies.
The analysis of anything in terms of its opposites and contradictions is a time-honoured method of getting to the heart or essence of it, and has been part of the Perennial Philosophy for thousands of years.
Some people think that the Taoist way of solving problems always involves an incredible “Eureka” moment, akin to a moment of mystical Enlightenment, which relies on the complete grasping in one stroke, of something’s essence. It does sometimes happen like that, but often it involves the hard work of thoroughly analysing and understanding the opposites and contradictions in the thing and their mutual connections.
More >
|
|
|
|
31 May 2008 @ 03:10, by athos. Philosophy
The essay is based on the philosophy of the I Ching and is in two parts:
The first regards the positive definition of economic value. It shows that in every considered period of time the price of the gross product’s represents the whole time of labor of the system, independently from the function of commodities - i.e. the distinction between means of production and consumer goods - and independently from how they are distributed - i.e. how prices can vary accordingly.
The second part shows how the idea of value as incorporated labor, with the consequent concept of the transfer of means of production’s value into the produced commodities - implying a coincidence between the totality of labor of the system whit the only net product’s value instead of the gross product’s - conceals the relationship between prices and quantities of labor, and the real, or absolute value of the various currencies remains unknown. More >
|
|
|
|
3 Mar 2008 @ 12:50, by johnjoseph. Philosophy
Problem 3: How to bring fresh water from a nearby river to a small Chinese town.
This example is given by Joseph Needham in his book Science and Civilization in China as illustrating the main differences between Confucianist and Taoist approaches to doing things. The problem is how to provide fresh water to a small town from a nearby river. The Confucianist approach would be to divert water from the river at a convenient point well below the town and then use much man-power, mechanical devices and expense to lift it up again to the level of the town and so distribute it. This will solve the problem while generating employment, circulating money, aiding the invention and perfection of mechanical devices and generally keeping everybody busy. The Taoist approach would be to divert the water at a convenient point above the level of the town and using the natural tendency of water to find its own level, that is to run downwards, create an aqueduct to lead the water to the village or town and so distribute it. This method uses nature’s properties to move the water rather than human effort, creates much less employment (a one-off aqueduct rather than constant lifting of water), circulates less money and does not need inventions or mechanical devices.
This example clearly reveals that Confucianism is a social philosophy, and its solutions to problems are designed to benefit society in creating wealth, employment and invention. The Taoist method is one which is based on the individual, addresses the essence of the problem rather than appearances, and is in tune with nature. Instead of expending effort in lifting water upwards after we have allowed it to run downwards, we just divert it at the right point to run by its own momentum (with gravity’s help) into the town.
Conclusion
Clearly, there are simple, easy ways to solve problems and there are difficult, tedious ways. It seems very much the case that civilized society, with its obsession with externals, appearances and irrelevant details prefers the difficult way to do things. This is in keeping with its greatly over-yang nature. Over-Yang means giant, mechanical, crude, external, superficial and so on but most importantly, over-masculine. There is a clear link between the problems in our society and problems in our psyches concerning sexuality and gender. The solution must be to redress the balance and level-off with an equal emphasis on Yang and Yin values. Yin, after all, represents the small, the inner, the subtle, the essence and naturally, the feminine. If we are in harmony then society is in harmony.
It is my belief that every problem, whether it is Fermat’s Last Theorem, or CERN’s accelerator, or getting cheap energy through FUSION, has a simple solution as well as a difficult, complicated one. But our society’s obsession with doing things the Confucianist way, in order to create wealth and employment and inventions, means that people have forgotten, to a large extent, the ancient Taoist (and universal) approach that seeks simple, easy and cost-effective solutions to difficult problems. People just don’t believe that there are simple solutions to many of these problems. If the experts can’t solve them then they must be impossible, they think. But maybe the experts are looking in the wrong place, and the wrong way, and from the wrong perspective.
I am not asking people to abandon completely the Confucianist approach, which is so engrained in all of us, particularly men, by our upbringing and education. All I ask is for the imbalance to be less completely one-sided and total.
Ideally we should use both techniques to solve difficult problems, both the Yin and the Yang, both the ‘left brain’ and the ‘right brain’, both Taoist and Confucianist. More >
|
|
|
|
22 Feb 2008 @ 09:33, by johnjoseph. Philosophy
Edward Carpenter, Gandhi and the politics of Identity
Edward Carpenter was a Victorian writer, anarchist, socialist and spiritual adept who,famous in his own time, was forotten for most of the twentieth century and is now being rediscovered. He appears very different from Gandhi, who was famous in his own lifetime and whose reputation has continued to grow since his death, so that now he is considered one of the greatest figures of the last hundred and fifty years.
But Carpenter is comparable in many ways to Gandhi. He came from an upper middle class family as Gandhi did. He followed a conventional path and career until the chance reading of the poetry of Walt Whitman sent him on a path of simple and unalienated living in rejection of the false values of Victorian society. Gandhi went through a similar, if less dramatic, transformation through reading many deep and powerful books.
Carpenter was a mystic and had the honour of being profiled by Maurice Bucke in his classic book “Cosmic Consciousness”(1900) as a living example of the state of consciousness he terms “cosmic” and which he also ascribed to Buddha, Walt Whitman, and other historical figures such as St.John of the Cross, Jesus and Mahomet. Gandhi is known by everyone as “Mahatma” or Great Soul.
Both were visionaries and prophets. Gandhi saw that the gradual evolution of the world would lead touniversal peace and realised that the key to this was the practice of non-violence and truth. Carpenter predicted correctly many subsequent developments of society and the world.
Both had a radical view of civilization, which is a subject close to my own heart. Carpenter had a critique of civilization which is on the same level of insight as the ideas of Freud, Fourier and Marx. Gandhi used the word civilization in an ideal sense as a state of society not yet attained and famously stated that western civilization “ would be a good idea”. It is not very well known but in Chapter 6 of his 1909 book “Hind Swaraj” Gandhi wrote:
“Several English writers refuse to call that civilisation which passes under that name. Many books have been written upon that subject. Societies have been formed to cure the nation of the evils of civilisation. A great English writer has written a work called ‘Civilisation: Its Cause and Cure’. Therein he has called it a disease.”
The writer to whom Gandhi is referring is none other than Edward Carpenter.
But all this comparison of Carpenter and Gandhi would be of little point if it were not the case that Edward Carpenter has something to say to this present generation which is acutely relevant.
Carpenter was a prolific writer and dealt with themes that were taboo in Victorian times such as sexuality and homosexuality. He was one of the first to write about what we would today term “minorities” and “equal opportunities”. His own situation gave him an insight into something that is now cutting-edge and critical. He saw the wretched position of women, both poor and rich, in Victorian society. Also, the marginalisation of people seen then as deviants and criminals. All this was not alien to him and is not alien to us. And of course Gandhi was right there too. Gandhi felt passionately about the plight of Indian women, not a minority surely, but a marginalised majority. He worked hard to combat the evils of the caste system, particularly as it created the stigma of “Untouchability”. He cared greatly for the Muslim minority in India and tried to avert Partition.
The poet Rilke made a profound observation to the effect that “ Our deepest fears are the dragons that guard our richest teasures.” We can rephrase this to say “Over the gateway to the Free Society stands the sign of Identity”.
Ever since the first photograph of our blue planet was taken from outer space, the question of identity has grown more and more powerful. Inner space is the new frontier and has been for the last thirty years.
If we are prejudiced against Jews, or Muslims, or gay bishops or disabled black women or any other expression of the infinite variety of human diversity, then we cannot move forward through the gateway to the Free Society.
As Gandhi often pointed out, quoting the Bhagavad Gita, the real battle is the one which goes on inside ourselves, our own psyches. Gandhi and Edward Carpenter are in agreement here and this is part of their continuing relevance to the ongoing struggle for Freedom.
|
|
|
|
27 Jan 2008 @ 09:37, by johnjoseph. Philosophy
On Creating and Resolving Contradictions on the ChessBoard : Part I
Introduction
One of the great arts of wisdom is the study of opposites or contradictions, known as dialectics. This is the knowledge of the observation, analysis, creation (where appropriate) and resolution of contradictions in any of a large number of fields ranging from logical debate to mathematics and, as in the present case, even board games like chess. The Perennial Philosophy, in its many different versions, affirms that the universe has a dual nature, everything being composed of pairs of opposites. When we come to practical action of any sort it is possible to take this fact into account. Socrates did, in ancient Athens, and he and his followers applied Dialectics to the practical task of drawing out the contradictions, inconsistencies and confusions in the customary arguments of their fellow citizens, and in this process uncovered the foundations of logical debate and a grand philosophical theory which came to fruition in Plato’s system of Forms.
Many mathematicians were also dialecticians but the example I have in mind is the little known case of Pierre de Fermat who, in 17th century France, laid the foundations of number theory and modern mathematics. In doing so he invented a wonderful technique called “the method of infinite descent” which is in reality a sophisticated dialectical handling of algebraic forms to arrive at a contradiction and thus prove different mathematical theorems. After Fermat’s death his techniques gradually fell into disuse and science, not just mathematics, turned its back and reacted against this knowledge of contradictions.
In the late 18th century philosophy was reinvigorated by the theories of opposites inherent in the work of Kant and Hegel. Unfortunately, following on from this, attempts to change society which came with Karl Marx’s adoption of dialectics, led to another reaction against it which has lasted ‘til the present day.
Now this knowledge is ready for a rebirth, and I present the following simple account of its application to the game of chess, as an attempt to de-mystify something which is really very simple to understand but very difficult to practise well. Indeed it is not called an art of wisdom for no reason. It is the art of mastery or mistressy.
Chess
In everyday life a double-bind is usually something that cannot be beaten. In a game that proceeds one move at a time, like chess, if you can create double or multiple threats with one move, the equivalent of a double-bind, then your opponent is usually in trouble.
There are many ways to win at chess, but as you improve and so do your opponents, it becomes impossible to rely on people making mistakes or blunders. One can’t even rely on an overwhelming powerful attack to win, brute force, because to every move you make there is a counter-move your opponent makes that neutralizes or otherwise gets them out of the trouble your move has created for them.
As a game proceeds, both players move their pieces into what are often, chaotic and disorganised formations. The original, undifferentiated position which exists at the start, gradually becomes more complex, interpenetrated and differentiated and, despite every effort to maintain organised, strong and harmonious formations, certain awkwardnesses and weaknesses are created in both positions.
These are what I call the “contradictions” on the chessboard. There are well-known and obvious weaknesses which can be exploited by pins, forks, checks, discovered checks, double checks etc. This leads to the possibility of skilful moves, employing subtle threats and tempo gains, either separately or in combination, in order to derive an advantage, whether of material or position.
Indeed, this finding and working on a contradiction and finally resolving it, is often the course followed in a game. One side, will bring pressure to bear on weak-points, and as each move is met by a counter-move, a position is finally reached where one player is able to get a double-bind and thus win.
In the next part of this article I will look at creating contradictions on the chessboard in more detail.
|
|
|
|
7 Jan 2008 @ 09:41, by johnjoseph. Philosophy
On the Dual Nature of the Universe Part II
Elsewhere I have referred to the fusing of opposites, and a new possibility of science and mysticism coming together. If spirit and matter are indeed fusing, and in Hegel’s formulation, presenting a synthesis in the form of ‘Mind’, and in my words, also as ‘Information’, then after this period of alienation a new Oneness, a new Monism, a new Monad is emerging. What is this.
In my Millennium essays of a decade ago, I put forward a view, new to conventional ideas if not mysticism, that the personality was like one side of a coin, the other side of which was the Soul. I will now expand and develop this.
In the Buddhist/Hindu tradition the personality is compared to a jewel of myriad facets, each one reflecting an innumerable number of other faces, like a hall of receding mirrors. Depth upon depth, image upon image. The personality, or Self, if not actually infinite, is manifold and complex. In literature we have the remarkable view presented by Hermann Hesse in Steppenwolf. He first mentions that his protagonist, Harry, is both a man and also a wolf of the steppes ( a ‘steppenwolf ‘) not surprising, when we consider the title of the book. Then he proceeds to say that Harry’s personality is much more complex than this simple schema suggests, and is in fact manifold and practically infinite, divided into different sub-personalities and identities. Later on, in the surrealist/hallucinogenic episode where Harry is in a theatre, strangely reminiscent of a renaissance Memory Theatre, he can go into different rooms with titles on the doors referring to his past, and which are filled with mirrors, images and crystals, where he encounters more sub-personalities and identities.
Clearly, there is a profound view that the human personality is complex and deeply-nested with sub-personalities, identities and characteristics which reach off into infinity.
Building on this view, I add a passing comment on Eric Berne’s theory of Games and Transactional Analysis. Berne’s whole approach is built around just three archetypes, namely the Parent, Adult and the Child. Using this template he creates a rich analysis of society and psychology featuring as a key aspect alienated psycho-social behaviour which he calls “ games”. All this can be done employing just three archetypes ( Jung’s term), so demonstrating the amazing power which is inherent in these archetypes, sub-personalities and identities.
However, there is more to this. Some people believe that the psyche is physically based, in our genes and also in our brains. That is, that it has material aspects and foundations. Also, that while manifold and complex, it is not actually infinite. Furthermore, each of us being a unique individual, it is discrete, in the same way that an individual particle is. Also, all theories of the personality agree that it is highly structured. In Freud we have Ego and Super-ego and also Id. In Jung we have archetypes, Collective Unconscious, Animus and Anima. In Assagioli we have sub-personalities and identities. All this suggests that the individual human personality is an aspect, at the material end of a pole of a contradiction, as I put forward in part I of this piece.
The infinitude of the personality, referred to earlier in those accounts, is by no means certain for the simple reason that there has always been ambiguity, and even confusion, in most traditions when discussing these three things : the personality, the Self and the Soul. It is my belief that the central thing is the Self, of which the material aspect is the personality and the spiritual aspect is the soul.
We are treading upon sacred ground here and must proceed with caution. According to Kant, in his 1781 book ‘ The Critique of Pure Reason’ there are things which are inherently unknowable, things he averred belonged to the noumenal world of “things in themselves” or essences. The Soul belongs among them. Among other things in that remarkable book, Kant reintroduced antimonies or opposites into philosophical thought which were to achieve a pinnacle a few years later in Hegel’s theory of contradictions, known as dialectics. By the way, Hegel did not share Kant’s view about things being unknowable. Even essences, he believed, were knowable.
Much has been written about the soul but it remains a misty area of vague notions and speculations. I am not conversant with the opinions of Church Fathers or theologians but I believe my opinion will merit consideration.
I believe in an inherent duality of all things in the universe, based on a prime duality of Spirit/Matter which together make up the Monad, which is One, but not a monolithic One. More on this later.
In this view, the soul is the spiritual aspect or half of the Self. It is infinite, continuous just like a waveform of light, and contrary to the discreteness of the personality, its continuity provides a bridge to all the other souls that exist. All these souls are part of the Monad, the World Soul or Self, which together connect and interconnect everything and thereby provide the universal web, which mysticism/perennial philosophy asserts as one of its basic beliefs.
Science and mysticism
As I demonstrated in Part I science is the product of a succession of alienations and of the most alienated society in the history of civilization (capitalist). Yet we must not thereby conclude that it is worthless or negative. Alienation is not necessarily a bad thing. Each of us has to separate from our parents, particularly our mother, during adolescence in order to become individuals and find our true identities. This is clearly a process of alienation. Similarly, as put forward by Hegel, Spirit undergoes a process of alienation when it becomes a myriad of individual, material things. Science has achieved many remarkable things. Particularly, in recent years with its growing fusion with mysticism in the form of quantum physics and Chaos theory it has produced some remarkable results. James Gleick in his book “ Chaos: the Making of a New Science” demonstrates some amazing mathematical objects and ideas. One in particular seems to tower above others and I believe people don’t really understand what it is.
First I will describe a traditional representation of the monad: the Yin/Yang symbol. A pair of interlocking spirals which together form a perfect circle but each half of which is of a different colour( polarity) and facing in opposite directions. This elegant, beautiful object is considered a perfect representation of the One and is a central icon of Taoism. I believe that Chaos theory provides another, similar icon
which is practically identical to this yin/yang symbol but different in informative ways. I am referring to that weird mathematical object known as a Strange Attractor (or Lorenz attractor). I will not baffle the non-scientific reader with overly technical details except to say that this “attractor” represents physical processes or qualities. It has two wings, like a butterfly, and is as beautiful in its own way as the yin/yang symbol. It is completely continuous with no breaks. When the “action” or “locus” of a moving point moves from one wing of the butterfly to the other, it represents either a reversal of direction of a physical system ( such as a pendulum) or the change of polarity from one quality to its opposite. Gleick comments that this mathematical object has strange properties and is almost mystical and similar to classical spirals. One strange property is that it is an infinite object in a finite space. The continuous lines that make up this unique object, upon closer and closer examination, keep splitting into two parts, which then split into two again, and so on infinitely.
We see then that opposites and polarities and contradictions and the number 2 are not just the preserve of philosophers. I believe that this mathematical object is another icon of the Monad equally as valid as the Yin/Yang symbol. It has been produced, quite independently, by scientists, many of whom have no interest in, or knowledge of mysticism.
If this is true it suggests some important conclusions. Dualities emanate from the Monad because it is by nature “One-Composed-of-Two”. It is not a monolith. It is actually composed of an infinite pair of opposites, joined together into one like the two wings of the butterfly, which can split into two ad infinitum. This is what they do as they emanate from the Monad. This scientific icon confirms the wisdom and correctness of the ancients, and demonstrates the unity of science and mysticism and points to the possibility that this observed fusing of opposites in the world of politics, media, economics etc. is just the monad calling us all back to Itself. More >
|
|
|
|
30 Dec 2007 @ 09:43, by johnjoseph. Philosophy
On The Dual Nature of the Universe Part 1
Everything in the phenomenal world has a dual nature. This has long been known to mystics but has only in recent years begun seeping into general awareness. It was considered weird and paradoxical when the wave/particle duality of light was revealed to the world of science a hundred years ago. And also that matter and energy were two different aspects of the same thing associated with the theories of Einstein and nuclear physics.
In truth, everything shares this feature of a dual nature. The only exception is the Source ( sometimes termed God/dess) which is believed to be One, and therefore a Monism. The Source has all these dualities emanating from it and is thus the creator of the phenomenal world which we term reality.
If we enquire further we can see that the dualities are the same thing over and over again. The basic duality is Spirit/Matter which then takes on many different guises and suggests some interesting implications if we follow it through.
A particle (for example of light) is finite, discrete and material whereas the other aspect of light, the wave-form, is continuous, non-material and possibly infinite. I am suggesting here that the Source can be represented as a form of energy and that energy is a spiritual thing. Similarly, Einstein’s theory that matter and energy can be transformed into each other suggests the same thing that energy is a spiritual form and that matter is a non-spiritual form of God that we term material.
In Part II of this piece I will assert and try to demonstrate a further example of this basic duality which I think will surprise you, namely, that the human personality, Psyche, is a discrete, structured, almost material aspect of something, the other aspect of which we call the Soul. In the same way that matter and energy are equivalent so, I contend, are Psyche and Soul. This is not new to the science of mysticism but is relatively unknown to the materialistic, quantitative science of modern society.
This prompts me to look at, by way of introduction, what we mean by mysticism, religion, philosophy and (modern) science.
Mysticism, as I see it, consists of the common ground between all the different versions of the Perennial Philosophy. Mysticisms vary, and so do the different forms of indigenous wisdom which people call variously, perennial philosophy, wisdom teachings, first nation teachings etc. I believe they are all saying the same thing in slightly different ways, and the version I particularly follow is Taoism, which was originally native to China.
The basic idea of mysticism is that everything is One and that all the parts of that One are completely interconnected. It is a theory of Identity and also communication and intercommunication. There is a web that fills the whole universe. Everything is interconnected and alive, pulsating with energy. It is a profoundly vibrant and loving conception of the world.
I will briefly describe the ‘progress’of modes of knowledge. Thirty years ago I wrote a book and commented there that I agreed with Auguste Comte’s view of the ‘progress’of forms of knowledge via religion, philosophy and Science. I will now add to that comment and conception. I believe that the perennial philosophy/mysticism is the original template for all knowledge and that the succeeding forms are in fact only described as ‘progress’ in a qualified way, being indeed alienated steps away from the original wisdom. Religion follows mysticism and is one degree of separation or alienation from it. In religion we find many of the same things as in mysticism, but in a strange, alienated way. It does not talk about the wonders of the Universe and its oneness, but is obsessed with deities or gods. This inevitably leads through time and development to a monoculture represented by monotheism or the belief in One, all-powerful, all-knowing God.
The next form of knowledge, both historically and logically, is philosophy which is one step of separation or alienation further on. It is really an abstraction of religion; religion in a completely abstract and de-mythologised form. It tries to prove the existence of God, it does not assume it. Volumes could be written on this subject so I will not attempt to say any thing further here.
Science, the next form of knowledge in Comte’s trilogy, and according to his view and that of his contemporaries the highest form possible, is one stage of separation and alienation further on. In this version the alienation becomes unbearable. The Universe is a cold dead place, everything is separated , nothing is connected, there is no God, only cold, lifeless matter. Qualities are disregarded. Only Quantities are thought relevant and important. The most alienated society in the history of civilization produced this kind of knowledge, and used it to subjugate nature and the whole world.
It is my belief that this development of knowledge through increasingly alienated modes can be salvaged and turned into something positive. If one-sided modern science can be fused with the deep qualitative truths of mysticism, which in fact does seem to be already happening, it will produce a mystical science and a scientific mysticism and open the road to real knowledge. Not just superficial knowledge which comes from the head, the intellect, but a deep knowledge of essences, which is achieved by integration of the head and the heart, and which is truly wisdom. More >
|
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Older entries >> |
|
