enlightened common sense

m of care – sept 21 23 – part 8 – kept off line

m of care – oct 12 23 – part 9 –

m of care – nov 9 23 – part 10 – ch 7

__________

(2016) by roy – enlightened common sense – the philosophy of critical realism – via 244 page pdf [https://museum.care/events/roy-bhaskar-s-enlightened-common-sense-and-from-science-to-emancipation-reading-group-part-1/]

notes/quotes:

2

“Roy Bhaskar’s too brief life was a gift to humanity. His life’s work gave us a solid
ontological grounding for all those intuitions that most of us feel we should be able
to justify, but are constantly being told by the reigning intellectual authorities we
can’t: that the world, and other people, are real, that freedom is inherent in the
nature of the cosmos, that genuine human flourishing can never be at the expense
of others. Bhaskar lived to provide the intellectual heavy artillery for simple common decency and good sense. Much of his work was written in exceedingly difficult language. This book, however, makes it accessible to those who have the most
to gain from it: anyone trying to make the world a better place.”
David Graeber, anthropologist; sometime revolutionary;
Professor at London School of Economics, UK

14

preface -by mervyn hartwig

Bhaskar will long be remembered I think for three great achievements, all of which are evident in this book. First, his work arguably provides the most adequate solution yet arrived at to the nexus of problems that constitute post-Kantian
philosophy. This is the working hypothesis of a brilliant young American philosopher now domiciled in the UK, Dustin McWherter. If borne out it will rank Bhaskar above the likes of Nietzsche, Heidegger and Derrida. Second, it articulates
a powerful metatheory for orienting or underlabouring for emancipatory science, that is, science capable of making discoveries that can assist in promoting human emancipation. Finally, it develops the most thoroughgoing and devastating metacritique ever penned of capitalist modernity and its intellectual underpinnings (and indeed of master–slave-type social forms in all their guises) and offers a metatheoretical roadmap out of it to a global eudaimonian constellation of societies in which the free flourishing of each human being is a condition of the free flourishing of all. The overall message of Bhaskar’s work, as of this book, is that people can rationally change the world decisively for the better..t

15

Of course, emancipatory philosophy and science, while indispensable for making a transition to eudaimonia, are not the only, or even the main thing. If we are ever to get much further with that project, philosophical and scientific work will need to be articulated creatively with proliferating social and political movements, as this book emphasises. Our greatest resource for building the good society is people everywhere and their inexhaustible capacities for freedom and creativity, love and hope – for hearing and living by ‘the voice of truth and humanity’,.. t as Goethe understood so profoundly.

need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening if we want eudaimonia\tive surplus

20

1 – on the presuppositions and origins of the philosophy of critical realism

21

Critical realism aspires to clear the ground a little, removing, in the first place, the philosophical rubbish that lies in the way of scientific knowledge, especially but not only in the domain of the social sciences; and in this way to underlabour for science and (partly in virtue of this, it argues) more generally for practices oriented to human well-being and flourishing..t These philosophies have been inherited largely unthinkingly from the past. At one time they may have played a progressive role, but they have long since ceased to do so. Indeed, we can say with Albert Einstein that ‘the world we have created today as a result of our thinking thus far has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them’..t

rubbish ie: all data to date is like data from whales in sea world.. we have no idea what legit free people are like

taleb center of problem law

need to org around legit needs

It is, as we shall see, in such ‘hypostasis’, detotalisation or disconnect that the seeds of academic unseriousness very often lie. What critical realism would like to do, then, is produce a serious philosophy that we can act on, and one moreover that is relevant to the pressing challenges we face and that ideally at least can illuminate a way forward (telling us something new)..t

chomsky serious things law.. (from bhaskar – if you say it .. can’t not do it.. et al)

22

For critical realism, philosophy does not speak about a world apart from the world of science and everyday life. There is not a separate world for philosophy and another world for everything else: there is only one world

revolution of everyday life ness.. thurman interconnectedness law ness

a form of argument initiated by Immanuel Kant: transcendental argument. A transcendental argument asks what must be the case for some feature of our experience to be possible, or more generally what must the world be like for some social practice (*as conceptualised in our experience) to be possible. As such it is clearly a species of a genus that plays a large part in science, which I call retroductive argument. A retroductive argument asks what would, if it were real, bring about, produce, cause or explain a phenomenon; and retroduction is the imaginative activity in science by which the scientist thinks up causes or, as we shall say, generative mechanisms which, if they were real, would explain the phenomenon in question.

better focus/question.. what must be case/conditions for 8bn people to be legit free – again.. because *all data/conceptualizations/experiences to date are nonlegit.. like from whales in sea world

our findings:

1\ undisturbed ecosystem (common\ing) can happen

2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b legit free people

23

Pre-existing philosophy has seriously misdescribed the presuppositions of most of our everyday and scientific practices. So it involves theory/practice disjuncture or incoherence and performative contradiction, characteristically constituting what
I call a TINA compromise formation, in which basically a truth in practice is combined or held in tension with a falsity in theory. (TINA stands for ‘there is no alternative’; see further Chapter 6.4.)
The aim of critical realist philosophy can now be clarified. When a practice is more or less adequate, as we can perhaps grant it is most of the time in the natural sciences, but nevertheless theory (that is, understanding of its presuppositions or, we could also say, metatheory) falls woefully short, the aim is to provide a better or more adequate account or theory of the practice.

again.. better/deeper (and now we have the means for).. providing a better more adequate account for a legit other way for 8bn people to live.. (and to leap to) for (blank)’s sake

Hermes is the Greek name for an ancient Egyptian sage who argued that we should accept nothing on authority, but *test every proposition for ourselves in our everyday practices. This is very much in keeping with the radical spirit of critical realism.
I would enjoin the reader, as we go along in this book, to refer constantly to their experience (whether lay or research), to attempt to apply to it the arguments, theories and concepts put forward, and to see whether they cohere or fit with it. For since there is only one world, albeit there are very variant descriptions of it, the theories and principles of critical realist philosophy should also apply to our everyday lives. If they do not, then something is seriously wrong. **This means that our theories and explanations should be tested in everyday life as well as in specialist research contexts.

*today we have means to avoid that energy suck/distraction/cancer.. to quit living as a responder.. and start living as if already free ness (caveat – has to be all of us or the dance won’t dance).. ie: humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync..

**if we want to be legit serious.. need to get out of sea world first (let’s do this first ness).. otherwise spinning our wheels in whalespeak.. aka: same song ness

*Since the time of Socrates philosophers have rightly deplored the ‘unexamined life’; but, for the examination to be worthy of the name, another life and another world must be possible, which presupposes that change must be possible, and that possibility must be real. .tThis is the position I call dispositional realism, namely that possibilities, as well as the actualities that are instances of them, must be real. **But it also presupposes that agency is real, and that I can transform it, that is, that a transformed transformative praxis is possible and that reflection (including philosophical critique) can play a part in ushering in a better life and a better world.

*roy another world law et al.. graeber make it diff law et al

ie: a nother way

**catch here.. yes.. individuals can and have to change it.. but.. (i’m never just me ness.. and beyond the monastic self ness.. and none of us are free ness.. as if already free ness.. et al).. it has to be everyone in sync.. or the dance won’t dance.. legit change won’t happen

25

The question I asked was what must the world be like for experimentation to be possible; and my analysis showed that it must be independently real, structured and differentiated..t So I had provided at once an argument for ontology and an argument for a new (non-Humean) ontology (study of being).

need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening (as detox) so we can org around legit needs

mutual compatibility and entailment of ontological realism , epistemological relativism and judgemental rationalism , which I call the holy trinity11 of critical realism

26

Science then proceeds to describe this newly identified level of reality and a further round of discovery and development follows.
On this new view of science, it is a dynamic social activity continually opening up deeper and more recondite levels of reality to the curious investigator; while on the new ontology stratification emerges as a key property

we need to let go of id-ing and describing ness.. or we’re not really opening up anything deeper.. and so.. we’ll never see reality.. we’ll just keep seeing/perpetuating sea world.. myth of tragedy and lord ness et al.. oi

naming the colour ness perpetuating same song ness

27

There must always be an independent analysis of the new domain before the possibility of any transapplication can be considered.

again.. no new/diff domain if tans-ing.. if apply-ing.. we need to try something legit diff.. and let go of having to know/describe/analyze.. et al

28

If ontology is the initiating big idea of critical realism, the subsequent development of critical realism is most perspicaciously presented as founded on successive further deepenings of ontology, around each wave of which we can organise characteristic categorial/conceptual, epistemological, ethical and methodological tropes.

oi.. let go

36 (17)

ch 5 then continues by considering in greater depth the phenomenon of language.. This chapter then explores the nature of language as an essential condition of social life, as both causally conditioned and causally efficacious, and as a diagnostic
clue to extra-linguistic features of social reality, such as power relations and the distribution of resources, all of which furnish a basis for critical discourse analysis as an indispensable tool of social scientific analysis. Critical discourse analysis is related to the practice of explanatory critique, and two examples of evaluatively significant explanatory critique are discussed in some detail.

rather.. language as control/enclosure.. literacy and numeracy both elements of colonialism/control/enclosure.. we need to calculate differently and stop measuring things

39

Following the analyses in Chapters 6and 7 we can further develop the dialectic of freedom and solidarity to sketch some contours of the good society characterised by an orientation to universal flourishing in four-planar social being. The chapter goes on to consider what needs to be done to move towards universal flourishing in the context of the present multiple global crises (ecological, economic and moral) or crisis system , raising concerns about capability and legitimacy alike.

won’t get to universal flourishing if concerned with capability and legitimacy.. (hope i’m misunderstanding)

This leads into a recapitulation of the dialectic of desire to freedom, which is the ethical high point of dialectical critical realism, and its radicalisation in the philosophy of metaReality in the idea of the eudaimonistic society as dependent upon and oriented towards the project of universal flourishing and self-realisation .

imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch-in-8b-souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to augment our interconnectedness.. we might just get to a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for..

what the world needs most is the energy of 8b alive people

After rebutting some common misconceptions about critical realism, the book then turns critically and self-reflexively to the respects in which critical realism remains weak and considers the ways in which it needs to develop today to underlabour for the challenges humanity and its sciences face.

rather.. needs to let go

42

2 – transcendental realism and the philosophy of science

may add missing ch’s later.. may not

163-192 on pdf (144-173 actual book pages)

7 – further development of cr 2 – the philosophy of metareality

one of my main motivations for embarking on the spiritual turn was a concern to increase the cultural resources of emancipatory movements.. it was clear to me that spirituality was a presupposition of emancipatory projects and that 20th cent emancipatory projects had by and large failed.. i wanted to id and remedy conceptual absences that played an important role in this failure.. t, thereby also increasing the overall rationality of my system of philosophy..

absence we need to org around: missing pieces (aka: legit needs)

i sometimes refer to my spiritual turn as ‘so called’ because i believe that my philosophy has been strongly spiritual all along in its drive to overcome dualism, alienation and split in practice as well as in theory

my earlier work arguably does successfully resolve all the main dualism of western phil and social theory, but w the exception of the most momentous dualism of all *for human well being – the antinomy of slavery and freedom famously noted by rousseau: people as such are free, but everywhere in chains.. if realisms is true, how is it that irrealism is everywhere dominant? irrealism is dominant because it reflects the oppressive structure of the master/slave type society that we inhabit, so realism can be conceived to be true only **if it reflects a deeper, more basic level that most of us have not fully developed or that is so occluded by hteronomous structures that we do not notice it and ***resign ourselves to living in a half world or demi reality..

*mufleh humanity law: we have seen advances in every aspect of our lives except our humanity– Luma Mufleh

**there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it

legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p

***intro to moon

164 (145)

not only is this more basic level accessible to people everywhere, it is *already pervasive in our daily lives, if largely unnoticed,..t i argue, informing and sustaining everything we do, the indispensable substratum of social life.. this is what i call the asymmetry of axiology and emancipation: **the world we want emancipation from dominates and occludes the spiritual infra on which it depends.. t

*aka: already on each heart.. just need legit global detox leap to uncover/restore/fill it/them

**aka: sea world.. so hari rat park law et al

165

in its underlabouring role metareality issues in a sharp critique of much actually existing religiosity and its organisational forms.. religion includes much that is false in its teaching and, as a social institution, much that is oppressive and exploitative, mired in the wider context of master/slave type social relations..

aka: any form of m\a\p

7.2 the primacy of id and unity..

metareality involves the addiction of 3 furhter levels of ontology to he four levels of dialectical cr: 5\ thinking being as reflexive, inward and spiritual 6\ thinking being as re enchanted 7\ thinking being as involving the primacy of id over difference, and of unity over split and non dual.. this is level we pass from thinking/understanding being to being being.. most of this ch will be concerned w this 7th level

i don’t think legit free people would be about thinking/understanding ness.. i don’t think being being comes from them.. i think if we try to make it come from them it’s not legit being ness.. again.. i see intellectness as cancerous distraction we can’t seem to let go of.. there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it

table 7.1 gives the key conceepts of metareality mapped onto the stadia of the developed (cr-dcr-pmr) ontological-axiological chain or the self structuration of being

yeah.. i don’t think if we were free we’d be about any of that..

the 7th level.. id over difference.. reverses 1st level of develop of cr.. which thematised being as involving non id.. id we are invited to think is in no way atomistic or punctual; it involves a rich, differentiation and developing id, the sort of id one might achieve after a deep learning process w a beautiful work of art or music

yeah i think any time we try to identity ness ourselves.. rather than letting go w the it is me ness ends up killing us.. red flags: learning process.. et al

171 (152)

it only makes sense to say of two things that they are diff if they have something in common.. in this way our normal use of diff presupposes and underlying id.. similarly if someone tell us about their experience w an alien.. the fact that it is their experience makes it a part of our world.. it would seem that anything that human beings can come to experience or imagine must be a part of our cosmos.. these ie’s indicate intuitively how id and unity might come to be regarded as prior to and presupposed by diff and split, respectively

want to intro .. passage concerning the ‘life and death struggle’ in hegel’s phenom of spirit

the life and death struggle

hegel asks.. why when victor has vanquished other does he not kill him? he needs him alive as a witness to his valour, bravery.. to be recognised.. thus we have a long line in post hegelian phil up to axel honneth that thematises the struggle for recognition.. feuerbach, marx and the left hegels suggested another answer: victor spares in order to make him slave.. then could slave become stronger and could overcome.. presupposes an at least equal/complementary dialectic of trust, nurture and care, and so of love.. whatever interp is adopted, it is these aspects that point to underlying unity and id

175 (156)

meta-r recognises a distinction between 3 kinds/domains of being: 1\ non-duality 2\ duality 3\ demi reality

demi-r is a world of illusion and categorial error.. dominates the world of duality in form of master/slave and alienation that illusion and error both reflect and reinforce..

above all.. in oppressing and exploiting people masters suffer from and promote the illusion that people (including themselves) are not fundamentally free, creative, loving, right acting, spiritual and enchanted non dual beings.. along w many of the oppressed, they all but lose sight of who they really are.

wilde not-us law et al

hari rat park law

176 (157)

we can rewrite as 1\ non duality or absolute reality 2\ duality or relative reality 3\ demi reality or demi real relative reality

m-r claims that almost all pre existing phil involves a huge scotoma or blind spot..t: it has overlooked, failed to recognise the world of non duality.. a veritable immanent ‘heaven on earth’ on which the world of duality and the demi real structure, attitudes and habits that dom it totally depend.. this is a huge claim.. so let us see how m-r begins to justify it

i’d say all.. since forever.. this is why we need a legit global detox leap

7.3 basic arguments for m-r

presented here in necessarily highly condensed form; if you find them heavy going it might be advisable to skip this section on a first reading

m-r has its inception in reflecting on the eureka or ‘aha’ moment.. the flash of insight cannot be arrived at by hard work alone.. although that will play an indispensable prep role

oi.. prep .. takes a lot of work ness.. huge red flags.. so cancerous distractions.. oi

177 (158)

nor can it be derived by deduction or induction or any algo formula.. it comes *‘out of the blue’ in a moment of unthought, that is, of the suspension of thought (as some creative scientists, as well as artists, poets, and so on attest).. this **can be rendered fully intelligible only on the basis that it involves the union between something already enfolded w/in the discovering agent, brought up to consciousness by a moment of anamnesis or recall.. w the alethic self revelation of the being being known , existing outside the discovering agent.. that is .. that it involves the union of two beings at the level of the implicit, supramental or transcendental consciousness of their ground states..

*graeber can’t know law et al

**oi.. intellectness as cancerous distraction et al..

in (2) we adopt a pragmatic approach, that is, one that presupposed the reality of m-r in order to appeal to practice: in essence it argues that if you act inconsistently w your ground state, that is, transcendentally real self, you will find that you are split and unhappy.. t (unfulfilled or unrealised) in some way..

almaas holes law et al.. why we need to org around legit (ground state) needs

conversely.. argued that when people act in a max effective way individually/collectively.. as ie tahir square.. their ground state qualities will be of the fore: will/determination/energy/creativity/freedom/unconditional-love and all its circles.. a feeling of coming home to one’s true self.. a sense the world is enchanted and awakening to unity and non duality as such

but how can that be max if ie: the square is against.. protesting si against ness..

on this line of argument, *achieving your goals in life depends ultimately on **getting in touch w your real self and clearing your embodied personality of heteronomous elements that are inconsistent w it..t this is a development of my position in dialectic on which emancipation and enlightenment consist ultimately in theory practice coherence .. w our transcendentally ***real selves..

*if thinking this.. already cancerous distraction

**need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature as global detox/re\set.. so we can org around legit needs

***under all the whales ness.. need self-talk as data/detox to uncover/restore/hear that

178

m-r aims to be max inclusive, aspiring to develop an outlook that will appeal to those of no faith and all faiths..t

this is what we need.. and what we’ve not yet tried.. because we can’t seem to let go enough to get to the all ness.. need to org around what all souls already crave..

there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it

legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p

the ultimate spontaneity of action entail ceteris paribus the primacy of subject or self referentiality which in turn entail and is presupposed by commitment to a eudaimonistic society or universal self realisation..

eudaimonia\tive surplus nesss et al

a standard objection.. is that human experience of the non dual may be illusory.. *one may ask how.. human agency and understanding are possible..

*asking that question is part of why illusory.. oi

graeber can’t know law et al.. paul know\love law et al

179 (160)

again, it might be objected that *direct mind to mind (consiousnss to consciouness) interaction w another person, namely in transcendental id consciousness is illusory on the grounds that there is no way of knowing that identical thoughts are in two diff minds.. but this would be to misunderstand my position.. id does not take place a level of actual thought but at level of either or ground states or of the deep interior of our everyday dealings/perceptions.. if you **understand what i am saying, the understanding is yours, not mine.. but in the moment of understanding or ***listening or following there is not ego/duality/separation.. ****just identification.. you do not first interpret sounds then make out their meaning.. *****there is no separation between hearing and meaning.. similarly if you see a drawing as either a duck or rabbit you do not first interpret it you just see it.. your understanding is not reducible to its physical conditions .. so this is quite compatible w synchronic emergent powers materialism.. the ******immediacy of hearing/perceiving,/understanding/intuiting/reading and so on are more generally of ‘just seeing or getting ‘ a point is irreducible in social life..

*mikey siegel ness et al

**cancerous distraction

let’s just do ***this.. in an undisturbed ecosystem

rather.. ****just love.. paul know\love law et al.. pearson unconditional law et al..

*****rather.. no need for meaning ness et al.. if legit dancing..

perhaps we need to imagine rather ******the irrelevant s of that list.. and just dance

need you to be you for us.. et al

7.4 principle of m-r

180 (161)

1\ transcend id: when you are listening to me or me to you intently.. the sense of a separate me/you disappears.. same w reading a book.. there is a unity which on reflection is involved in all interaction and perception as its fine structure

2\ transcend acts.. we do spontaneously/mindlessly

181 (162)

3\ transcend holism.. teamwork.. holistic synchronicity

182 (163)

4\ transcend self… as ego (separate).. as personality (changing).. and as real self (higher/better self) or ground state

3 mechs of id and/or unification: 1\ transcend id 2\ reciprocity (exchange smiles) 3\ co presence (see other as pat of ourselves)..

183 (164)

7.7 extension of the logic of freedom

dialectical cr sets out the goal of a eudaimonistic society as one in which the free flourishing of each is a condition for the free flourishing of all

eudaimonia\tive surplus

could say one should seek to become enlightened or self realised because only thing you can ultimately be sure to have the capacity to achieve.. and for max efficacious agency in world

red flags: be sure; achieve; et al

184 (165)

generalized co presence..individual and universal god realisation.. everything is enchanted and in process of becoming one w its ground state

7.6 creativity, learning and ed and the critique of the discursive intellect

there is a paradox involved in learning, the paradox of the exam.. ie: as student alwasy attempt to revise until very last minute.. yet when parents/teachers always tell children/student not to revise up to last minute.. to be fresh for exam.. the standponit of m-r is that the knowledge you are trying to achieve as a student is already enfolded w/in you as a potential.. and the task of learning (and teaching) is to unfold that potential.. this is why i call this model of learning that of unfolding the enfolded

oi.. but that means you are doing and so presumptions (even in most loving settings) seep in.. findings abstract et al.. need nonjudgmental means to listen to itch-in-the-soul first thing every day and use that data to connect us..

there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it

legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p (ie: thinking we have to unfold others.. when we just need a means to get out of sea world – hari rat park law ..et al)

i can best elab by starting w another seeming paradox, which is that you cannot teach anyone else anything..

185 (166)

one can unlock the doors of the cells in a prison.. but the prisoners have to walk out.. imagine trying to teach someone a logical rule.. it is you who have to get it.. when you get it.. this is the eureka moment.. w/o the i see it .. the knowledge cannot be yours

oi.. so many red flags..

intellectness as cancerous distraction we can’t seem to let go of.. there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it

ie of how to ride bike.. fall off till you get it.. similar process of learning french or calc .. 4 stages: 1\ can’t do it but knowledge/capacity enfolded w/in you as potential 2\ see how to do it 3\ practice/explore/play 4\ can do it spontaneously.. then knowledge is part of your being and can perform activity/skill effortlessly.. at 2/3 stages we have to carry the rules around in our heads.. 4\ see accomplishment reflected in your production/accomplishment in the world.. these 5 levels correspond to 5 cycles of creativity

rather.. cancerous distractions

186 (167)

this schema allows us to explain paradox of exams.. your parents/teachers assume you are already at 4th stage.. at which clearly you would be able to perform best when well rested.. but you as student recognise/fear you are only perhaps somewhere in 2/3 stage so desperately seek to cram your head full of info/knowledge until last moment.. 5 stage summed up: 1\ calling 2\ creativity 3\ formation..binding of knowledge 4\ making 5\ reflection.. thus the role of teaching/pedagogy is to unfold the enfolded, helping to bring out what is already there w/in.. you cannot teach anyone else anything

if saying student/teacher.. if exam/reflect assumed et al.. a forms of people telling other people what to do

the critique of the discursive intellect and the limits of thought (ch 12 in sci emanc)

the intellect is just the faculty of discrimination and choice..

need to let go of finite set of choices.. of spinach or rock ness.. need a means to listen to curiosity over decision making

reverse ‘i think therefore i am’.. by id ing some important things that are not thought.. but essential for our knowing..

but what if ‘knowing’ is the non essential.. the none possible.. the cancerous distraction

again.. graeber can’t know law et al

187 (168)

1\ intuition 2\ consciousness 3\ perception 4\ being 5\ absence (nothing creative can come from thought.. only come from absent beyond/between thoughts.. when we stop thinking or unthink.. empty mind vital for understanding anything .. ‘don’t know mind’ is willing/open to learn and never stopped learning.. humble.. understand whole world is your teacher and there is nothing from which you cannot learn

188 (169)

7.7 the circles of love

most fundamental of all emotions.. ie: fear/hatred parasitic on form of love.. depend on love’s absence/incompleteness.. love is paradigmatically unconditional.. conditional love is mixed w some other emotions.. such as jealousy or fear.. *love does not calculate or barter or see to control or shape its object.. **love loves to let the other be, to flourish in the concrete singularity/universality.. ***basis of human social life.. what makes it possible.. to love and be loved is a fundamental human need as well as capacity.. we cannot help but love..

*pearson unconditional law et al

**undisturbed ecosystem and brown belonging law et al

***missing piece #2

5 circles of love: 1\ love self 2\ love another 3\ love all humans 4\ love all beings 5\ love god

re enchantment

creativity corresponds to absence and love to totality.. re enchantment means to see the world once again thru the smog of demi real..as it always already is.. intrinsically valuable/meaningful.. the intrinsic value fo the world is entaile by the collapse of the fact-value dichotomy

190

7.8 spirituality

according to it (m-r presupposition) the whole of our social existence is underpinned by a barely noticed, but deep, spiritual or m-r infra.. however.. it is not that difficult to observe people acting on its basis.. thus commercial transactions, the buying/selling of commodities/stocks/shares are underpinned by trust.. no transaction could be complete w/o this mutuality of trust.. reciprocity of the ‘do unto another’.. sort underpins all such commercial transactions.. this is the reciprocity of the golden rule.. and it is funded on the ground state quality of trust..

oh my.. we have no idea/experience about/with legit trust.. can’t seem to let go enough to experience/see the unconditional ness of it..

similarly, reflection on, say, the practice of war, allows us to see that many peaceful activities must be going on for the war actually to take place.. we could of course have these peaceful activities w/o war.. whereas we could not have the war w/o them.. similarly.. we could say we only choose to hate things that we could and perhaps do.. love.. if a stone falls on us we don’t hate the stone

191

7.9 peace and conflict resolution

m-r contains a powerful argument for non violence.. if hurt another hurting self..

192

these two principles not only underpin conflict resolution but also collective decision making.. they rep ways in which people can come to understand and the reason w the perspective of others.. an important precondition for empathy is to see the other as a human beings w hoped and dreams and fears similar to one’s own.. this is why.. when country waging war.. it seeks to dehumanise enemy.. ‘pigs’ ‘uniforms’ et al..

_________

__________

_________

________