Yeah, it would make sense as a reaction to very-entitled people. If that's the case, though, I would have assumed he'd realize its past its pull-by date: younger people seem to me to be more likely emotionally crushed rather than emotionally extravagant.
(That is, if a horse is over-enthusiastic, it makes sense to "rein it in;" but if a horse is under-enthusiastic, it makes sense to "spur it on.")
Replying here to the overall thread, so I'll tag you causticus, in case it doesn't notify you about replies to replies.
I agree that The Cosmic Doctrine as his go-to metaphysical text doesn't exactly square with "the universe doesn't care about you." I also suspect that his "Weird of Hali" novels might have more to say on how he tries to square cosmic indifferentism with more individual and intermediate meaning than some of his explicitly "spiritual" statements/writings. A tentative thought I've had is that he sees "the whole cosmos" as not caring much about what matters to any one social primate, but in between our admittedly small point of view, and the biggest of big pictures, there's a lot of room for Gods, angels, and so forth, who might partake a bit of both the small and big pictures, and maybe reconcile the seeming contradictions. Or perhaps he's just inconsistent! We humans do tend to do that.
As I said above, I haven't given all of this the thought and meditation it deserves, so I don't have much of an answer yet.
Jeff, I think it's mostly inconsistency. One thing he does a lot (that I struggle with greatly) is totally compartmentalizing each of the different systems of teaching he works with. On the contrary, I'm always inclined to try and synthesize every teaching of seeming worth that I come across in my mental travels.
I actually think compartmentalization is good practice.
There's a famous saying in statistics, "all models are wrong, but some models are useful." JMG is swift to point out (following Kant) that models are all we have access to, and Plotinus would say Objective Truth only exists at the level of the Intellect (which we're two hops away from)! Here in the material world, we're merely the blind men and the elephant: any teaching we have access to can only encapsulate one small nugget of Truth, and it isn't possible even in theory to reconcile them all.
It is good to learn to use a tool when it's appropriate, but it must also be kept in mind that no tool can be universal!
Yeah, I think epistemic/intellectual humility of this sort is useful - maybe a helpful meta-lesson from JMG, even if we might disagree with some of the specific applications. It's a lesson I find especially hard to swallow, since I tend to want to synthesize everything into an intellectually satisfying, comprehensible framework, like causticus mentions - which likely means that learning to get comfortable with such ambiguity is exactly what I need.
I think ideas like cosmic indifferentism, moral relativism, and hard polytheism were/are very appealing to the boomers who delved into alternative spirituality. But it seems like the younger generations are looking for meaning and purpose, not more of the aforementioned. So yeah, giddyup!
That's another challenge in all of this spirituality stuff - the push-pull between "what is true" and "what is useful." As I mentioned to sdi above, that's further complicated by "what I like" and "what I need."
Whoever said spirituality would be so much work? :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
(That is, if a horse is over-enthusiastic, it makes sense to "rein it in;" but if a horse is under-enthusiastic, it makes sense to "spur it on.")
no subject
I agree that The Cosmic Doctrine as his go-to metaphysical text doesn't exactly square with "the universe doesn't care about you." I also suspect that his "Weird of Hali" novels might have more to say on how he tries to square cosmic indifferentism with more individual and intermediate meaning than some of his explicitly "spiritual" statements/writings. A tentative thought I've had is that he sees "the whole cosmos" as not caring much about what matters to any one social primate, but in between our admittedly small point of view, and the biggest of big pictures, there's a lot of room for Gods, angels, and so forth, who might partake a bit of both the small and big pictures, and maybe reconcile the seeming contradictions. Or perhaps he's just inconsistent! We humans do tend to do that.
As I said above, I haven't given all of this the thought and meditation it deserves, so I don't have much of an answer yet.
Cheers,
Jeff
no subject
no subject
There's a famous saying in statistics, "all models are wrong, but some models are useful." JMG is swift to point out (following Kant) that models are all we have access to, and Plotinus would say Objective Truth only exists at the level of the Intellect (which we're two hops away from)! Here in the material world, we're merely the blind men and the elephant: any teaching we have access to can only encapsulate one small nugget of Truth, and it isn't possible even in theory to reconcile them all.
It is good to learn to use a tool when it's appropriate, but it must also be kept in mind that no tool can be universal!
no subject
no subject
I think ideas like cosmic indifferentism, moral relativism, and hard polytheism were/are very appealing to the boomers who delved into alternative spirituality. But it seems like the younger generations are looking for meaning and purpose, not more of the aforementioned. So yeah, giddyup!
no subject
Whoever said spirituality would be so much work? :)