The word 'ascesi' - from 'askésis', 'to train' - originally meant only
'training' and, in the Roman sense, 'discipline'. The corresponding
Indo-Aryan is 'tapas' ('tapa' or 'tapo' in Pâli) and means the same
except that, because of the root, 'tap', which means 'to be hot' or
'to glow', it also contains the idea of an intensive concentration, of
glowing, almost of fire.With the development of Western civilisation, however, the word 'ascesis' has, as is well known, taken on a particular meaning which differs from the original. Not only it has assumed an exclusively religious sense, but, because of the general tone of the faith which has come to predominate among Western peoples, asceticism has become connected to ideas of mortification of the flesh and of painful renunciation of the world : thus, it has come to indicate the path that this faith thinks the most suitable for 'salvation', and the reconciliation of the creature, corrupted by original sin, with his Creator. As early as the beginnings of Christianity the word 'ascesis' was applied to those who practised exercises of mortification such as auto-flagellation. Asceticism in this sense became the object of clear aversion with the growth of specifically modern civilisation. If even Luther, with the resentment of one who was unable to understand or to tolerate monastic discipline, disowned the necessity, the value, and the usefulness of any ascesis, to oppose to it an exaltation of pure faith, then humanism, immanentism, and the new cult of life were brought from their standpoint to bring discredit and scorn upon asceticism, which those tendencies associated more or less with 'medieval obscurantism' and with the aberrations of 'historically outdated ages'. And when asceticism was not explained away purely and simply as a pathological manifestation, a transposed form of auto-sadism, all sorts of incompatibilities and oppositions to 'our way of life' were claimed for it. The best known and the oldest of these is the antithesis supposed to exist between the ascetic, renouncing, static East, hostile to the world, and the active, assertive, heroic and creative Western civilisation. The above came recommended on a page with the Nazi emblem on it Chaz. One assumes this is not where our friend finds his ascesis! One can find strange light in meditation (literally) and a 'glow' that reminds me of magic as some African friends once demonstrated for me. Orn almost pleads the 5th - but that's my friend's business. In more sociological terms, there is civic humanism and ascecitism from the east and Greeks. My own take concerns neurosis and finding ways to move society away from it. My studies concern such examples as police lying as a case of socially enforced neurotic behaviour. On Jul 10, 1:02 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > We don’t need my words. Others have set the grounds: > Name, Definition, Resemblance, True Opinion and the Fifth. > > I use additional elements and guideposts in an esoteric practice…but > this is all of little importance and not actually for discussion nor > deconstruction. > > No doubt you know at least some of the steps…like when focusing your > attention upon something…knowing what it is primarily by what is > called… often followed by additional concentration upon more elements > involved…like the terms defining what is being addressed. What follows > involves witnessing the process etc. > > Thanks for asking anyway. > > On Jul 9, 3:02 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, in your own words what exactly is the process of ascesis? > > > On Jul 9, 3:01 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > “Isn't having stages a contradiction of henology?” – Chaz > > > > Perhaps…although I was addressing the actual process of ascesis… > > > something I’ve been working with for quite a while now. In fact, I’ve > > > been working many knowledge school methods. Being interested in mind, > > > I practice methods so I can know what is what…an actual first hand > > > scientific study. > > > > Theosis is possible as Plotinus found out. When it comes to > > > ‘contradiction’, in any ultimate and/or integral sense, there is no > > > contradiction that I can find. > > > > For those who have devoured Plotinus, Neil and/or Wikipedia one finds > > > henology is“…a "metaphysics of radical transcendence" that extends > > > beyond being and intellection.[2] It can be contrasted with ontology, > > > as ontology is "an account of being" whereas henology is an "account > > > of unity."” > > > > These words above only approach the first 3 aspects of ascesis. This > > > isn’t in contradiction with the process of ascesis though…it is merely > > > a part of the whole…you know, a distinction about the One and the > > > many. Long ago I would have been afraid to even consider the notion > > > let alone the experience of “radical transcendence” except perhaps at > > > arm’s length through academics. > > > > For an internet heuristic re: Plotinus, > > > see:http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/plotinus/plotinus.htmlhttp://www.philosop... > > > > “And what has this got to do with our discussion?” - Chaz > > > > Little except by association…particularly with Neil’s offering me as > > > being worth a month of study. Also, the thread does start out having > > > to do with epistemology…Kant’s in particular. I’ve been looking at the > > > nature and scope of knowledge for a while now. I don’t claim to be > > > well read nor to be able to recall let alone present or to having > > > assimilated most philosophers; however, I have been interested in > > > firsthand experience(s). As an aside, the different presentation > > > levels found in this group are quite vast. Some I can make no sense of > > > at all. > > > > Further, in an admittedly troll-like maneuver, I posted that which I > > > had guessed would evoke a response. Also, I’ve had some very recent > > > (last night) experiences in this vein. > > > > Years ago I ran across Eck online and even one person who I talked > > > with quite a bit. She actually seemed coherent and at worst well > > > versed. I haven’t studied the method more than a cursorily glance. > > > Through Ichazo and his School, I’ve found plenty to help me go beyond > > > where I find myself at any one moment. Even before I met Oscar, I knew > > > that there was much more than words and concepts. > > > > On Jul 8, 4:59 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Isn't having stages a contradiction of henology? > > > > > And what has this got to do with our discussion? > > > > > On Jul 8, 10:25 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > For any serious student of mind, one ultimately arrives at henology. > > > > > The 5 stages of ascesis provide one basic map. The first 3 are > > > > > involved with words. The 4th on ‘True Opinion’. The 5th is the 5th. > > > > > > On Jul 8, 9:12 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I had an external trying to fail my best student for swearing last > > > > > > year. I've been asked to do some work on a PhD programme at a US > > > > > > university (better not mention it by name in case I have to take the > > > > > > work). Compared with what you got at Sussex Chaz, it's baby play! > > > > > > And clapped-out nonsense equating to the personal development drivel > > > > > > all over undergrads like a rash at the moment. I'm old enough now > > > > > > that I mat have inaugurated the angle, though in my version I'd have > > > > > > accepted stuff like 'spending a month with Orn' or going Bohemian > > > > > > or a > > > > > > few weeks with some nuclear scientists or biologists (etc.) - now > > > > > > it's > > > > > > all dreadful. > > > > > > Pleasing Sussex didn't neuter you mate. > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:38 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 11:12 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hmm, thanks for the cautionary tale Chaz! Now and then I > > > > > > > > contemplate > > > > > > > > returning to some academy or another…and on the rare occasion > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > more idealistic considerations than to merely glean a > > > > > > > > ‘practical’ bit > > > > > > > > of credentialing. I too greatly appreciate your sharing and > > > > > > > > recent > > > > > > > > path…’tis one due to great personal ignorance I wish I had the > > > > > > > > tenacity and means to follow. > > > > > > > > > By the way, your writing is far better crafted and assimilable > > > > > > > > than it > > > > > > > > appeared to me a couple of years ago. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the compliment. > > > > > > > > As for the caution. I have to say that I did enjoy the study > > > > > > > despite > > > > > > > feeling a little restricted. > > > > > > > My first term I studied Theory and Practice in IH, and > > > > > > > Philosophical > > > > > > > ideas in IH. The lecturers were under 30 and were not so didactic > > > > > > > nor > > > > > > > dogmatic like the two I had in the second term. They were less > > > > > > > experienced and this meant they were more like facilitators - > > > > > > > which is > > > > > > > what a good teacher ought to be - to help students draw out the > > > > > > > picture of their learning for themselves; assisting discussion and > > > > > > > debate. The second term; Scientific Ideas, and Political Ideas > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > taught by 2 guys that were older and more dogmatic having lost > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > humility - they KNEW their subject and TOLD you how it was. There > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > little debate and the process was basically rote. Science deals > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > the gradual unfolding of objective position about the nature of > > > > > > > reality, and that fact made it easier to accept the teaching > > > > > > > style. > > > > > > > But the twat teaching the politics pretended 'objectivity', in a > > > > > > > discipline in which the elite views of past thinkers were being > > > > > > > regurgitated without critique. This simply enough rendered out of > > > > > > > date > > > > > > > views and refurbished them for the present - an attitude I though > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > as repugnant. I didn't complete that course and switched to > > > > > > > Critical > > > > > > > Theory where I was able to study Walter Benjamin's and Nietzsche's > > > > > > > views on History. It meant absorbing a 10 week course in 4 weeks > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > it was worth it. > > > > > > > > In 12 months all the fees are going to triple in price for BAs. > > > > > > > As per > > > > > > > usual no one is daring to mention fees for higher degrees, but one > > > > > > > assumes that they will also go up. So this is the last year that > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > are reachable. > > > > > > > > A sad reflection on the state of Britain! And what 'orrible little > > > > > > > toadies are Dawkins and Grayling for wanting to set up a high fee > > > > > > > paying college. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2:55 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 11:35 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Chaz - a good read. Well-balanced yet still charged > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > something worthwhile. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks - you liked it batter than my 'masters' at Sussex. > > > > > > > > > It's odd > > > > > > > > > reading it again after a year. > > > > > > > > > There is so much more I wanted to say but was juggling > > > > > > > > > between wanting > > > > > > > > > to present a good academic essay and not offending the > > > > > > > > > discipline I > > > > > > > > > was writing in. In the end I pulled too many punches. > > > > > > > > > Even so the reaction to it was patronising and reactionary. > > > > > > > > > One > > > > > > > > > comment was "If only he had read Harrington, Chaz would have > > > > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > > > otherwise" - which is complete bullshit. > > > > > > > > > > Interesting to note that your bibliography is > > > > > > > > > > > similar to much Sue got through in her research methods MA > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > Manchester. If we leave aside the reasons for the > > > > > > > > > > production of your > > > > > > > > > > essay, I'm struck that claims about 'interest' in the > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment > > > > > > > > > > aren't true - I mean this in the obvious sense that we > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't find > > > > > > > > > > anyone if we went on a pub crawl. Quite how we can really > > > > > > > > > > discover > > > > > > > > > > origins of terms like Enlightenment seems set interests now > > > > > > > > > > and I like > > > > > > > > > > the way you address this. > > > > > > > > > > I think the 'interest is clear, though I did not push it home > > > > > > > > > enough. > > > > > > > > > The E is an invention, a meta-narritive upon which careers in > > > > > > > > > Intellectual History are based. There is some argument about > > > > > > > > > the birth > > > > > > > > > of the idea within IH but too many people have taken it as an > > > > > > > > > assumption, and based books and articles on it as if it was > > > > > > > > > an a > > > > > > > > > priori concept that an attack upon it, or a description of > > > > > > > > > its roots > > > > > > > > > is a personal > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
