--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > Hi Robin: Â I did this for fun. Â Couldn't score myself though, although I > noticed I was able to strongly agree or disagree on a few things. Â Left you > a few notes below. Â Can't really figure out the difference between > "maximally desired", "desired" "undesired" "maximally undesirable" answer. > Â What is a "desired" answer? Â Desired by who? Â Perfect score? Â Ha ha. > Â Very funny. Â > > > ________________________________ > From: Robin Carlsen <maskedzebra@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:17 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Quiz: Determining one's existential sincerity > > > Â > Quiz To Determine How Sincere You Are About Knowing Reality > > Directions: Read each statement carefully. Decide whether you Strongly Agree > (SA), Agree (A), Strongly Disagree (SD), or Disagree (D). > > Score 4 for the maximally desired answer, which will always be either SA or > SD. Score 2 for the desired answer, which will always be A or D. Score 0 for > the undesired answer, Score -1 for the maximally undesirable answer. Perfect > score = 100. There are 25 questions. >
1. I understand more or less how I came to my present view of reality. Emily: Four. Sure Commentary: If we understand how we have arrived at our present point of view about the universe and what we believe concerning ultimate things: for instance, if there is a God; what kind of God is he; whether our life has a purpose; whether there is real and intrinsic meaning to our lives; whether the East has more of the truth than the West; what we feel is at stake in an argument about reality; what determines our politics; if there could be any meaning in our suffering:--if we can see the evolutionary causality of what constitutes where we are now (in our point of view about these things), then we are more likely to be objective and generous in our reading of reality, since we will have seen how much change we have undergone--and we can assume there will be changes to come too. How many persons actually, when they express their strongest opinions about some matter concerning truth, are aware of what has determined that position? This is why I thought it a fair question, Emily. I think the assumption experientially is always, implicitly: Hey, my beliefs are not conditioned; I am arriving at them through a perfect reading off of reality--right now. We tend, then, to feel our beliefs are in some sense uncaused. Of course ideally we could imagine a situation where in fact we discovered our belief through immediate experimental knowledge via how reality was making us intelligent in that moment. :-) 2. I can't conceive of understanding or experiencing reality in any other way than I do. Emily: Four. Of course I can. Commentary: Here it is more a question of *what would it be like to experience reality in some other way than we are right now*? Which would mean that our apprehension of ourselves in relationship to the universe and reality was somehow, metaphysically, different from what it is. Again this is a question of the extent to which we can coax reality into having some greater say in our understanding and experiencing it than what is possible for us from our own subjectivity point of view. In this sense we can imagine our subjectivity becoming more objective. :-) I was not thinking conceptually, Emily; I was thinking of conceiving of an actual different form of awareness of ourselves in relationship to reality. Can you imagine, for example, a different way of experiencing this commentary on your "Of course I can" than the one you just had of this? In other words, would it be possible for Emily to have an experience of this commentary that was less determined by your subjective experience of yourself in this moment, and perhaps more determined by how reality would like you to apprehend what Robin has just said. [Maybe reality would not like what I said even less than you did.:-)] 3. When I sense some challenge to my view of reality (or any given issue) I harden and hunker down; it doesn't matter at that point whether I am right or wrong; I must preserve the sense of my own sense of integrity: I must defend myself. Emily: Depends on the issue; depends how much experience I have related to it. "Right or wrong?" Huh - who decides? Yes, of course I like to stay in integrity with myself. I don't always have to defend my position - if your experience is different, your reality will dictate a different answer. Too many questions here to give a number to. Commentary: A thoughtful response. I am thinking that the force and intention behind our articulation of our views is always unconsciously interactive with a reality which possesses a 'God's eye' view of that same issue: In other words, I conceive of every issue as possessing some point of view equivalent to Plato's Form of the Good (which he believed is responsible for everything that exists). The principal idea here is that the tension and dissonance we experience in coming up against opposition to our beliefs--especially those which are nearest to us and which we feel strongest about--that tension and dissonance has the potential to be allayed to some extent by how much contact we are making with reality when in the act of writing and speaking about those beliefs, those points of view. "Who decides?" That is the a priori liberal position--which I believe is most natural and necessary in a postmodern universe by the way. However, even if there are no absolutes, no Truth, no Tradition, there still is the movement of the reality within which we exist and are embedded, and there is the possibility of discovering 'support' for our beliefs or point of view from that same reality. Our integrity in this sense *is upheld by reality itself*, and not just by our own determination to remain true to ourselves. 4. I have had the experience of realizing I was wrong about something, and have enjoyed surrendering to a different truth than I started out believing. Emily: Four 5. I feel I am a pretty good judge of the sincerity or insincerity of someone who takes a point of view opposed to my own. Emily: How does someone evaluate the "sincerity or insincerity" of others? Over what time period? What venue? Depends on how well I know them and how interactions with them have gone over time. Hard to judge on the internet. Commentary: Well, I guess, Emily, I am taking a radical position on sincerity here. From what you say sincerity is a kind of psychological state which one can only know about over time--that is, in another person. Whereas for me sincerity is a very distinct and observable phenomenon, requiring almost no familiarity with the person at all. When you see a character come on stage in a play, the playwright wants you to form a certain judgment of that character; obviously sincerity will be an important dimension in this consideration. The same when someone writes a post on FFL. And how do we go about determining a person's sincerity--especially if their position is at variance with our own? Well, we sense a certain moral and intellectual commitment (usually with emotion in there as well) *which costs the person something*. In other words, sincerity in some sense is to render oneself vulnerable to reality, even to the experience, which might be quite uncomfortable, even threatening, of having our own point of view challenged in some serious way. Sincerity means having something to lose and caring about it. Sincerity means a quest to know the truth. Surely we can feel this intention in another person, even a stranger. A person who is sincere attempts to comprehend as truthfully, as honestly, as they can what it is which is being controverted. There is a commitment to the truth--and the consequences of having one's point of view refuted. Sincerity means putting yourself on the line to some extent. In the context of this question, I am thinking about the vertigo of feeling someone just as sincere as oneself expressing a point of view which is opposed to our own. When both parties are sincere, it seems there is the possibility of reconciling somehow this divergence of perception. Sincerity means not questioning the motives of your adversary unless he or she demonstrates they are not as serious or honest as you are in their attempts to argue against your point of view. 6. I believe it is possible to be a good person and yet have a view of reality or even any important issue which is opposed to my own point of view. Emily:Four 7. I would like to have a greater awareness of all the reality that there is to know. Emily: Not necessarily. Who defines what "all the reality that there is to know" is? I don't need any more awareness of reality altered by drugs I haven't taken yet nor do I want the reality of living on welfare, for example - both experiences of which could qualify as part of "all the reality that there is to know", depending on how it is defined. Commentary: I suppose I was ambiguous here, Emily. "A greater awareness of all the reality that there is to know" means: what is highest, most real, most truthful, most objective. As if at the moment of death we have to bear all the reality that somehow is contained in the universe--not the experiences everyone has ever had. No, not this. Rather that imagining there is a God (you can think metaphorically about this), how much of the reality that he (God) would have us know about his Creation, about ourselves, would we be willing to comprehend. How much then, Emily, do we really want to know about what is ultimately real? Again, this assumes there is a context of experience potentially available to each human being whereby that human being can know that God has somehow given that person the capacity to know why they were created, why there is a universe, and what the individual drama of that person's life means--with all its terrible suffering, confusion, frustration, defeat, sickness, tragedy and so on--This, as well as what is the opposite of this. I am, then, Emily, conceiving of the motive within ourselves of wanting to know to the utmost all that reality might wish for us to know in order to acquire a perspective on the truth of ourselves, the truth of Creation. 8. I am living a life that is not ignoring the fact that I know I must die someday. Emily: Yes and no. 9. I wish I could be in an actual state of grace all the time, supposing this were possible. Emily: State of grace - (Christian theology) a state of sanctification by God; the state of one who is under such divine influence; "the conception of grace developed alongside the conception of sin"; "it was debated whether saving grace could be obtained outside the membership of the church"; "the Virgin lived in a state of grace" Seems like a complicated term, actually. Not sure what that would mean. Commentary: I don't believe in the Christian state of grace anymore. I have never seen it, although I have read about it in the lives of persons (Saints) who lived before I was born. But in the postmodern ontology of the universe, I look for a certain kind of secular grace--Leonard Cohen talks about this. And by state of grace here I mean the intention to find some state of innocence and intelligence and coherence within oneself such that one has the sensation of riding on the wave of reality--and in this sense one's actions and experience seem to be getting determined by something other than one's own existential intention. To wish to be in a state of grace I suppose means wanting to have 'the support of nature'--reality--in everything we do. I have never seen this in action, but when Maharishi was at his apogee, he appeared to me to be very much in a state of grace. And he emanated energy, love, light, and power that I have never seen in any other human being. Of course that was a more cosmic form of grace; I am thinking here more of a personal form of grace, which, would mean, or might mean, experiencing love for someone and experiencing how reality somehow is guiding one and leading one into the right response to a given circumstance--or person. Think of those rhythmic gymnasts doing their Ribbon routine. I think of being able somehow to live my life like that--I mean it hasn't happened yet; but I aspire to this always. 10. I am willing to brave my fears and my own conditioning in order to get a connection with reality which will ask some form of sacrifice of my familiar way of seeing things, and my own vanity. Emily: Four 11. I am interested in having an experience of my own essential innocence and sincerity--at least this is a desideratum I seek. Emily: Believe I have these on a regular basis - not sure what "essential" mean as an adjective here. Commentary: I think that there is an ambiguity with the word "essential", so you are right there. Essential the way I have used it might mean innate innocence, fundamental innocence--not mediated by life, history, experience. I suppose that is not possible. However what I meant by essential was that the experience of innocence and sincerity must come first before anything in order to vindicate the integrity of ourselves. I believe innocence and sincerity are there for us. But were we not aware of the desirability of knowing ourselves in this way, we could very well not make them 'essential' to us in our everyday behaviour. I suppose I am biased in this way, but for me, the striving (this as it were is the state of grace I am aiming at in my experience in everything I do) after innocence and sincerity is what it means to seek the beautiful and the truthful in one's life. Even in the other person. 12. I consider a clear conscience to be a good thing. It is something I wish to possess in my own life. Emily: Narcissists often have clear consciences. If I had one "up front", I wouldn't make any amends. In general terms, yes, I'd like to have one at the end of my life. Commentary: Again perhaps I did not clarify what I really mean here, Emily. When I talk about a clear conscience, I am referring to an objective state of affairs; that is, whereby one experiences one's conscience as not being corrupted, compromised, sullied by one's own experience of the feedback one gets inside oneself as a result of one's actions in the world. A clear conscience is simply as it were the mechanical effect of acting honourably and truthfully--to the extent to which this is possible--in all of one's transactions with others. Perhaps Shakespeare was having a little bit of fun at our expense in having Polonius say this to his son Laertes, but I believe if we lift it from this context, it remains valid: "This above all: to thine own self to be true, and it must follow as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." I think it takes a certain form of grace to be able to do this; but the effect upon one's conscience is salutary. A clear conscience, it makes such a difference in my mind to the influence one can have in one's interactions with other human beings. 13.When I am in the presence of an intuition of a greater or higher reality I tend to contract rather than expand. Emily: Four 14. I have done my best to find the purpose of life, even the purpose of my own life. Emily: Four. Have always been stymied by this - in the larger scheme of things..."what's the point of it all?" Commentary: Sounds like your being "stymied" is sincere and innocent and faultless. It certainly seems that way to me, as I read this. But then I have only asked whether one has tried for this; and you have, obviously. I think this is one of the deepest mysteries in our life: why we suffer needlessly, gratuitously, and why we are "stymied" in our desire to fall upon what is, what must be, our singular destiny as a created human being. I don't think anyone ever catches up to providence, but the same guy made Horatio say: "There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew how we will". I have the most intense intuition, Emily, that this is true, and even though I have never seen anyone live out this truth consciously in their lives (including myself), it nevertheless seems compelling to me beyond any notion of the pointlessness and absurdity of life. 15. I like learning new things about myself; I am in the quest of greater self-knowledge all the time. Emily: Four 16. I feel motivated in some sense to seek the truth even if that truth is inconvenient to me, to my assumed beliefs and predilections. Emily: Four 17. I think I am a pretty good judge of the character of other human beings. Emily: Depends on the timeframe one knows them and under what circumstances and in what venue. Commentary: I understand, and think you right in this. I suppose for me, character and sincerity are realities that establish themselves over time, surely; and yet a person's character--at least for me--is in everything that person says and does. To be "a pretty good judge of character" means to be able in some sense to predict how that person is likely to act, and the extent to which they are faithful to their principles (assuming they have any). Character for me, then, Emily is pretty much the signature that one sees in the intention a person has in their life and in their relations with others. I guess in its very highest sense, character is measured by the willingness in some sense to be capable of behaving heroically. Something close to that. And so character in its negative sense would be the likelihood of acting in a cowardly or deceitful way. 18. I feel that my life has been governed by a fate which did not take into account my own desire or free will. I feel I am not essentially responsible for where I have ended up in my life. Emily: Four 19. I am willing to have a change of heart about someone should they indicate some willingness to reach out to me. Emily: Not always. "Reaching out" can be a manipulative technique. Depends on how they conduct themselves over time. Commentary: This seems a shrewd observation. "Reaching out" can be a manipulative technique": what I was getting at here was a more spontaneous ability to realize the appropiateness, the oughtness of altering one's idea or judgment of a person. In this sense the very realization one has of the possibility of conciliation is itself an experience which is inspired; there is support from within reality for this to happen, then. 20. My enemies, they are fixed for all-time for me. I don't see reconciliation or negotiation. I will fight to the end, never giving any quarter--no matter what. Emily: Four 21; I would rather be who I am than to be any other person who has ever lived. Emily: Four 22. I am willing to see the truth of when irony is directed towards me. Emily: Four 23. I feel I want what is the most real experience that any human being can have in the universe. Emily: Four. What is "the most real experience that any human being can have in the universe?" Essentially, we are all living that, because we are here. Commentary: You don't believe, then, that some people are carrying within their heart and minds more reality, more truth than someone else? So, in this sense there are no significant differentials in terms of how much reality is getting into one's person's experience as opposed to another person's experience? You see for me, Emily, I always conceive of "the most real experience that any human being can have in the universe"--because that is the experience I want to have when I go through death. And my objective in my life is to prepare myself for this event. I do always think in a moment when I have the perspective to reflect on this truth: Am I having the most real experience that I *can* have of what is going on right now? 24. I feel the truth about something always has a better potential for being useful to me than some falsification of that same truth. Emily: Four. "Truth" is subjective in many cases. Commentary: Well, then, all that matters is that one has acquired the best possible subjective version of the truth that is out there. But the fact there are different pressure points of truth coming from different points of view always is suggestive of a final point of view which is maximally truthful and real. And if we define truth as always subjective then we escape from the responsibility to make sure we have gone as far as we can to ascertain the extent to which in fact there is an element--at least--of objectivity inherent in reaching a position about some important matter. As Aquinas says: "Truth is a divine thing, a friend more excellent than any human friend." :-) 25. I am living a life so as to deserve to be happy when I die. Emily: "Deserve to be happy when I die?" I would like to "deserve to be happy now" - who cares about what I deserve when I die? Commentary: Well, I suppose there's no arguing with this, Emily. :-) What I was getting at was that there was some kind of cause and effect--from the point of view of the Creator (think metaphorically if you like)--about where one ends up at the moment of death based upon how one has lived one's life. Although I can't remember this at all times of course, but I like thinking about the idea that this could be my last moment, or moments, of life. Therefore I want to give the most, take the most, sensitize myself to the most. I have the notion this orientation can be cumulative in its effect. Which means that to seek to live a certain kind of life can give one the intuition that whatever the ordeal is of dying, that one has an argument to make, in the very person that one is, of getting to the best place there is after dying. :-)
