Current Replies for "Reality" |
|
|
|
Reality
Casey C
Posted: 27/9/2007
|
|
|
Anyone that takes this story for what it literally is saying is not going to have the mental fortitude to think outside the construct of the religions that they have been superficially raised to beleive. It is a story of hope. That maybe one day man can transcend the chains that we have all been born into. As Neitzche says life is pointless, trying to think that there is a God or even Alphomism is trying to give meaning to life outside of life. Any attempt to do this is a sacrifice of our earthly lives. This may be effective to keep us sain as a race, however, it is stopping our true capabilities as our race. As the sages would say we build up "heart" and people become to closed mind, like in a cult or a religion, and humans begin to kill each other.
If one takes Alphomism seroiusly, or take any religion to serious, then it stops the enlightenment of all people. To quote Karl Marx "Religions is the opuid if the masses." Religion keeps us content with our lives in the hope that when we die that life will then be bliss. That is not what I want. I want sage hood, I want enlightenment. This does not mean I need to sacrifice my morals, it means I need to suffer more than you to reach it. The ride to enlightement is paved with suffering. If you want to pussy out before that and believe in a fucking religion then that is your right. It ain't me babe. But it ain't easy!!!
Please respond to this one question "what is the point of the story. Is it a story that will lead a person to become a little more enlightened? Or is it ment to be taken seruiosly?"
|
|
|
Re: Reality
Richard
Posted: 27/9/2007
|
|
|
Casey C,
Many thanks for taking the time to comment.
Well, yes the story is meant to be taken seriously but (I see no contradiction in this) it is also intended to offer a degree of enlightenment to anybody who has not already thought along similar lines. If it does so, all well and good. If it doesn't then not a lot has been lost - just a small segment of time I suppose.
As I'm sure you have gathered, Alphomism is specifically not a religion, therefore not intended to be an opiate. It;s also not a cult - there's no organisation. It's just a suggestion as to how things might be. And, as you have perhaps also gathered, it doesn't offer an easy answer. The process of evolution is (alas) a painful one. I suppose the main difference between us is that I think that suffering is an unfortunate element whereas you think that it's an essential part of the process of enlightenment. Presumably this means that, like the flagellants and their ilk, you seek to increase pain rather than reduce it.
What isn't clear to me is the argument which supports this 'suffering is good' approach to life. If there is one, then it seems to me that it can only be in the form a dogmatic creed, which suggests that you are much closer to holding an essentally religious position than you apparently think.
Richard.
|
|
|
|
|