View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-04-2008, 06:50 PM
HighGrowMan is offline  
HighGrowMan has been around the CityHighGrowMan has been around the CityHighGrowMan has been around the CityHighGrowMan has been around the CityHighGrowMan has been around the CityHighGrowMan has been around the CityHighGrowMan has been around the CityHighGrowMan has been around the CityHighGrowMan has been around the CityHighGrowMan has been around the CityHighGrowMan has been around the City
HighGrowMan
Registered User
HighGrowMan's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The Golden City
Posts: 1,187
Quote:
As long as Wang maintains a distinction between the mind in itself and the human mind, what is really at issue is not whether to posit a normative ideal, but how to conceptualize a normative ideal. Most important to his conceptualization, Wang does not conceive the normative ideal independently of the functioning of the mind. That is, there is no ontological difference between the normative ideal and the actual, for both the mind in itself and the human mind represent certain states of our consciousness. The only difference between the mind in itself and the human mind is whether or not the mind is clouded by selfish desire.

The distinction of selfishness being the obstacle between ourselves and our mind within itself is a good analogy.

This is why Imperialism is incompatible with spirituality.

Selfishness brings people down from the level of Gods to the level of slaves. This happens because their true self is Oculted by their selfishness; just like the Sun can Occult anything that is behind it.

Edit: If you study this philosophy a bit further you will see why there was controversy that caused a 'science and nature' forum to be setup.

Spirituality and Philosophy teaches you how to be at one with nature, so that you can truly know it. But if you just arbitrarily study science and nature, you will never be able to understand it.

Last edited by HighGrowMan; 08-04-2008 at 06:53 PM.
  Reply With Quote