Beware philosophical happiness: If the ultimate cognitive sensation depended upon an error, and for this experience, a fortunate misunderstanding became more useful than the disciplined alignment of mind to reality, how would such an ultimate sensation ever be understood? Not being understood, how could it be ultimate? If the ultimate degree of clarity could not house that ultimate sensation, but (for argument’s sake) accurately acknowledged the experience of clarity as the ultimate understanding, would such clarity redeem any disappointment with the sensation by merely being able to look down on more intense sensations of deluded superiority? Probably not. The belief and delight one has in “looking down on others” is the error and the temptation. The ultimate clarity requires this vigilant self-suspicion, lest we slip over authenticity for increased intensity.
the obstacle, aphorism 367, A Human Strategy by Matt Berry
367 A: Is it more pleasant without the obstacle? B: Yes, but before I discovered that it was an obstacle, I was content. There was no inconvenience, and therefore, there was no obstacle. A: But if it is “better” without the obstacle, wouldn’t it be wise to look for other comfortable, and therefore invisible obstacles everywhere? A Human Strategy ** The Mechanics of Virtue ** Post-Atheism