I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

[Dennis Mahar]

It's empty and marvellous that it's empty and marvellous

[Dan Rowden]

Thou comprehendest not: Laird has a program that 'collects' posts, like a vacuum cleaner, but it requires an active status.

Really? That's interesting. I'd like to know how that works.

I can assure you that though you read the post 'badly', looking as you are for a decent reason to do what you have desired to do for a long time, it was not misunderstood by Dennis who by the way would only be able to say 'empty & meaningless & empty & meaningless that it's empty & meaningless' or two or three other pat phrases. This is one of the reasons it is so fun to thwack him: he cannot respond! (It's a narcissistic-sadistic thing, you wouldn't understand).

I read it badly? Really? Pffft.

I'll give you whatever time you need to collect your posts when and if you irritate me beyond my capacity to endure. Oh, and by the way, Dennis is 100% correct about how much you play the victim. I've not have any secret or abiding desire to ban you. But if it makes your dick hard to think otherwise, go ahead and indulge yourself.

[Alex Jacob]

No, Dennis is not 100% correct. When I 'play the victim' it is literally that I am playing. I do not at all feel a victim here. But when you-all begin to act in a swarm it is fun to play that role in relation to that.

Yes, Laird actually wrote a program that goes through and collects a person's posts. It works flawlessly. Since I think he developed it at my behest, if he allows you to use it you will have to pay me a royalty of say, 50% of your yearly income: AD$79.32

Fair enough? I could lower it if need be. Sagacity is rarely a bankable skill...

...if you irritate me beyond my capacity to endure.

...and by the way, Dennis is 100% correct about how much you play the victim.

Interesting contrast here...

I've not have any secret or abiding desire to ban you.

Do you know that you have mentioned banning me possibly as many as 6-7 times? Don't think that I am just making this up...

Remember, Dan:

It's empty & marvellous that it's empty & marvelous.

[Dan Rowden]

No, Dennis is not 100% correct. When I 'play the victim' it is literally that I am playing. I do not at all feel a victim here. But when you-all begin to act in a swarm it is fun to play that role in relation to that.

10 out of 10 for hilarity. When you're good, you're really good.

[Alex Jacob]

You got the joke! You got it, Dan! This one is for you.

[Bobo]

I don't get what your attitude is about. That's obviously not true. What does "get past" mean in this context? That they can't communicate meaningfully? If that's what you mean it's silly.

The idea that someone can determine what is true and what is false subjectively.

[Alex Jacob]

...but it confirms a mind-frame that nearly all of the human population already conforms to, i.e. postmodernism, or "no one is ultimately right or wrong," or, "Hi, my name is Alex, and my authoritative, accurate standpoint on reality is that there is no authoritative, accurate standpoint on reality."

To be more accurate, whole swaths of humankind have not yet entered into modernity much less post-modernity.

It is a tempting idea, I suppose, that there is some one & fundamental 'accurate standpoint on reality'. Some standpoint, some understanding, that would flow between all possible worlds, in all times, from the past and into infinite time, for all possible living beings. That is a pretty tall order! And you have arrived at this standpoint? And those others here who imply their 'enlightenment'? That is a pretty bizarre stance!

I would examine the reason I would feel that such a state were possible, and perhaps why it were necessary. What would it mean to you as a man if it were NOT so? If it didn't exist as such?

I don't feel a need to be concerned with the question, myself.

This may or may not have any bearing on the matter.

[Dennis Mahar]

It is a tempting idea, I suppose, that there is some one & fundamental 'accurate standpoint on reality'. Some standpoint, some understanding, that would flow between all possible worlds, in all times, from the past and into infinite time, for all possible living beings. That is a pretty tall order! And you have arrived at this standpoint? And those others here who imply their 'enlightenment'? That is a pretty bizarre stance!

You are too fuckin' stupid to realise this.
You are subtly implying or standing in an absolute.

Your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing.

[Dan Rowden]

I don't get what your attitude is about. That's obviously not true. What does "get past" mean in this context? That they can't communicate meaningfully? If that's what you mean it's silly.

The idea that someone can determine what is true and what is false subjectively.

How did you determine that you can't determine truth or falsity subjectively? Did someone else tell you you can't?

[Dan Rowden]

I don't feel a need to be concerned with the question, myself.

And there it is in a nutshell. You don't care what is true. You don't care to concern yourself with the essential questions of philosophy, yet you presume to question and analyse the intellectual products of those that do. You are insane, pure and simple. You don't even rate the label of "dilletante".

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Alex isn't insane, he just has a lot of free time, I can imagine he enjoys 'trolling' a lot off of the forum too, am I right? Nothing wrong with that, or at least nothing he would care about. We should all atleast admit this forum is more about unwarranted psychological advice/attacking rather than philosophy. Dan you should make some kind of decision about how this continues, being a moderator and all, maybe a little reminder on the page or something similar to push it in a more focused direction.

I always thought working as a collective would have been a good idea, but those kinds of things don't last long and there is nothing anyone wants to work on collectively.

[Dan Rowden]

Alex is absolutely insane in the sense that I observed.

As for "collective" endeavors, what issue would you like to focus on that can be addressed in any sort of collective manner?

[Dennis Mahar]

seeker,
Your breakthru' moment, the profound realisation of emptiness.
why won't you talk about it?

What happened?

what led to it?

an intuitive grasp?

there are reasons for that.

you say reason is not necessary and yet an intuitive grasp is not illogical because that's partly the way it works.

an intuitive grasp is found to be a densely packed information package that requires unpacking to reveal a coherent structure of reasoning.

what is revealed is a trick of consciousness via methodical reasoning.

[Dennis Mahar]

incidentally, there's another misunderstanding Alex persists in dragging out stupidly and falsely due to a lack of comprehension equipment.

the issue of binary thinking he shrieks in accusation.

nonduality is of a triune possibility.

Tao being unity
the opposites such as love/hate, good/bad...experienced as duality.

Humourously, it's cognised as the Great Cosmic Waltz,
the 'ol 3 step,
oom pa pa.

grab your partners here we go.

there's some kind of gesture of agreement in the bible,

I am (God/Unity)
alpha and omega (duality)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

incidentally, there's another misunderstanding Alex persists in dragging out stupidly and falsely due to a lack of comprehension equipment.

It's in my view not an actual "misunderstanding" Dennis or a lack in equipment in the usual sense. He's just not in the same discussion although he might keep giving the appearance. This can be very confusing and "aggravating" at least intellectually, in the form or irritation when someone keeps saying 1+1=3. But if he could, he would surely like to get on a nerve or rub anyone the wrong way or even better drive someone up the wall. It's all very purposefully arranged that way, to get into the role of being misunderstood and resisted. It works very well in this case because there's still a lot of knowledge and (rather hastily plundered) book smarts to mix it up with. But it's all rather unhinged upon examination. It's all designed emotionally to hit a target - and meet his own. All of his writing is a matter of putting feelers out of what kind of people he's dealing with and then he strokes and stings in that context, whatever is serving the need at that time, whatever role play is being needed. This has been the same pattern of "bad endings" spanning multiple forums in past incarnations, as far as "objectivity" goes.

For some this can be a shock when it's ultimately discovered since we are all still operating from an emotional role to a certain degree. And therefore sensitive to this but also not expecting anyone to just not care about inserting reason or consistency, truth and honesty especially on the moments most people would start expecting some. It's with "Alex" a form of disability, including the refusal to admit it's there at all in some fashion. But it probably works very well in contacts with emotional needy and dependable people since they generally do not check ruthlessly enough. All what is left for more cerebral folks is to not submit to irritation or fascination by the type and the products. It's something I had to learn and I think I got it notwithstanding this post. The type is constructing a seemingly correctable or "formidable" challenger but that's just the role, nothing more beyond that, no holy land, just endless deserts!

[Alex Jacob]

The way I see it, Diebert, is a little different. When I look into this space, and when I look into the minds and spirits of many who write here, I see something quite different from what it is that they seem to assume they are. You would imagine that with a philosophy that pins its concerns to the highest and the 'most relevant' of all possible concerns, the souls who gather round that flame so to speak, would respond to something genuinely grand and pour out of themselves high, noble and meaningful things. But that is not the case. Naturally, I have written about this at length and I will only repeat it briefly here: In a general sense the philosophy of GF, because it is one of reductions and limitations, narrowings-down as opposed to openings-up, but this in a negative and not a positive sense, attracts a person who desires to 'perform' such a manoeuvre within themselves. The original tone, as it were, is set by the founders and a successful integrant is one who carries out the same processes, in one way or the other, inside of himself.

Now, I take the stance that my outlook, my activity (in general), my understanding 'of Life', and the quality of my discourse is simply of a higher order, although it is clear that what that higher order is is indeed 'misunderstood'. Not only is it 'misunderstood' it is pushed away. For the point (here) is not expansion of self or as I say 'outpouring of self', which would require a fullness state, and access to a Spring of both water and nourishment, but the 'poisoning of self' and all the different variations on that theme, linguistically suggested. One understands the special meaning of this peculiar Solwayian 'poisoning' but, as I have said, it is not at all the right course of action. When I have come face to face with the willful and obstinately misinformed or perhaps 'errant', but especially of this non-egoic 'Buddhistic' sort who are engaged in a false disappearing act (since it is not possible to disappear in that sense nor desirable), that there are only a few ways to get around the Edifice (of 'reasoning' and 'will') that is thrown up and is the beginning of the construction of their Walled Fortress

In brief, there are a host of different techniques used to attempt to get around, to get behind, and yes, quite definitely, reach a core of sentiment. Not 'emotion' but sentiment. That is to say that 'sentiment' that is not quite dead yet from 'poisoning'.

But if he could, he would surely like to get on a nerve or rub anyone the wrong way or even better drive someone up the wall. It's all very purposefully arranged that way, to get into the role of being misunderstood and resisted.

Well, this is one particular spin and of course the one that Diebert has been operating, with some success, for some time. But to make contact with someone who is 'willing death' or is beginning a process of deadening themselves, yes, I suppose you could spin it that way. Depending if you were For or Against the process. But I prefer to see it not as a harmful activity or mean-spirited, but ultimately one that arises out of a superior outlook, a superior understanding. I know, I know, putting it in that way, here, is sure to get some guffaws and I accept them. But I ask you to consider the presumption encapsulated within the assumptions of the Founders themselves. They say as much.

But I questioned all their tenets, I tested them, I investigated them, I interrogated them, and I found them---nearly every one of them---lacking and defective. Therefor, I have a stronger position, and I know it. And I have written extensively, though not necessarily exactly on the theme of strict 'superiority' (of doctrine or understanding), in much of my writing. But I certainly do believe it. Those who get it, get it.

I guess in some way you might say I desire to 'get on a nerve' insofar as I desire to reach persons, capable of acting, speaking, relating as persons and not as Buddhistic or 'enlightenment' robots. Ha! I just lost 95% of my audience! Because despite what you think this is what you are engaged in, taken on the whole. (Sorry, one is forced to write in a general, shotgun-like way). So, many many different tactics have been employed.

My belief? It's odd so hang on to your seats. Much of what I have 'said' has not occurred in the only way 'you' suppose it could occur to have meaning. I.e. as a strict reasoned unit of information received by a racionating automaton of truth, the notes you are accustomed to allow in, to 'hear'. But 3 years from now, 5 years, even longer, you may may be surprised. Remember: 'the stone that the builders rejected'. There is some very important things that are being rejected (and I do not mean this in some sort of Christian religious sense) in the whole platform of knowledge and investigation of knowing, here, that will all have to be recovered at a later date. That is a strong statement, but I am making it.

I personally believe that Diebert's great skill, and one he perfects in himself, for his own reasons, is to aid in the construction a wall against---what? What shall it be called? At the very core it is 'the human self', but not in a weepy, emotional sense as y'all love to paint it. It is the human self where 'sentiment' resides, but the sentiment that can become wise. It is really the very core of the possibility of being a person. It is (IMV) the divine gift. It is something to be protected and valued. Enlightenment, wisdom, the wise, the sage: all these terms 'you' use and you don't really understand! But that is what the ego-charged will does. It assumes it knows. It knocks down anyone who suggests it doesn't!

Wisdom is infinitely more subtle, IMHO.

That said, I wish to say that I will now abandon the Forum for a good while. What additional progress could be made right now? You will observe that the forum will descend, rather rapidly, back to inanity pretty quickly. You didn't appreciate me when I was here! ;-)

But be careful mentioning my name too frequently! It tends to pull me back down from those Heights at which I reside. And then suddenly---Poof!---A Talking Ass is among you, beating you mercilessly with his Love.
___________________________________________________

But for my 'final', never-final, ever-ending, never-ending, never begun but never finished Act, I wish to talk a little about that interesting I-Ching line included below:

There is no skin on his thighs,
And walking comes hard.
If a man were to let himself be led like a sheep,
Remorse would disappear.
But if these words are heard
They will not be believed.

Here a man is suffering from inner restlessness and cannot abide in his place. He would like to push forward under any circumstances, but encounters insuperable obstacles. Thus his situation entails an inner conflict. This is due to the obstinacy with which he seeks to enforce his will. If he would desist from this obstinacy, everything would go well. But this advice, like so much other good counsel, will be ignored. For obstinacy makes a man unable to hear, for all that he has ears.

'No skin on its things' and 'walking comes hard' means a state of exhaustion, starvation even. Many of the TBs are starved persons who suffer at this place of 'sentiment'. A piece is missing. It is the piece that without it life can almost not be lived. We are often rather exhausted 'first-worlders' whose sentimental worlds are like deserts. We starve and we thirst and we don't know how to deal with that. It is a source of great pain.

'If a man were to allow himself to be led like a sheep'. In a state of exhaustion, sentimental infliction, incapacity to get to 'living waters' that actually nourish, one could make progress if he became pliant, 'cooperative' is perhaps the word. But one observes a unique quality (here): an astounding headstongness. The trait is found in all three of the Founders and very strongly. The last thing they would ever be able to do is to 'allow themselves to be led'. Rather, they will direct, correct, chasten and instruct all other living beings, in this world and the world to come. This is the core, in my view. The place from which the error arises.

'But if these words are heard they will not be believed'. Alex, who is 'deluded, unenlightened, a trouble-maker, has too much time on his hands, a fool, a 'post-modern', an 'aesthete' (though I haven't heard that one for a long time), and of course neurotic Jew' (when convenient), and any number of different Illustrious Titles within which I have lived and played for your dee-lite, is no one to be listened to! Ipso facto, he is the very Voice of Delusion. It was not too far into this when David laid down a group of labels when the things I wrote about got a little too close to home (that is my interpretation of course).

We actually construct our own prisons. And we also take them down. It is a hard truth to face. The construction projects we get involved in usually become projects of 3, 5, 7 and 10 (year) cycles. And we are very free to do it. It is one of the reasons why 'this place' exists for us, so that we can do it. I know that such an ominous declaration from the likes of me cannot be received, but of course that has been part of my shtick. To the degree that 'you' cannot hear is the degree that I have, in fact, a good deal of power to influence you! But it occurs on levels that you are not aware of. I don't mean 'mystically' or 'spiritually' but enclosed within language: tangible language that gets past those pesky defenses.

[Dennis Mahar]

drama queen.
you've found a home and you are among friends.
quit sooking.

a misunderstanding of 'self is empty' you have is that you think it means something like 'the milk has been poured out of the bottle and the bottle is empty (reduced).
you think it has something to do with a quantity.
'self is empty' does not mean that.
'self is empty' refers to a quality.
its quality is 'empty' of inherent existence, that it doesn't exist from its own side.

one of a series of misunderstandings on your part that render your speeches as a felt experience of being entirely wide of the mark.
comic and tragic.

Is it not the case that, for the most part, disagreements between people reside in a series of misunderstandings.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

When I look into this space, and when I look into the minds and spirits of many who write here, I see something quite different from what it is that they seem to assume they are. ... there are a host of different techniques used to attempt to get around, to get behind, and yes, quite definitely, reach a core of sentiment.

But that is literally the distorted pathological outlook - if not some kind of definition of trolling. You don't see it, of course, they never do. You're obsessed for too long now with trying to look into people's heads and "getting around" things. It's futile and severely misguided in your case as you are mostly seeing your own problems staring back as can be seen in your repetitive and obsessive descriptions of what you think the "forum" is and how the members all "operate". But your type and subsequent behaviors: a fundamental incoherency as well as certain communicative patterns are all well enough known and even labeled to a degree. All one can do is expose and carefully start moving away. In my view the only sane option is to do what those other forums did after engaging with you, sometimes even friending you: ban you and say "what the fuck was that and why did we ever bother?".

[Pam Seeback]

The ignore button is within.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And yet even you have something to say now, Pam, not being able to ignore it? :-)

It's true about the option to ignore if it's with a a sincere lack of interest. And yet at times there are things which just need to play out by their own inner momentum. And it's not just about consuming and having a remote control to switch the entertainment off. It just doesn't work that way. As for the banning, that's not meant as favor for myself.

There are several other aspects to this which I'll have to ignore, like I ignored so much already with great desinterest. But the case is that I think I have written some of my best philosophical posts (along with my worst) in the exchanges with Alex since he formed such a great platform to affirm the heights of philosophy and existence in the face of all unconvincing schlock he managed to produce in spades. Is it darkness then that can best produce light? Perhaps it served just as fuel to burn a little brighter.

[Russell Parr]

that there are only a few ways to get around the Edifice (of 'reasoning' and 'will') that is thrown up and is the beginning of the construction of their Walled Fortress

Well look what we have here.. he admits that 'reasoning' is part of the Edifice, the object of his opposition. The word fits quite well, doesn't it?

At the very core it is 'the human self', but not in a weepy, emotional sense as y'all love to paint it. It is the human self where 'sentiment' resides, but the sentiment that can become wise.

And here he admits it is emotionalism he wishes to protect (not without an attempt to change the way it is spoken about here, of course). The very definition of 'sentiment' employs a contrast between emotion and reason.

Yet Alex would have you believe that reason is somehow unreasonable.

That said, I wish to say that I will now abandon the Forum for a good while. What additional progress could be made right now? You will observe that the forum will descend, rather rapidly, back to inanity pretty quickly. You didn't appreciate me when I was here! ;-)

Only now does he feel as if he's said everything he can. I wonder why?

Let's keep it simple. The abbreviated version of Alex's entire presence here is:

• 1)Esoterically proclaim that in order to become truly wise, one must value emotionalism beyond reason.

• 2)Exploit and deploy a massive array of emotional triggers with the intent of contriving a negative emotional reaction to the comparatively emotionless act of reasoning about all aspects of reality.

• 3)Loudly proclaim that his method is a reasonable one, in attempt to blend the contrast between emotionalism and reason into obscurity.

• 4)Cry victim and at times run away when the issue gets too real, and he is confronted to the point of admitting, in unusually clearer terms, that his goal was 1) the entire time. He flees because it is only at this stage can he begin to sense the massive contradictions he has been working with.. how utterly terrifying this must be, after all these years...

The only way he can comfortably maintain his presence here is by avoiding this last step as much as possible. But I have no doubt he'll be back.. he slipped out through the back door just in the nick of time, his ego virtually unscathed!

[Dennis Mahar]

Diebert,

There are several other aspects to this which I'll have to ignore, like I ignored so much already with great desinterest. But the case is that I think I have written some of my best philosophical posts (along with my worst) in the exchanges with Alex since he formed such a great platform to affirm the heights of philosophy and existence in the face of all unconvincing schlock he managed to produce in spades. Is it darkness then that can best produce light? Perhaps it served just as fuel to burn a little brighter.

To get at the truth is in fact coping with paradox and confusion, particularly in relation to boundary.

Advances in philosophy often 'break out' in fiery encounters where ordinary, everyday boundaries are pushed to the limits.
A pressure cooker situation.

In the ordinary, everyday world there are boundaries to be respected.
Drive on the correct side of the road, stop at green traffic lights, pay taxes, form a queue at the shops, greet politely.

Is it not a paradox,
when Philosophy delivers a major distinction,
that ultimately there are 'no boundaries' (nonduality).

there are boundaries and there are no boundaries.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

seeker,
Your breakthru' moment, the profound realisation of emptiness.
why won't you talk about it?

What happened?

what led to it?

an intuitive grasp?

there are reasons for that.

you say reason is not necessary and yet an intuitive grasp is not illogical because that's partly the way it works.

an intuitive grasp is found to be a densely packed information package that requires unpacking to reveal a coherent structure of reasoning.

what is revealed is a trick of consciousness via methodical reasoning.

Intuitive grasp or realization can be looked at as something one discovers and then as you say, needs to put into place, unpack, find out its implications in relation to everything else and so on.

But you also know that you don't need to do that. In this particular case, the intuitive grasp is that all the other intuitive grasps we were having previously were utter bullshit. In other words, there is a final level, a lot of people actually reach that final level and then go backward when they try to rationalize out what they grasped, or to try and find more, they usually fail miserably and only need to realize that it's the end, this empty end for the minds endeavor to find out, to discover, to know the best, but there is nothing left, you yourself said it is up to you what path is taken from there on out, what is chosen and what is left behind, I gladly leave behind whatever previously drove me on an endeavor which I now see as obsolete.

I see you think that I have previously avoided those questions before, I would reply by saying I answer questions a lot more than you do...

[Dennis Mahar]

The way I look at it.

You and me and the possibility of something extraordinary. (conscious contact).

You and me and machinery. (no possibility of conscious contact)

You and me and the end of everything.

For instance, a guy like Neitzsche,
caught in machinery,
wracked with illness,
living in a house with a mother and sister, by all accounts, subjecting him to a merciless regime of henpecking.

Fled to cafes, with pen and pad,
writing furiously,
his magnum opus,
his something extraordinary,
his breakthru',
his possibility for conscious contact.

The great thinkers make that big move.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I would rather be a nobody, I'm aware of my capability to gain, but I know I actually wouldn't be gaining anything. I think the most realistic discovery I ever made was recognizing that me and Nietzsche and you and Bill Gates have something in common. We all sleep, wake up, and then spend most of our time sitting in chairs or looking around.

Should I be chasing some imaginary thing so that my scenery is different? Or so I have a more comfy chair? My view on life is eternal paradise, I know that word paradise comes with connotations, but I enjoy existence and when you 'stop caring' or "does not act like it is real" then everything works out on its own... so that you may continue sleeping, waking up, walking and sitting in a chair. That isn't to say that I would never write down my thoughts or ideas, maybe some day when they are more attuned.