GENIUS FORUMS

Pye,

I didn't foresee that you might have perceived my comments as diminishing the strength and motivation of your contributions; if the pursuit of reason is well served by good manners, then all the better (for all of us).

And I would be interested in your comments on the problems of what you refer to as "metaphysical essentialism".

Dennis Mahar wrote:you get a patronising pat on the head for being a 'good little girl'..

Actually, the way I intended it was more along the lines of, "It's so impressive to me that Pye accomplishes so readily the perfectly good manners that I would like to possess myself. Kudos to her for doing that, she sets an example I can try to emulate".

Pye already knows that I respect her intellect, and my comments were not intended to detract from that.

Laird: When people like Alex not only fail to respect the forum and its "teachers" in that way, but actually criticise it/them harshly, Dennis reacts from the same "protective streak"...

Alex: And this is how 'aversions' and 'preferences' arise. Technically, my hitting those reactions point could be seen as a sort of 'healing activity'. Alex as psychic acupuncturist!

Right, that's interesting. From that perspective, your behaviour is totally consistent with Dennis's program, and you're "flattening" his "reactive buttons" as much as he's flattening yours. What a great healing partnership.

Alex Jacob wrote:You represent and to some extent describe a Medieval God or the memory of it. The basic ordering of your world, the world you 'see', is a reflection of that Medieval world that is our common heritage (that of Europe). Your vision of the Ideal Society underpins your writing, generally, and the forces you describe operating 'as against' both man and society are similar if not the same as those oppositional forces that held Medieval Europe in check: essentially demonic.

But that Medieval structure, the first and only creation of European and Mediterranean culture that envisioned a Whole and created a unified system of philosophy, religion, government and economics, was completely shattered and broken asunder.

I'm not too comfortable with the term "medieval" in its implication of regression - of that which has been superseded - and of ignorance and brutality (e.g. the Inquisition), but I think there's some truth in what you say here. It's hard for me to evaluate exactly how much though because I'm not well enough read with respect to our cultural history to comment intelligently on (1) what exactly that Medieval structure was, (2) how and why it was shattered, and (3) the extent to which I would defend it against the shattering.

I defend my actual perspective (medieval or not) simply out of experience and intuition. I experience "the demonic" personally. There's nothing that anyone can say that would cause me to deny that. I have also (it seems to me) been assisted on separate occasions when I have asked directly and sincerely for divine assistance - these experiences are less clear-cut than the negative experiences, but I find them hard to deny too: the assistance certainly arrived, and immediately, although a hardened sceptic like Diebert might question its true source. I intuit on top of all of this that there are, indeed, godly ways of living and, in contrast, profane ways of living, and that the challenge for both individuals and humanity (and all living beings) as a whole is to live a godly life.

Take these two facts - the fact of the demonic, and the fact of divine assistance - and the intuition of the need to live a godly life, and I challenge you to come up with a perspective on the world that isn't much like mine. :-)

The problem is, as you suggest, how to reconcile this perspective with "modernity", which, it might seem at first glance, has indeed "superseded" it. Unless one had had experiences like mine, one might be led to believe that such things were mere "superstition"; that science has made them redundant... and I don't think that this is an accident by any means. There are forces invested in hiding this knowledge from us, in leading us away from godly living and into profanity.

So, when you talk about us having "fallen away from a Guiding Structure into ... a form of chaotic life", about us being "herded along, or propelled along, by extraneous force", and about us being "'one and all, muddled and divided men', who have lost our unity with a Whole that we conceive and believe in", I suggest that this reflects what success the demonic has had in sowing confusion amongst us, in leading us away from godliness (possibly - pure speculation - because of inadequacies in "the Medieval structure", which "cracked asunder", wherein the baby was swept out with the bathwater). Thankfully, there are counter-balancing forces in the world too. I think we're in a tumultuous time spiritually.

In my darker moments, I too succumb to the "vestigial anticipation" you mention of a 'demonic future', and I see this as potentially being facilitated by technology, in particular by artificial intelligence. Various movies have played on this possibility, which, I think, given the forces involved, is a real one. On the other hand, I think that the more energy we devote to denying this possibility, the less likely it is to happen, so I don't particularly want to dwell on it unless it's to consider ways of avoiding it.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's very simple then Laird, especially with John of the Cross as reference. Put all your valuables, trust and effort in one relationship, the fundamental one and all other relationships will be explained to you and given to you. There's no other way around it. As St. John and the Gospels and whatever relevant tradition you want to bring to the table would agree on: there's no way to serve two masters, to start a devotional "sacred" marriage and still sleep and party around just because you "need" various relations to blow off your steam.

Yes, and this is more and more the point I'm getting to.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But the whole "message", if there is any, is that this stubborn half-hearted image of "us" is actually the only real opposition involved. The utter unavoidable reality of this causes projection of evils everywhere to vanquish, to cast out, to drown out, whatever. The problem is always ourselves: the first step to take, the first rabbit hole.

I can accept self-denial in the sense of humility and deference to a higher power, but not in the sense of denial of my own existence. How does that gel with what you mean?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Laird, if someone asks you a question in person, do you give them a 45 minute answer? No, you reply authentically, cut it down for me, how do you feel??

Well, John, right now I "feel" like discussing the subject matter of this thread, and not my (other) feelings. Is that cut-down and authentic enough for you? It's awfully dry and boring, I know.

Dennis Mahar wrote:See what I mean?

reacted.

Though, if no one were to "react" to anything anyone else said, none of us would post anything and we'd have a dead forum. Or do you distinguish "non-reactive" posts from "reactive" posts? If so, how?

Wow, do any of you guys know anything about anything? Not an insult - just curious. I'm wondering if I know anything about anything myself, having waded into what appears to be a rather nasty ego contest. It's been interesting to read, though. Alex's command of thge English language is as impressive as ever, but Dennnis cuts to the quick with some of his terse replies. Quite a show.

Oh dear, and I haven't read Laird's posts yet. I suspect Laird now hates me, although that is a personal matter of no real relevance. Back to the thread.

Though, if no one were to "react" to anything anyone else said, none of us would post anything and we'd have a dead forum. Or do you distinguish "non-reactive" posts from "reactive" posts? If so, how?

Can you listen to someone for a change without the mesh of your self-orientation.

To qoute Neitzsche from Gay Science.
Words flow from prejudice.



That means based in aversion or preferences.
Alex clearly 'hates' eastern thought (childhood abandonment issues/ complaint concerning parents).
causes/conditions.

He never misses a chance to blackguard a poster of such and tries to control the narrative.

Can you agree with that?
without being terrified of betraying an alliance.

Kunga's new avatar looks to me like a galaxy in the shape of an eye. I'd make the associations "starry-eyed" or "eye in the sky". I wouldn't make the association Dennis has made. Kunga has never exploited her sexuality in that way on this forum, and I don't expect her to start to.

Perhaps not on this forum...

Although in truth, I think Kunga is basically a good person. She has made efforts to help both my wife and myself, although none of us speak any longer, which strikes me as unfortunate. It's really mind-boggling how many people are no longer willing to speak to me. Part of me think it's because they can't handle my level of confrontational discussion, but part of me also suspects it's just because I'm a huge prick.

Maybe it's a bit of both.

I would be interested in re-establishing contact with several people here, but I think most are already aware of it and have chosen to decline. One person in particular who I would like to speak to regularly again is Dan, but I don't know how he feels about that.

I have a much worse "rap" than what I am actually guilty of. Don't believe everything you hear, folks - especially from questionable sources. And also, try not to be offended by the occassional candid rant. I would like to think we are all adults here.

By the way, for those who might be curious, Elizabeth is doing very well and we have a wonderfful relationship which is getting better by the day.

Unidian wrote:... part of me also suspects it's just because I'm a huge prick.

Funny! You certainly can be funny but if you want truth time, you seem quite boring, your writings each year becoming duller and more mediocre in what you put out there on-line at least. The world is full with great, relaxed guys with funny vibes. If I open a drawer here, a dozen fall out!

Diebert, perhaps you're right. I don't dispute it. I haven't written anything particularly substantial in years.

I do feel about ripe to pen another big one, though. I really do think something worthwhile is coming soon.

Thanks for your feedback.

guest_of_logic wrote:I can accept self-denial in the sense of humility and deference to a higher power, but not in the sense of denial of my own existence. How does that gel with what you mean?

It's not about denial of existence or whatever it is that you call "your life". But there tends to be way too much of ourselves in deferences to higher powers and attempts at humility. Then it ends up being all about our selves again and kind of defying the claimed purpose of the exercise. Unless one wants to argue for some "healthy" kind of worship of self but at least then know it's ourselves we're serving. Perhaps a way to look at this is the biblical notion of house cleaning after an "unclean spirit" left. It will return with seven others if it finds it back cleaned and tidy. The man is now worse off indeed (based a parable in Matthew 12). This is the typical problem with selflessness or liberation in my view. What was missing then?

Unidian wrote:Diebert, perhaps you're right. I don't dispute it. I haven't written anything particularly substantial in years.

I do feel about ripe to pen another big one, though. I really do think something worthwhile is coming soon.

Thanks for your feedback.

Great to hear! It shouldn't be difficult for someone like you to get many new interesting contacts when you're engaged somewhere with something (it just happens then). Just don't get stuck with grumpy Dan :-)

Dan's okay. One just has to learn how to take his comments. He has a wry sense of humor and can be very candid.

I remember once he called my house and started cussing out my ex-girlfriend, which was in fact a heroic act for which he should be awarded a sizable gold medal. Of course, at the time, I had to act the part and threaten to hang up on him for her benefit, but really I loved it.

My ex was a horror story of considerable proportions - and a damn good liar. People really don't know. Seriously.

But who cares. She's history, and I am now married to your very own Elizabeth Isabelle, who is wonderful and a breath of fresh air.

But again, I'm going off on a tangent and sharing personal anecdotes about which no one has any reason to care.

Unidian wrote:Dan's okay. One just has to learn how to take his comments. He has a wry sense of humor and can be very candid.

Of course, I was kidding. Mostly. What I really meant is that while he's patient and kind with the trolls, he seems often impatient and hurried when he writes philosophically. Which is a shame since I think he's perhaps the best writer here. Perhaps it's all circumstantial though.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Unidian wrote:Dan's okay. One just has to learn how to take his comments. He has a wry sense of humor and can be very candid.

Of course, I was kidding. Mostly. What I really meant is that while he's patient and kind with the trolls, he seems often impatient and hurried when he writes philosophically. Which is a shame since I think he's perhaps the best writer here. Perhaps it's all circumstantial though.

I concur though you and he are very close. You have an edge in writing (and I assume speaking fluently) in several languages.

Ha! I haven't begun to master the English language though I speak it well enough to give formal speeches on a regular basis. (insert dork avatar)

One of the wonderful things that will come out of Dennis's declared discipleship and his decision to place himself under the wing of my benevolent tutorship, is that he will be bashed, continually, into real healing, a profound healing such as man has never known. When I get finished with him he is going to be so deeply healed he won't any longer react to anything. (Although I hope he'll still recognize when it is time to go to the toilet). I will be smashing down his 'buttons' and leveling them out sort of like a pillbox on an eight-lane freeway. It is a service I offer though normally I do charge for it. But graciously I am offering it free! And do I get thanks for it? Noooooooooo.
____________________________

Laird wrote:I'm not too comfortable with the term "medieval" in its implication of regression - of that which has been superseded - and of ignorance and brutality (e.g. the Inquisition), but I think there's some truth in what you say here. It's hard for me to evaluate exactly how much though because I'm not well enough read with respect to our cultural history to comment intelligently on (1) what exactly that Medieval structure was, (2) how and why it was shattered, and (3) the extent to which I would defend it against the shattering.

My assertion is that Mediterranean culture matured into a combined political, social and theocratic establishment: the Medieval period, that represented the first and only 'unified' attainment of European culture. God was above, the Church mediated God, man below dedicated to his labors, his tithing, and there was a clear sense of Evil and Good, and a general belief-understanding of where 'sin' led. The world that was seen---but only we can see this now---was an 'imagined' world: and this is a key idea because this is what we do: we intuit or divine the Nature of the Whole and then we 'see' it within an imagined space. The world of fact for Shakespeare was a picturesque projection for us. Dante is in this sense a summarist of this (Medieval) outlook. It certainly had all manner of 'dark underbelly' but it also led to a cultural productivity and 'attainment' that in many different ways defines the West. But beyond that it is part of the evolution of what we call 'our self' or 'our selves'. (And every 'grand culture' pulls off a similar opus: the great visualization of the Vedas, etc., etc.)

One of the notions that I appreciated within the GF structure of thought is that of 'causation'. It is a wise idea to begin to analyze 'what has formed me'. Why do I think-see-act like I do? Self-consciousness, I think, does not merely come to us like the descent of an angel, but we have to work at it. And if we don't want to do some work we cannot really attain self-consciousness. So, when I refer to Medieval God or Medieval world-view I mean that you 'recur' to a pattern of idea or a way to organize your view of reality that stems from that specific unified vision. What you do not seem aware of, and what you also do not seem willing to investigate, is the nature of that 'system of ordering perception', but more specifically what happened to it. It was shattered. Within the very structure of that Medieval system Galileo, Newton, Descatres, Pascal, Leibnitz, Kepler (all traditionally devout men) set the stage for the very destruction of the System. And the flow through Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Spinoza, Leibnitz, and Kant, (and the most unsung hero Jacobus Loquentes Asinus), constructed within the debris of an exploded system of view, leads us into the present we now live in which we do not understand and cannot 'grasp'.

• "God is dead ... and we killed him."

And we, the atomized individual, disconnected now from any sense of a Whole World, but containing and expressing all that released energy, and without knowing how or why or where it tends, that individual simply 'does': and this we seem to recognize is our 'absurd present'. (And this does also explain why the Talking Ass took up tap dancing in case some were curious).

Regression and progression are interesting terms, as is the notion of masochism, sado-masochism, sadism, torture. In a very real sense we have constructed a 'machine system' that feeds on our very selves. Our own unchained or unbridled will is reflected in the 'machines' that we create. We are now enacting and performing as 'existential theatre' some rehearsal of the post-Medieval imago or memory. I don't know. There is a great deal that can be said about all that.

Laird wrote:I defend my actual perspective (medieval or not) simply out of experience and intuition.

As do we all. We cannot do any other thing! But something does seem to shift when 'consciousness' is applied to an examination of the conceptual system that is, if you will, 'expressed' through what you call 'intuition'. But it is also true, if you accept Depth Psychology as a sufficient analytical tool for self-examination, that no matter how advanced the 'head' becomes, there are always other elements within us: the vestigial, the remnants, the traces, and with the Medieval the memory of an 'old wholeness'.

What you do not seem interested in investigating is the notion of 'psychic projection'. This is tied of course to what humans essentially do: we conceive of a world and we 'imagine' it. Naturally, in our imagined projection, 'the world' responds to us cogently but within the system of view that we are 'holding'. This is of course where the notion of the possibility of seeing Reality with no modifying conceptual overlay ... has relevancy. Or, it is possible in a 'super-ego' sort of sense to sit and watch but not necessarily to 'engage' or 'participate'. I do think this is where our local chihuahua-handler attempts to go with his Buddhistic poems. But I think the issue or the possibility within 'all this' (failed and tumbled down systems of organizing perception; fatigue; inability to 'resurrect' another Vision; vain attempts to do so; failures, confusion, self-threatening schisms, etc.) is not to dismiss or to wipe away all the attainments of the past, even insofar as it was 'hallucinated' or 'imagined' as I say, but to hold all the symbols self-consciously and extract from them their meaning. That is a very different Work than just 'destroying' the past or breaking links to, essentially, what we are, where we have come from.

So, when you talk about us having "fallen away from a Guiding Structure into ... a form of chaotic life", about us being "herded along, or propelled along, by extraneous force", and about us being "'one and all, muddled and divided men', who have lost our unity with a Whole that we conceive and believe in", I suggest that this reflects what success the demonic has had in sowing confusion amongst us, in leading us away from godliness (possibly - pure speculation - because of inadequacies in "the Medieval structure", which "cracked asunder", wherein the baby was swept out with the bathwater). Thankfully, there are counter-balancing forces in the world too. I think we're in a tumultuous time spiritually.

Sure, but that is an argument from within the Medieval system. Most true-believer Christians hold to such a view or to some facsimile of it. And the View also functions in many many people without their being really aware of what is functioning, and how.

But then where will you locate the demons? In Copernicus? Galileo? Spinoza? Kant? Darwin? And the meaning? We have basically destroyed the very platform in which the View-System had internal logic. It has been exploded. And we exist within vestiges. This is indeed the post-Modern era. I don't care what anyone says: everyone here is within that problem and is 'suffering' under the burden of it, in one way or another. But, as undisciplined and shot-out will-machines, we each carry out our unique, absurd, heartfelt little performance. We are ALL performers in this sense, and not just the Talking Ass. (Talking Ass just likes to wear a tutu while he performs, that's all).

In my darker moments, I too succumb to the "vestigial anticipation" you mention of a 'demonic future', and I see this as potentially being facilitated by technology, in particular by artificial intelligence.

Well, as you may imagine, I do not divide the world into Demonic and a Divine camp*. I am forced to agree with Diebert that we are exactly 'the first rabbit hole'. The world we are creating is an extension of ourselves just as the machines that we create and will create are extensions of our Will, perverse or otherwise. And will in the sense I have used it earlier: a will divorced from intellect (as it is classically defined). We create a world where we are the physical fuel for the Machine. It is a trippy meditation.

But what is presaged, I think, is the possible formation of a completely new and Total System of radically new and transformative Knowledge. Perhaps this will be another creation similar to the Medieval one? The outcome of a vast Opus? But based in a real science and not a pseudo-science. Based in a level of mastery unattainable at any other point. What that means for the inner man, who knows? But anyway, for now, we are fractured persons who do not have a clue how to organize ourselves in any world, old or new.
_____________________________________

*This is where I recommend that you get hold of Talking Ass's tract No. 3,571: 'Hermes and the Formation of the Invisible Internal Guiding Eye'.

Pye already knows that I respect her intellect, and my comments were not intended to detract from that.

Be that as it may: click here.

...and after years of wrangling with the great thoughts of great thinkers.
and gutsing out a career teaching 'wannabe's' the most difficult of thinking ; with a commitment, a constitutional care and patience, in a University...

but, Dennis . . . these things aren't needed here, either. All that's needed here is what I've thought and what I've written. the whats here.

If anything would get patted, it would be that.

better, no pat[ronizing] at all . . . just that whats . . . see? :)

Pye,

You wrote:

I've spent the majority of my adult life learning and teaching difficult, unsavoury, challenging 'philosophical' thoughts to move thinking, for like it or not, thinking is movement/dialectic; thought is a verb. Perhaps beneath the 'niceness,' more is afoot; and perhaps the ways in which this works is just as confrontational as any effective dialectic. I run the risk here of an accusation of some 'womanly witchery' by discussing a way to appeal to thinking, but here, too, would be another misunderstanding that that way is louder than the what's being said. And to ignore the possibilities of way is to ignore something that gets played out here over and over again: one can see fundamental and/or nuanced shared ground (the only place dialectic can actually happen) ignored, because the pinch of personalized rhetoric stings harder than what's being said; blood-filled eyes cannot focus very well. It gets in the way.

My demeanor here is just as calculating and deliberate as anyone's in the name of dialectic (thinking). I've chosen it, developed it, after long, long practice in the field of this appeal. And, paradoxically, I utilize this way to better-clear the way to the what.

I wrote:

...and after years of wrangling with the great thoughts of great thinkers.
and gutsing out a career teaching 'wannabe's' the most difficult of thinking ; with a commitment, a constitutional care and patience, in a University...

emphasising the what's here.

reacting to the 'good little girl' chauvinistic shit.

Reduced to the most simple: stop kissing ass.

Anyway Pye,
To be spiritual,
To hear the call of Spirit,
For Spirit to enter and infuse one's Being.

Is the act of 'Courageous Thinking'.
To stand alone, apart from herd.

It's a major distinction in Philosophy. East and West.
Authentic/inauthentic.

words flow from prejudice,
aversions/preferences.
'buttons' installed in the past, brought into the present, creating the future.
human machinery.
Wounded, gutless humans seeking solace in each other.
Terrified to experience 'aloneness'.
Afraid to stand on two legs.

In a spiritual environment these 'buttons' are hammered mercilessly.

You could write it up better I s'pose.

Reduced to the most simple: stop kissing ass.

There's a difference between seeking solace in each other out of woundedness,
and,
encouraging and inspiring each other in a most difficult process of individuation.

And kissing ass has nothing to do with either.

Actually the former is exactly a species of kissing ass or wanting to be ass kissed.

I got that indeed, what you were responding to, Dennis, ta. It was just another opportunity exploited, as with Laird.

I'm thinking it's not a kissing-ass thing, per se. It's more like a wide streak of iconoclasm in me. Any tendency to respect for respect's sake, or to hold up for the holding up of another . . . . well, let me think how to put this. You've (Dennis) written in the past in reaction to others who you perceived as being 'disrespectful' - to David, to "great thinkers" and the like - that perhaps the respect ought to be there, any 'nobility' recognized for the sake of its own sake. You talked once about of 'falling in love' with these 'great' thinkers, which I brushed forward for the same reasons as now.

You aren't doing this, but it's of the same spectrum of ilk, to my thinking, as people who are fond of guru-searching, looking for something to give iconic status to for whatever pleasure in worship or love they get in return. Anytime there's a hand's-off-something sentiment afoot - something too serious or too precious or too noble in the exercise of its protection . . . anytime the hull of the thing that's there is held higher than the what-of-it . . . anytime something is protected by category (e.g. women, just for being women and other uxorious practices), and for that reason alone . . . well, I have a strange streaking antibody in me for it. This happens to me as well when it's thought I should be respected - or extra-respected in some male setting - just because I'm a female. And I'm not fond of the praxis of turning that sort of categorical protection or adoration on anyone else. In short, I have a helplessly iconoclastic nature that feels a sour mouth around respect as a praxis, form or demand. "Respect" is an oddly inert word; if you want morally existential punch applied to say, all of humanity, then actions. period.

Down the long hallway to the little office I occupy - on the door where students get their impressions of profs, and where profs plaster everything from cartoons to articles to pretty pictures - was for many years a small strip of paper with the following Nietzsche quote:

The student repays the teacher poorly by always remaining a student . . .

There may indeed be ass-kissing that fits that mold, but when it is inflected more toward:

• Sycophantic: A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.

The former designation does not exactly apply. You could refer to 'woundedness' or God knows what other motivator but you'd be guessing.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the type of ass kissing being spoken of is an expression of sycophancy, per se.

Dan writes: I don't think anyone is suggesting that the type of ass kissing being spoken of is an expression of sycophancy, per se.

Yeah, no, this isn't the thing I'm trying to get at. There's no need for any individual to throw themselves at the feet of any other, regardless of what you dig about them. In fact, such a problem has been a long-time praxis from which we individually suffer, from which each need wake. This kind of extraverted spirituality is the wrong direction, in my estimation.