The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

[cousinbasil]

Someone who never deals with the infinite, but only deals with the finite, is not spiritual, but worldly. Comprehension of the infinite is comprehension of reality, plain and simple, and as such, a spiritual being as a matter of course makes decisions about how to relate to finite things in the world: all the way down to which ethical problems are fantasies.

This is a good point, Trevor, but comprehension is something few achieve. If we substitute the word contemplation, you may not see things quite this way. There are many people who contemplate the mansion in the sky and wind up living in shotgun shacks. It can't be denied that achieving the mansion on the hill requires considerable devotion thereto - when rendering unto Caesar, you discover it demands very much more than a mere tithe.

That being said, I would like to emphasize how important a point I think it is. When you render unto "God" your return is of the utmost value. I think Alex is right in that our life acquires meaning when we make our finite decisions; the nature of the meaning is formed though by one's relationship with the infinite. If one has no such relationship, one must still make daily decisions, but life remains "meaningless." It is a common complaint. Yet purely contemplating the Infinite and avoiding daily decisions (like a hermit) results in meaning without a life. Of course there are those who contemplate nothing and decide almost as little. You tend to encounter such people in densely urban areas. How they get this way can only be guessed at, I would imagine there are a myriad of paths that lead there. But when you see them you get the distinct feeling that whatever is gone from them isn't ever coming back.

[Bob Michael]

First, there would be no 'job' because 'the wise' choose not to work, remember? They get their money from the state and by 'abusing' social security (almost a form of fraud). So, no finances to handle, no charity, and therefore no economic help rendered.

I find feigning mental illness and living off the state for a time may be quite acceptable in the journey of enlightenment. However, when such behavior becomes a way of life then it becomes deceitful, fradulent, dishonest, and cowardly. And such a person (genius or otherwise) could surely never really say to others in good conscience, "Come - follow me - I know the way - walk in my footsteps." I think such a similar sort of parasitical lifestyle helped lead to Christ's downfall and failure to lead others into his "Kingdom of God". Which of course is a real place, a real state of existence or being, though attained to on a continual basis by only a very, very, very few people.

Surely you MUST have noted the extraordinary ridiculousness of Bob's recent attempt to sidle up to David. Here's how it goes: he (seems) to admit David's 'enlightenment state' (this is deeply seductive to David), then he seems to sympathize with him and speak of the classical Christian determinism for salvation in the context of this 'enlightenment' that he (obviously shares). With his sidling maneouvre he accomplishes quite a bit, doesn't he?

You fail to read me correctly, Alex. David seems to me to have set foot on the other shore (the shore of enlightenment) and has thereby solved the metaphysical puzzle or the problem of duality, but only on a relatively shallow and static intellectual or second-hand level. And his self-professed 'wisdom' does not appear to manifest from a wealth of thoroughly understood and thereby fully conquered living experiences. Nor does it reach deep into the territory of human all-knowingness. So it's my feeling that unless he becomes motivated to live an honest, self-supporting lifestyle in the real world, continues to grow in maturity and self-understanding, and finds and tames a good woman, all of which I doubt very much he'll ever do, he'll be of absolutely no value in the genuine enlightenment of others. Nor will he reap the full rewards of being one with the Infinite, or at least the partial rewards of earnestly heading in that direction. The Infinite cannot successfully be mocked, for as a man sows (be he enlightened or not), so shall he reap.

I offer here Richard Bucke's ('Cosmic Consciousness') view on the matter:

"It must not be assumed that because a man has cosmic consciousness (enlightenment - mine) he is omniscient or infallable. The greatest of these men are in a sense in the position, though on a higher plane, of children who have just become self conscious. These men have just reached a new phase of consciousness - have not yet had time or opportunity to exploit or master this. True, they may have reached a higher mental level; but on that level there can and will be comparative wisdom and comparative foolishness, just as there is on the level of simple or of self consciousness. As a man with self consciousness may sink in morals and intelligence below the higher animal with simple consciousness merely, may (in certain circumstances) be little if at all above another who spends his life on the plane of self consciousness. And it must still be more evident that, however godlike the faculty may be, those who first acquire it, living in diverse ages and countries, passing the years of their self conscious life in different surroundings, brought up to view life and the interests of life from totally different points of view, must necessarily interpret somewhat differently those things which they see in the new world which they enter. The marvel is that they all see the new world for what it is as clearly as they do. The main point is that these men and this new consciousness must not be condemned because neither the men nor the new consciousness are absolute. That could not be. For should man (passing upward from plane to plane) reach an intellectual and moral position as far above that of our best men today as are those above the average mollusk, he would be as far from infallibility and as far from absolute goodness or absolute knowledge as he is at present. He would have the same aspiration to achieve a higher mental position that he has today, and there would be as much room over his head for growth and amelioration as ever there was."

[Bob Michael]

It seems like a view impossible to substantiate further with any reasoning or anecdotes. It's an opinion which only can be taken on faith alone. I'm not so sure myself if there must be a person-in-person setting or if written words on the internet could never transfer the needed inspiration. That idea itself seems so very confining and limiting to me. I actually believe a person locked his whole life in a closet can still learn enough about existence if so inclined. I wouldn't know why that would be impossible: he has all he needs: some safety, some shelter, some food and his sense of reality to deal with. Can the odds already be lower than they already were?

Moments or experiences of awakening or transformation come to many people, but rarely is there any true understanding of the nature of the experience(s), nor is there true spiritual development towards perfection on a continual basis. But rather a falling back again into universal human mediocrity while not being any wiser for having had the experience(s). And even those who may make some real progress in their spiritual development will rarely fully transcend an egoic reference point, fully overcome the world, and rise to the level of genuine free-spiritedness or pure angelic being. The main reason being that without being in close contact with other radically transformed or enlightened, spiritually developing, and thereby encouraging people new recruits will quickly be sucked back into the sleep or robot state again by the unenlightened, non-understanding, and grossly self-centered world that surrounds them everywhere. And very often forever. Hence the need for right-leadership and right-fellowship, which will create a 'safe', positive, and encouraging growing and developing environment made up of radically transformed and thereby understanding people who are developing similarly that's away from the ignorance, insanity, and chaos of the fallen, spiritually and morally bankrupt, and non-understanding world.

That genuine enlightenment (attaining to fullness of human being) can successfully take place in a "closet" I find is an absolute impossibility. The process must take place in relationship with life and other people. Human touch (touching) is also very necessary and vital for this prosess of total rehumanization or the complete renewing of the brain and neurological faculty and their manner of functioning. Which surely can't be experienced by someone who's "locked his whole life in a closet."

[Alexis Jacobi]

Trevor, the way I see things Infinite is a peculiar word, used in a peculiar sense, by people who have a peculiar will in their use of the word. It serves certain (peculiar) functions for them, and it is a term that is 'rehearsed' publically so to reinforce whatever it means (for those people, and for you it sounds like). I think it is one of the numerous 'trick-terms' that are used on this forum, but when one examines it, it is rather empty and meaningless. It is not a word that means a great deal to me, yet I believe it might over-awe some people, dazzle them perhaps is the word, or 'mystify' them..

The way you have separated your private meaning of the term 'Infinite' from everything in the here-below that is real and tangible to us all (though we certainly seem to disagree on the question of value), is a strange, unfortunate and I think non-useful division. For all intents and purposes, you and I, are here in this finite experience. And if we have or refer to or are motivated by [whatever you mean by the term 'Infinite' yet which term I do not and cannot use][but what word, Alexis, would you use?], it can only move or inspire or direct us to specific lines of activity in this 'finite' existence. So, on one very real level I most heartily agree with you: it is very possible to be 'worldly', and we can further define that term, make a list of what it may mean (in a 'bad' or negative sense). But to choose to focus and give priority to 'the finite' or the specificity of our experience here (since we have no way to shift to another experience or level of existence, some 'other') does not necessarily correspond to a 'worldly' outlook or life lived. In fact, it can be quite the opposite. And, those who focus on an unreal aspect of 'the Infinite' can become guilty of failing to understand, appreciate, and live well within the aforesaid 'finite'. They have a unique wau of avoiding the whole issue.

And IF (*raises hands to Heaven in supplication*) IF these conversations continue, I think we may have an interesting oportunity to examine the 'presuppositions' that inform us, which is really what determines our specific opinions, don't you think?

Some part of this reminds me of a poem, a very good poem I thought, written by the Talking Ass®. It was called Coyote & Adwaita. Check it out!

(TA is a little bashful about his poetry, since most of it deals on the (unpopular) theme of his Priapism, yet I think he would appreciate that you had seen and read his (modest and certainly rather pathetic) contribution to belles lettres).

[Dennis Mahar]

The interpretive predicates mean nothing.

You ARE infinite.
or
You ARE finite.

Kierkegaard thought it was a commitment.
No.

You ARE or you AREN'T.

DNA.

You KNOW.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Alex, the second you denied the word "infinite" its meaning, you denied the word "finite" any meaning, and your entire post collapsed in a heap of gibberish.

You've denied yourself the ability to talk meaningfully about reality, by selectively pruning elementary concepts out of your vocabulary. It's not difficult to see how you targeted, and obliterated from your consciousness, every single one of the most effective and most useful concepts for discussing truths: all you have to do is refuse every word and idea used in deep discussions at GF.

IF these conversations continue, I think we may have an interesting oportunity to examine the 'presuppositions' that inform us, which is really what determines our specific opinions, don't you think?

Sorry, not that interested. I've been down that road before.

[Dennis Mahar]

Alex dear,
You say there are no absolutes.
That is an absolute you have.

You say GF is binary thinking and thus mistaken.
That is binary thinking.

You say GF are psychological types 'believing'.
In that you are describing yourself as a psychological type 'not believing'.
Therefore you have a belief.
And ARE 'believing'.
It's too crazy-making.

Your relationship to the word Genius is only knowable sensibly as you being 'in reaction' to the word genius.
A 'hot potato' for you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alex, the second you denied the word "infinite" its meaning, you denied the word "finite" any meaning, and your entire post collapsed in a heap of gibberish.

You've denied yourself the ability to talk meaningfully about reality, by selectively pruning elementary concepts out of your vocabulary. It's not difficult to see how you targeted, and obliterated from your consciousness, every single one of the most effective and most useful concepts for discussing truths: all you have to do is refuse every word and idea used in deep discussions at GF.

Let me break it down for you. I do not deny the word 'infinity' its meaning, but I call into question your-plural use of the term. You seem to have difficulty performing a simple reading and in making the right interpretation. Then, you 'weild' your bad reading against me, and try to make an attack out of it. All I can suggest to you is that you reapproach my post (the one in question) and read it better. So, a better way to sum it up is this: because of a bad reading you have denied yourself the opportunity to discuss truths. Understand this and you will understand a great deal. In light of that, I suggest that it is not my post that collapsed in a heap of gibberish, but rather that you have thrown up a heap of gibberish to avoid the content of my post.

You crafty devil you! ;-)

[Dennis Mahar]

'Psychological Types' was only a theory, interpretive, inductive, a possibility, a speculative model.
If it is sgnificant to you, it's your belief.

Everyday, on the job psychologists these days, for the most part, have pissed off such models as unworkable.
Instead, they take the clients through Zen.
They call it 'Cognitive Behaviour Therapy'.

If the client comes along with the mood and understanding 'I'm not good enough' the psychologist eventually discloses to the client for the client that 'I'm not good enough' is an interpretation that the client came to believe.
The client is learning deduction.
The client deduces or groks that moods and understandings are simply 'space invaders' that are attached to and aren't necessary and ultimately bullshit.
The client KNOWS. The client is not interpreting or believing.
Zen works.

Aside from all that Induction has it's place.

Sherlock, whilst in tracking the killer, has suspects.
He has learned a couple of brutal facts in his initial interrogation.
From that he 'speculates', makes inferences, constructs possible models around each suspect.
These interpretations don't catch the killer, they can narrow the field down.
Deduction catches the killer.

The killer is KNOWN.
not interpreted.

[Tomas]

Alex,

It's 'wield' -NOT- 'weild'...

[Trevor Salyzyn]

You seem to have difficulty performing a simple reading and in making the right interpretation.

Nevermind psychoanalysis. You're trying to tutor me in palmistry.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is with a certain, even a definite, respect for you, that I say: Trevor, you are talking out of your ass.

I repeat: "The way I see things Infinite is a peculiar word, used in a peculiar sense, by people who have a peculiar will in their use of the word. It serves certain (peculiar) functions for them, and it is a term that is 'rehearsed' publically so to reinforce whatever it means (for those people, and for you it sounds like). I think it is one of numerous 'trick-terms' that are used on this forum, but when one examines it, it is rather empty and meaningless. It is not a word that means a great deal to me, yet I believe it might over-awe some people, dazzle them perhaps is the word, or 'mystify' them..."

Let's try this: Explain in one paragraph what this 'Infinite' means for a you and a me, in existence right now, on this Earth, and in this conversation. Make some statement about it.

[Blair]

A song made for Alexi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsvwYU9K504

[Dennis Mahar]

"The way I see things Infinite is a peculiar word, used in a peculiar sense, by people who have a peculiar will in their use of the word. It serves certain (peculiar) functions for them, and it is a term that is 'rehearsed' publically so to reinforce whatever it means (for those people, and for you it sounds like). I think it is one of numerous 'trick-terms' that are used on this forum, but when one examines it, it is rather empty and meaningless. It is not a word that means a great deal to me, yet I believe it might over-awe some people, dazzle them perhaps is the word, or 'mystify' them..."

it's empty and meaningless
that its empty and meaningless.

You moved.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Explain in one paragraph what this 'Infinite' means for a you and a me, in existence right now, on this Earth, and in this conversation. Make some statement about it.

It means not finite. I have no idea what you think it means, nor what you think I think it means. For some reason, you think it mystifies me?

[David Quinn]

I find feigning mental illness and living off the state for a time may be quite acceptable in the journey of enlightenment. However, when such behavior becomes a way of life then it becomes deceitful, fradulent, dishonest, and cowardly.

If this is about me, I have never feigned mental illness. Always, in all my dealings with the government, I have presented myself in the same way that I do here - namely, openly valuing wisdom and rationality in a calm manner.

So it's my feeling that unless he becomes motivated to live an honest, self-supporting lifestyle in the real world, continues to grow in maturity and self-understanding, and finds and tames a good woman,

That phrase always cracks me up!

Why on earth would you want to "tame" a good woman?

-

[cousinbasil]

I think such a similar sort of parasitical lifestyle helped lead to Christ's downfall and failure to lead others into his "Kingdom of God". Which of course is a real place, a real state of existence or being, though attained to on a continual basis by only a very, very, very few people.

His downfall was a result of his teaching being misinterpreted - mainly as sedition. His ministry was actually well financed. He and his entourage were Jews, after all. His earlier statements to the effect that "My time has not yet come" when refusing to act publicly or join this or that political activity can be taken as evidence that he was financially preparing his family for his departure. He first mad sure the family business interests could run without his involvement. Most historical depictions of Jesus portray him as being neither rich nor poor, but hard-working middle class. Bob, your comment here resembles what Christ's detractors must have been muttering about him. "It's fine to speak about the birds and animals not toiling, but if everybody did that, we'd be up shit creek without a paddle..."

If this is about me, I have never feigned mental illness.

Hear that, Bob? David's mental illness is no sham!

Why on earth would you want to "tame" a good woman?

For the same reason you break a good horse!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Someone who never deals with the infinite, but only deals with the finite, is not spiritual, but worldly. Comprehension of the infinite is comprehension of reality, plain and simple, and as such, a spiritual being as a matter of course makes decisions about how to relate to finite things in the world: all the way down to which ethical problems are fantasies.

It means not finite. I have no idea what you think it means, nor what you think I think it means.

I frankly do not see the relevance even of a reference to the 'Infinite'. In what way do you 'deal with' the infinite? Also, I myself do not get how one can 'comprehend' the 'infinite' if such comprehension is only to know: 'It means not finite'. Now, if someone does not even consider the infinite (which in the West is tied to our philosophical and mathematical ideas, isn't it?), and lives in, deals in, expresses themselves in, has exclusive concern for the finite, that is the 'you and the me in the immediate context of now', I think we might be nudged to conclude that it is necessary and even logically proper to think in those 'wordly' terms you identified. Yet, if you equate spirituality with the 'infinite', I could only imagine you mean spirituality somehow literally, and then we are back in a classic dichotomy: spirit vs matter, or (as in TA's masterful poem) mind vs matter. But to think in those terms does lead to an 'identity conflict':

• "what we call 'body' and 'mind'
  are mere abstractions from an identity experience
  that cannot be reduced to the one
  or the other abstraction,
  nor can it be hypostatized
  into some sort of THING
  without falsifying its very being."

Cahoot---who gave a German hoot---offered his sense of what this notion of the Infinite means or could mean. Still, it seems that the central reference point for any consideration is and must always remain the [you-know-what].

A spiritual being as a matter of course makes decisions about how to relate to finite things in the world: all the way down to which ethical problems are fantasies.

I'd so much like more information about this.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I frankly do not see the relevance even of a reference to the 'Infinite'.

Infinitude is the most distinctive and definitive feature of reality. I believe the word of the day is "synecdoche". (I didn't mention this figure of speech earlier because there's no point in turning this relatively simple idea into a convoluted maze. Infinite still only means "not finite", despite the fact that it can also refer to reality.)

In what way do you 'deal with' the infinite?

I suppose it would be excruciatingly difficult for someone who believes that everything is finite. I don't think there's anything I'd prescribe; either you see how your beliefs about reality are relevant, or you don't.

Yet, if you equate spirituality with the 'infinite', I could only imagine you mean spirituality somehow literally...

I meant precisely what I said. Spirituality is how one attempts to relate to that which isn't finite. That's pretty much the most inclusive definition of spirituality I can come up with. The only people I excluded from the spiritual enterprise are those who are entrenched in the world of finite things, and I don't have any problem with that.

I'd so much like more information about this.

Thinking about the non-finite grants perspective. Many problems of worldly people disappear, as they are inventions of ignorance. If something doesn't exist, there's no reason to turn one's actions toward it into an ethical problem.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That genuine enlightenment (attaining to fullness of human being) can successfully take place in a "closet" I find is an absolute impossibility. The process must take place in relationship with life and other people. Human touch (touching) is also very necessary and vital for this prosess of total rehumanization or the complete renewing of the brain and neurological faculty and their manner of functioning. Which surely can't be experienced by someone who's "locked his whole life in a closet."

Of course it was assumed here the closet experience wouldn't cause trauma or damage. In real life it possibly would in most circumstance. But in the context of enlightenment, it's of course the inquisitive human mind which finds itself to be "locked in a closet". It first needs to be thoroughly understood: that break-through is called enlightenment. Moving beyond the closet is called perfection while just declaring that there's no closet or the closet is "what we are" remains ignorance wrapped in the flag of liberation lined with eternal doubt.

[Alexis Jacobi]

With your synechdoche the Wallace Stevens poem Sunday Morning has other referential possibilities, as do so many other poems, and some that were dropped in here earlier. If you allow synechdoches in your philosophical and existential conceptions, it seems it would open up language generally into so many interesting and surprising areas.

I suppose it would be excruciatingly difficult for someone who believes that everything is finite. I don't think there's anything I'd prescribe; either you see how your beliefs about reality are relevant, or you don't.

Yes, but I didn't say that. You are saying that. Please note the difference. To have good faith conversations means to act in good faith. I say, and I still say, that your use of the term has special meaning. It is a term used here on which a great deal is hung. What I DO say, and continue to believe, is that despite the view or a view offered by the consideration within our mind of infinitude, our only possible are of concern and focus is in this finitude in which we occur. And our 'spirituality' must occur here, not 'there'.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, you are like GF forum's bulldog. You appear at the gate and bark and growl! Pretty ferocious!

Actually, I did grow up with a bulldog, we strayed together for fifteen years in our neighborhood! And the amazing secret of bulldogs is (ask any owner) that they are one of the most gentle and personable characters of the dog world. Their appearance only instills fear in the superficial and weak-hearted. They're heavily shouldered and fearless against the big dogs, yes, but loyal to the one, playful, surprisingly fast on occasion - although with a catlike laziness too. Just another example of how the real world so often off-sets word-love and cartoon-knowledge.

But lets talk about the "real work" you have done. Did it leave any trace? My own "work" left no traces to speak of. Perhaps it's just all wind. But it's never about measuring and counting: once a principle is engaged, you live and die with it. Sometimes one might catch a glimpse of confirmation of what might have happened but it's all vanity for sure! Only "truth-telling" is left. That's why it's better to focus on that and there are trillions of ways to write the name! Never a dull moment.

[Alexis Jacobi]

God you are annoying sometimes Diebert.

[Dennis Mahar]

Sqeeze your foot...thing, finite.
foot footing, thing thinging.

Infinite, not a thing.

Captured as distinction by intelligence, by deduction and metaphored.

Always moving.

Steamroller.
Goes wherever it goes whenever it goes.
Inexorable.
Soon, if you're smart, you'll figure out it'll do whatever it'll do, no matter where you stand, regardless of your approval, with or without your consent, in spite of your opinions to the contrary. Once you realize this, you may look for a better way to relate to it, a more pragmatic way to live with its cosmic indifference other than being flattened by it.
Wherever you stand, however you play it, whatever you feel about it.
The steamroller rolls along with you or without you, without any possibility of it being stopped.
If freedom is having a rich body of distinctions.
Causality is one of them.

So, in GF Boot Camp of basic distinctions.
We now have,
deduction and infinite.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[Today, possibly the first time in my life, I felt like striking a disabled person.]