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

[David Quinn]

[David and Bob] are an almost exact mirror of each other!

Interestingly, I see Bob as being a mirror image of yourself. You're both buffoons who are legends in your own minds.

Oddly, both the Mighty Quinn and the Bobster admit to being on pensions.

Yes, this is so Tomas, but I earned my pension fair and square.

You mean you've played the conventional games, having spent your life providing comfort and pleasure for the conventional folk that you now openly disparage, earning their conventional praise, living off their conventional gratitude, and nowdays you have the audacity to talk about "the death of your enculturated self".

Sorry, they pay you a pension because you're a buffoon, just like they are.

Considering that every state and market has been firmed by unenlightened people, all of them are without ethical consideration and deluded when coming from ethical principles. Does that make working or social security policies, for example, by themselves beyond ethical considerations if not unethical?

Not sure what you're trying to say there. I don't think it is ethical to "sponge off the system", as it's put here. Human society depends on give and take, and so it is important that all of us contribute as much as we take. In my case, I contribute rational thought.

-

[jupiviv]

But this "total union with each other imprimis" you refer to (which I fundamentality see as the broken, fragmented, empty, and lifeless concept of most 'new agers') is not a union of love, harmony, and true brotherhood, but rather it's primarily one of physical and psychological violence and insanity everywhere. Which is clearly apparent to those who are at least half-awake.
............

The divinely (meaning also fully and totally humanly) orchestrated M/F union is the model for peace, love, harmony, and human perfection. And all other unions are but mere shadows of the real thing, and lack its radiance, lustre, and glory. All of which manifest only from perfect companionship with the Infinite.

What you've said here is that every union except that of male and female is unreal and worthless, and every male and female union except the one that you're in(and maybe a few others which you consider "worthy") is a union of violence and not love. Since you haven't provided any evidence or reasoning for these assertions, they can be dismissed outright.

Besides, you still did not answer my question. What is the reason for being engaged in any sort of a separate union, if you are already united with everything else in the universe? In the context of the Infinite, a particular union has no more than all the other particular unions. If you really know about the infinite, then why do you consider your union to be special?

The 'pink-cloud' I've "settled on" is the same thing as Christ's Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven. And the price for entry therein is again, in other words, the complete death of one's enculturated self and perfect obedience to the will of the Infinite or our Heavenly Father.

Everything is obeying the will of the Infinite, including your "enculturated self". There is no separate place called the Kingdom of Heaven. At best, there is only the awareness of the Kingdom of Heaven, as opposed to the unawareness of it.

[jupiviv]

Not sure what you're trying to say there. I don't think it is ethical to "sponge off the system", as it's put here. Human society depends on give and take, and so it is important that all of us contribute as much as we take. In my case, I contribute rational thought.

If you're giving something away and receiving something else then it means that you value what you give away less than what you take in return, or else you wouldn't be giving it away(this probably means that all the economic theories are delusions.) Anyways, if you are contributing rational thought and receiving money instead, then it means that you value rational thought less than money.

[David Quinn]

In my eyes, I give away something of incredible valuable and receive a pittance in return.

-

[David Quinn]

Besides, you still did not answer my question. What is the reason for being engaged in any sort of a separate union, if you are already united with everything else in the universe? In the context of the Infinite, a particular union has no more than all the other particular unions. If you really know about the infinite, then why do you consider your union to be special?

I too would like to see Bob answer this question.

-

[Dennis Mahar]

He's not a FOTI.
He's a romantic poet,
like larry said,
has some authentic reach.
Insofar as poetry goes.
He's in a menage a trois.
Evie, God and Bob.
the web throws out romantic poets.
who can argue with it.

[Bob Michael]

I don't think it is ethical to "sponge off the system", as it's put here. Human society depends on give and take, and so it is important that all of us contribute as much as we take. In my case, I contribute rational thought.

But you only give back crumbs and table scraps as was mentioned previously. Hence you take far more from life than you give back. Clearly you have no choice but to be a misogynist, David. No self-respecting woman, of which some do exist, would ever put up with a full-time welfare recipient like yourself.

[Bob Michael]

There is no separate place called the Kingdom of Heaven. At best, there is only the awareness of the Kingdom of Heaven, as opposed to the unawareness of it.

Like David, you're blinded by reason and therefore you lack intuitive understanding of things. Making any sort of spiritually edifying dialogue with you impossible.

[Bob Michael]

In my eyes, I give away something of incredible valuable and receive a pittance in return.

In your eyes maybe. But forget not, the eyes of the Infinite are upon you, David. As are mine too.

[jupiviv]

In my eyes, I give away something of incredible valuable and receive a pittance in return.

If you think you receive a pittance, then it means that you expect a lot more! But any kind of work that is done with the expectation of a reward or benefit of some kind is deluded work. If a sage is to have any status within "society", it must be that of a beggar, because he cannot share in the work that they do.

[Talking Ass]

Interestingly, I see Bob as being a mirror image of yourself. You're both buffoons who are legends in your own minds.

That may be true of me but I don't think it's fair that you include Bob in that harsh assessment.

Be that as it may, this AOTI, with great sorrow, must leave you-all now. When you look up toward heaven, see my image there among the constellations. If you are really Wise you'll find the star that is my all-seeing Eye and you'll know I am looking down upon you always, winking.

[Bobo]

There can't be any talk about ethical considerations until the mind is awake to reality and free of delusions. If the tool is faulty, then the work it will do will also be faulty. Without the clarity of enlightenment, one can be nothing more than a blind man playing the role of the proverbial "do-gooder" - well-intentioned, perhaps, but ultimately doing far more harm than good.

(...)

I don't think it is ethical to "sponge off the system", as it's put here.

-

If your mind is free from delusions and you can make this consideration, this [consideration] would be useless to everyone who has some kind of delusion.

Let's say that society is/was formed by 99,9% of deluded people (it does not come to me as a surprise your claim to make money from rational thought), all of them being incapable of having ethical considerations, this would be enough to make everything you may get from it unethical. Whatever you think that rational thought is, it is divorced from ethics.

[Tomas]

-Tomas earlier-
Oddly, both the Mighty Quinn and the Bobster admit to being on pensions.

-The Bobster-
Yes, this is so Tomas, but I earned my pension fair and square.

-tomas-
I was at the 'right place at the right time' as they say.


-The Bobster-
Whereas if everyone sponged off of society like David does, the systems would have all collapsed long ago.

-tomas-
As long as usury is permitted (in the USA it was 1981), the system is collapsing. If you've hear and or read the works of .. Solon http://www.e-classics.com/solon.htm .. you'd better understand what is afoot.


-The Bobster-
And his claim of sonship with the Infinite is a piss-poor excuse for his clearly obvious ways of weakness and cunning.

-tomas-
Nothing is everything.
Everything is nothing.
A=A

[Dennis Mahar]

A person is produced by causes/conditions.
Of pieces and parts.
Is like a tumbleweed blown across an endless prairie in a stiff sou'wester.
There is no 'I' in charge of anything.
Just a pattern in an intricate web of association.
There is, ultimately, absence of meaning.
Unconditioned mind.
It doesn't matter.

[David Quinn]

I don't think it is ethical to "sponge off the system", as it's put here. Human society depends on give and take, and so it is important that all of us contribute as much as we take. In my case, I contribute rational thought.

But you only give back crumbs and table scraps as was mentioned previously. Hence you take far more from life than you give back.

It depends on what value you place on reason and truth. I happen to think they are very valuable, but I know that I am in the minority. Most people are like yourself, they would rather me cast these precious tools aside and instead roll up my sleeves, push wheelbarrows and parade like peacocks before women.

The value of a thing is normally determined by its avaliability. If things like sanity, reason and consciousness of truth were widespread in society, then what I have to offer the world would be of little value. I would have to contribute in other ways. I would have to help in the practical running of society and would gladly do so, knowing that I was contributing in this way to a wiser society.

Clearly you have no choice but to be a misogynist, David. No self-respecting woman, of which some do exist, would ever put up with a full-time welfare recipient like yourself.

I'm not a misogynist, though, Bob. Misogynists are those who try to break women, who try to tame them, enslaving them in a life of servitude to men. In contrast, I'm all for letting women become independent, wild and free.

In any case, my views on women aren't a response to my being on welfare, as you like to think. (My god, you're SO conventional). Rather, my views on women and my decision to be on welfare both arise out of the same underlying impulse, which is to be as unentangled from the world as much as possible.

I'm nearly 47 years old and I'm proud to say that I've never yet put in a tax form. I wouldn't even know what a tax form looks like. Now that takes some dedication .... :)

-

[David Quinn]

There can't be any talk about ethical considerations until the mind is awake to reality and free of delusions. If the tool is faulty, then the work it will do will also be faulty. Without the clarity of enlightenment, one can be nothing more than a blind man playing the role of the proverbial "do-gooder" - well-intentioned, perhaps, but ultimately doing far more harm than good.

(...)

I don't think it is ethical to "sponge off the system", as it's put here.

-

If your mind is free from delusions and you can make this consideration, this [consideration] would be useless to everyone who has some kind of delusion.

Let's say that society is/was formed by 99,9% of deluded people (it does not come to me as a surprise your claim to make money from rational thought), all of them being incapable of having ethical considerations, this would be enough to make everything you may get from it unethical. Whatever you think that rational thought is, it is divorced from ethics.

I'm still not sure what you're getting at. It may be because I don't see it as an ethical issue. The real issue is how to make society a better place. How do we make it saner, more rational, more wise, less backward, less violent, etc. This is the great task that faces anyone who is cultured and mentally advanced. Scientists have a role to play in this, as do social reformers, and even artists. And so too do philosophers of the Infinite.

-

[David Quinn]

For those who are interested, here is a thread from a few years ago which goes into some detail about my welfare adventure - Balance.

-

[Dennis Mahar]

The situation has to be looked at.
Brutal facts have to be faced.
GF's function is to describe the brutal facts.
All these spats are ridiculous and deteriorate GF's function.

A person can only percieve directly out of their equipment.
If their equipment is not up to it.
GF is useless to them.
It's then ridiculous for them to attack GF.
All they are doing is displaying equipment that is not up to it.
Brutal fact.

Some damn fine equipment, for instance, Jehu, gets driven off because the spats are ridiculous.

Three categories need attention.
causes/conditions
pieces/parts
thought

thought doesn't get around thinking itself.
it depends on human being.
human being doesn't get around not thinking,
it depends on thinking.
together they focus on object.
the three depend on each other.
all of it depends for its existence on causes/conditions, pieces/parts.

faulty equipment gets faulty thought gets unknowable object.

Its not rocket science.

[Russell Parr]

For those who are interested, here is a thread from a few years ago which goes into some detail about my welfare adventure - Balance.

-

Have you ever gotten around to scanning and posting those social security files referred to in the post I linked? Does sound pretty interesting.

viewtopic.php?p=37116#p37116

edit: Whoops, nevermind. should have kept reading :)

[Bob Michael]

The real issue is how to make society a better place. How do we make it saner, more rational, more wise, less backward, less violent, etc. This is the great task that faces anyone who is cultured and mentally advanced. Scientists have a role to play in this, as do social reformers, and even artists. And so too do philosophers of the Infinite.

You continue to show your ignorance and lack of insight into the human condition here, David. A "less violent", "less backward" society is still a violent and backward society. Likewise, a "more sane", "more rational", "more wise" society is still a society that's lacking in sanity, rationality, and wisdom.

Furthermore, it is absolutely impossible to make society (any society) "a better place" due to the unchangeable self-centered nature of the bulk of the 'fallen' (irreparably neurologically damaged) human beings within them. Rather, a new society must be built away from all existing societies. And this is mankind's only hope, since all societies are headed for mass destruction.

[Bob Michael]

The value of a thing is normally determined by its avaliability. If things like sanity, reason and consciousness of truth were widespread in society, then what I have to offer the world would be of little value. I would have to contribute in other ways. I would have to help in the practical running of society and would gladly do so, knowing that I was contributing in this way to a wiser society.

And what skills would you have to offer besides signing and cashing welfare checks and running off at the mouth with your hairbrained philosophy?

In any case, my views on women aren't a response to my being on welfare, as you like to think. (My god, you're SO conventional). Rather, my views on women and my decision to be on welfare both arise out of the same underlying impulse, which is to be as unentangled from the world as much as possible.

Be honest David, lack of both manhood and courage is your fatal dilemma.

[David Quinn]

The real issue is how to make society a better place. How do we make it saner, more rational, more wise, less backward, less violent, etc. This is the great task that faces anyone who is cultured and mentally advanced. Scientists have a role to play in this, as do social reformers, and even artists. And so too do philosophers of the Infinite.

You continue to show your ignorance and lack of insight into the human condition here, David. A "less violent", "less backward" society is still a violent and backward society. Likewise, a "more sane", "more rational", "more wise" society is still a society that's lacking in sanity, rationality, and wisdom.

Furthermore, it is absolutely impossible to make society (any society) "a better place" due to the unchangeable self-centered nature of the bulk of the 'fallen' (irreparably neurologically damaged) human beings within them. Rather, a new society must be built away from all existing societies. And this is mankind's only hope, since all societies are headed for mass destruction.

I don't hold such a bleak and ...um ... biblical point of view. There are many fine qualities in the human race which can be encouraged and developed.

-

[Bobo]

In any case, my views on women aren't a response to my being on welfare, as you like to think. (My god, you're SO conventional). Rather, my views on women and my decision to be on welfare both arise out of the same underlying impulse, which is to be as unentangled from the world as much as possible.

-

You are reaproaching Bob in terms of conventionality. But you too are a tool in the hands of a conventional society. Or do you think you have somehow reached the bottom line of unconventionality?

I'm still not sure what you're getting at. It may be because I don't see it as an ethical issue. The real issue is how to make society a better place. How do we make it saner, more rational, more wise, less backward, less violent, etc. This is the great task that faces anyone who is cultured and mentally advanced. Scientists have a role to play in this, as do social reformers, and even artists. And so too do philosophers of the Infinite.

-

Don't you engage daily with the deaf to the infinite. Don't [they want a glimpse of the infinite and don't] you take part with their deaf behaviour and give them a 'silent approval'?

There can't be any talk about ethical considerations until the mind is awake to reality and free of delusions.

You are saying that only the enlightened can make ethical considerations. If the unenlightened cannot know who is enlightened, the only option left is to disregard all judgements passing off as ethical (or unethical), no?

For those who are interested, here is a thread from a few years ago which goes into some detail about my welfare adventure - Balance.

The IQ test of this thread appears to have a little of conflict of interests, like the old living of 'philosophy instead of living for philosophy'.

[jupiviv]

The value of a thing is normally determined by its avaliability.

If this were true, then the planet Mercury would have tremendous value, because it is not "available". Also, pebbles would become more valuable than gold if they were less available than gold.

The value of anything depends on the individual who values it. There is no intrinsic value to anything, like it's availability, antiquity, etc.

If things like sanity, reason and consciousness of truth were widespread in society, then what I have to offer the world would be of little value.

So "society" has intrinsic value now? I think you have to revise your thoughts on this issue.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The value of anything depends on the individual who values it.

But especially depending on the availability to the individual. The correct term is scarcity. If I value chocolate bars, having 10000's of them around will decrease my valuing of one or a few of them. You can have them, trash them, spit on them all you like! Also the owner will get used to them and they will lose appeal quickly unless turned into mindless addiction. But the addicted does not value, he's driven not by will but by forces of mental habits or the extreme physical states sustaining them.

If things like sanity, reason and consciousness of truth were widespread in society, then what I have to offer the world would be of little value.

So "society" has intrinsic value now? I think you have to revise your thoughts on this issue.

It appears David values "making society a better place" as a goal. There's logic to that as well, considering one is never really isolated from the womb of society: the creature is one. Perfecting oneself can only mean perfecting the world as well.