a few questions

[bert]

Bert :

You're referring to the flux of subconscious experience, correct? The ability for the creative dionysion impetus to blossom, and burn the shackles of encroaching logical referendum. Both sides of the brain, all the day.

Yes,Nietzsche called it the dionysian power,and Zarahustra guided him.

[David Quinn]

It doesn't matter how aware a person becomes of the sub-consciousness realm, or how he tries to utilize it, if he is still under the spell of maya and misunderstands the nature of existence, then he will always remain a fool.

Both you and sevens are like two sports fanatics gushing over someone's physical strength. Or two groupies gushing over the sexual proweress of a rock star. You couldn't be any more disconnected to reality if you tried.

Most people on this forum have at least some sort of inkling of the nature of wisdom, but the pair of you don't seem to have a clue.

-

[sevens]

Oh David, ya silly goose.

You just want me to express myself, like yourself. Very. Pointed. And. Direct. Like. Chalk full of etible wisdom.

Which is cool. But not really, much.

I've visited many realms, ya dig?

Shaman. Zen Master. Buddha. Warrior. Sorceror. Genius. Pretty cool stuff, my man.

What's up, What's up?

<> :)

(It's all in your mind)

[David Quinn]

Yes, you do visit many realms, but the one realm that you haven't yet visited is the realm of enlightenment. And I'm not sure that you ever will. You are entirely clueless about it.

All your Zen parroting is so much hot air. I see right through you.


-

[sevens]

Ok, ok. You got me, you got me.

A=A gives me! I-denity, opening my perception to myself, while at the same time, distinguishing myself from other 'things' within my consciousness.

Cause and Effect allows me to track events as they occur, with precision, in the moment, and through spacetime; opening the door to the Universe's boundless nature.

Emptiness is akin to A=A, in that it clears defilements from my consciousness, while at the same time, allowing "new knowledge" to well up from the void, and my subconsious mind.

The void is a shining hidden dimension.

[Leyla Shen]

The void is a shining hidden dimension.

The void is no such thing.

[Leyla Shen]

I think both you and bert should try this on for size: you for your "void = shining hidden dimension" idea, and bert for his "existence is alogical to any reasoning faculty we know" idea.

Here ya go:

The same reasoning applies to the question of "what" is responsible for the existence of the construction in which we live. The term "what" is wholly inapplicable in this context, for there can be no "what" beyond the construction. Since nothing can exist at all beyond the construction (not even nothingness itself), the question of what is really there is meaningless and unaskable.

The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp. There is nothing mystical or religious about my use of the term "hidden void" here. I only use it to highlight the fact that the creative agent of the construction is both beyond consciousness and completely lacking in form. Only things within the construction are capable of possessing form and being experienced. The hidden void is capable of neither.

Let us return now to the construction in which we live. It is important to avoid the trap of thinking that the construction, and everything within it, is merely an appearance, while the "hidden void" constitutes ultimate reality. Such a duality is unnecessary and lacks any fundamental basis. The hidden void and the construction are simply two manifestations of the one Reality. Everything within the construction is as real as the hidden void. The only difference between the two is that the hidden void is an aspect of Reality which is incapable of being experienced.

I recommend you read it in its entirety. I can't see you entering into a meaningful discussion (that is, one that is not egotistical) with David -- or on this forum in general -- on the subject unless you do so.

Let's see what you've got under all that tinsel, glitter and gobsmacking mystery.

[sevens]

I think both you and bert should try this on for size: you for your "void = shining hidden dimension" idea, and bert for his "existence is alogical to any reasoning faculty we know" idea.

Here ya go:

The same reasoning applies to the question of "what" is responsible for the existence of the construction in which we live. The term "what" is wholly inapplicable in this context, for there can be no "what" beyond the construction. Since nothing can exist at all beyond the construction (not even nothingness itself), the question of what is really there is meaningless and unaskable.

The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp. There is nothing mystical or religious about my use of the term "hidden void" here. I only use it to highlight the fact that the creative agent of the construction is both beyond consciousness and completely lacking in form. Only things within the construction are capable of possessing form and being experienced. The hidden void is capable of neither.

Let us return now to the construction in which we live. It is important to avoid the trap of thinking that the construction, and everything within it, is merely an appearance, while the "hidden void" constitutes ultimate reality. Such a duality is unnecessary and lacks any fundamental basis. The hidden void and the construction are simply two manifestations of the one Reality. Everything within the construction is as real as the hidden void. The only difference between the two is that the hidden void is an aspect of Reality which is incapable of being experienced.

I recommend you read it in its entirety. I can't see you entering into a meaningful discussion (that is, one that is not egotistical) with David -- or on this forum in general -- on the subject unless you do so.

Let's see what you've got under all that tinsel, glitter and gobsmacking mystery.

To come to any sort of logical discussion regarding our varying conception of what constitutes this "hidden void" (or any other matter) of existence, we must first both be open-minded enough to the possiblity that we could both be in complete error in our use of our conceptions, of a "hidden void."

Through my own first-hand experience, I have, along with other psychologists (Carl Jung, William James, Buddha) come to the simple conclusion that what we as human beings perceive is only an infintesimal speck of what makes up "reality." This being the case, I find David's assessment of his "hidden void" to be extremely lacking -- short-winded even. To claim that logic, is the only means with which to explore reality, is absurd, and, frankly, downright illogical. It doesn't take a whole lot of logic to realize that we can't be aware of anything beyond our own consciousness. But that does not negate the possiblity of realizing what is beyond.

What I see in this passage of David's "Wisdom of The Infinite" is a regressive tendency to shun evolution: of the very thing he seems to adore - Consciousness (God-Realization, for example).

It takes stout courage and free-wielding preserverence, to forge onward; through delusion; through ego; through the abyss of the mind; and methodically explore higher states (even altered) states of consciousness. There are many on this forum that would scoff at the very notion of "altered states of consciousness." Ignorance and delusion.

Ironic.

I question what mental associations arise when these "altered states" are presented: images of persons devoid of wisdom, and intelligence, I would assume.

So, my conception of "the hidden void," is the state you arrive at through emptiness. But, not just the experience of emptiness. The realization that this "shining void" is always present within our consciousness: it is, what Jung theorized as: "the collective unconscious." A state that interacts between our subconscious and conscious awareness. It is the subtlest of perceptions, and the subtlest of consciousness.

It is Maya unveiled.

It is Love.

[bert]

1.there are many kinds of truths and all our truths are arrived at trough negatives - what has no beginning has no becoming;what is without form has no meaning.
2.who's senses are the more true?Yours are the butterfly's?
3.logic refutes its own syllogisms.
"The regular logical form of every argument, consisting of
three propositions, of which the first two are called the
premises, and the last, the conclusion. The conclusion
necessarily follows from the premises; so that, if these are
true, the conclusion must be true, and the argument amounts
to demonstration;"
"Note: If the premises are not true and the syllogism is
regular, the reasoning is valid, and the conclusion,
whether true or false, is correctly derived."
4.Man's environmental ills are his making
5.truth is of all things past,actual and potential in the conceptive - therefore truth is relative.
6.Absolute truth,if any,is the immediate truth,the instant,already in yesterday,so never is.
7.Where ego goeth there alone is the sensation and perception of reality.
8.things you conceive are their own possibility.
9.With little evidence we form our meanings and judgements and dogmatize that our propositions are considered opinion against all immediate experience.
10.I now not only that I know,but also how little I know of my own omniscience.
11.What do we know for certain?In the complexity of differences we become endowed with pretence and dogmatize our lies.
12.Any fact or fiction has no difficulty in finding relatables as supporting evidence because evrything has a point of connection and a period of reality when it is immediate and simultaneous as regards time and space.
13.God is absolutely my own idea,otherwise God could not exist.
14.insincerity is an easy form of escape.
15.reasoning and its interferences are useless to put in contact with reality.
16.existence is allogical to any 'logic' we know.So it is irrational to attempt to rationalise,except in cases where our own prejudices form our mentation.
17.I ask,what is conceivable when we can not even conceive what we are conceiving?
18.our acceptances are our conclusions.

[bert]

part 2:
1.wisdom is the mysterious incomprehensibility of all things,whoever the designer;and all the partial disclosurs of knowledge prove this.
2.My gods have grown with me.
3.within us all,and ever co-essential,is a unknown informer who tones all experience as good and evil:therefore,whatever values and beliefs we hold,to transgress them is fatal.
4.we are all self-constructed egos and necessarily concentric
5.what you cannot conceive as yourself is yourself.
6.when we find a friend in ourselves,all enemies are powerless.
7.the greater the contrasts we encounter,the greater our reality: Truth is all contrasting.




What is there to believe,but in self?
And self is the negation of completeness as reality.
No man has seen self at any time.
We are what we believe and what it implies by a process of time in the conception;creation is caused by this bondage to formula.

[Leyla Shen]

[laughs] Blimey, Charlie!

I suppose I asked for it. God-damned karma.

I'll respond to you both as soon as I can.

[Leyla Shen]

OK, sevens wrote:

To come to any sort of logical discussion regarding our varying conception of what constitutes this "hidden void" (or any other matter) of existence, we must first both be open-minded enough to the possiblity that we could both be in complete error in our use of our conceptions, of a "hidden void."

Through my own first-hand experience, I have, along with other psychologists (Carl Jung, William James, Buddha) come to the simple conclusion that what we as human beings perceive is only an infintesimal speck of what makes up "reality."

But, sevens, it is the very nature of experience that is in question here, and -- it seems to me -- the question is not essentially one of quantity, but quality. Thus, your point here is relevant in a manner which you seem to have not yet understood.

Please consider the reason you use quotation marks when you refer to “reality.” There can only ever be the reality one experiences -- deluded, or otherwise! I think it’s a sensible decision to, in instances where one is alluding to an undeluded reality, capitalise the first letter of the word. Or, simply call it undeluded reality. But, for heaven’s sake, don’t be lazy. Make a decent effort to say exactly what you mean.

This being the case, I find David's assessment of his "hidden void" to be extremely lacking -- short-winded even.

Are you waiting for him to say what you want to say, perhaps?

To claim that logic, is the only means with which to explore reality, is absurd, and, frankly, downright illogical.

Yes, it is. I have not interpreted David that way, at all. In fact, I’ve seen him acknowledge the fact of your exploring multiple “realms.”

I don’t think it takes much for most people to realise that drugs, lies, religion, delusion in general and many other approaches -- including logic -- are all ways of “exploring” reality.

It doesn't take a whole lot of logic to realize that we can't be aware of anything beyond our own consciousness.

Right.

But that does not negate the possiblity of realizing what is beyond.

Well, it does, really. Simply because what is beyond consciousness is beyond it. But that is not the point David makes. The hidden void is not a "what."

What I see in this passage of David's "Wisdom of The Infinite" is a regressive tendency to shun evolution: of the very thing he seems to adore - Consciousness (God-Realization, for example).

What?

~

More later.

[sevens]

OK, sevens wrote:

To come to any sort of logical discussion regarding our varying conception of what constitutes this "hidden void" (or any other matter) of existence, we must first both be open-minded enough to the possiblity that we could both be in complete error in our use of our conceptions, of a "hidden void."

Through my own first-hand experience, I have, along with other psychologists (Carl Jung, William James, Buddha) come to the simple conclusion that what we as human beings perceive is only an infintesimal speck of what makes up "reality."

1. But, sevens, it is the very nature of experience that is in question here, and -- it seems to me -- the question is not essentially one of quantity, but quality. Thus, your point here is relevant in a manner which you seem to have not yet understood.

2. Please consider the reason you use quotation marks when you refer to “reality.” There can only ever be the reality one experiences -- deluded, or otherwise! I think it’s a sensible decision to, in instances where one is alluding to an undeluded reality, capitalise the first letter of the word. Or, simply call it undeluded reality. But, for heaven’s sake, don’t be lazy. Make a decent effort to say exactly what you mean.

This being the case, I find David's assessment of his "hidden void" to be extremely lacking -- short-winded even.

3. Are you waiting for him to say what you want to say, perhaps?

To claim that logic, is the only means with which to explore reality, is absurd, and, frankly, downright illogical.

4. Yes, it is. I have not interpreted David that way, at all. In fact, I’ve seen him acknowledge the fact of your exploring multiple “realms.”

I don’t think it takes much for most people to realise that drugs, lies, religion, delusion in general and many other approaches -- including logic -- are all ways of “exploring” reality.

It doesn't take a whole lot of logic to realize that we can't be aware of anything beyond our own consciousness.

5. Right.

But that does not negate the possiblity of realizing what is beyond.

6. Well, it does, really. Simply because what is beyond consciousness is beyond it. But that is not the point David makes. The hidden void is not a "what."

What I see in this passage of David's "Wisdom of The Infinite" is a regressive tendency to shun evolution: of the very thing he seems to adore - Consciousness (God-Realization, for example).

7. What?

~

More later.

1. David's wisdom is in quality of experience; I am interested in both.
2. I used quotation marks, for the same reason you converted them to their highly-angled form.
3. I'm interested in discussing topics, with an open mind.
4. There's a correlation between David's logical snobbery and his world view; which is the reason for this entire discussion.
5. Then, why not attempt to step outside the box?

6. This is where 'David's Quality' backfires. Quality, when correctly understood, enables the mind to expand. Ironically, I see no expansion.

6.1 Through irrational (a priori reason) and fundamental logic, it is possible for our consciousness to expand to a level that we, at this stage in our evolution, cannot even begin to fathom.

6.2 From "Genius Realms," I've learned that, any paradigm that does not jibe with one particular brand(s) of logic [how close are ego and logic!], is thrown out into a brothel. (A rather lovely place, by the way. Nice Ladies and Gents.)

7. Refer to 6.

[David Quinn]

The trouble with all this is that you display no depth of understanding in these matters, so your analysis here isn't worth anything. It's just as worthless as your words about enlightenment, wisdom, Zen, emptiness, etc. It's like a dog barking at the moon.

You don't realize it, but your mentality is essentially on the same shallow level as most Americans. It is a mentality stuck in materialism, forms, hedonism, and crude religious concepts. Instead of trying to transcend this mentality and realizing the marvelous, eternal Truth which lies beyond all forms, you seem content to simply bounce around inside this shallow American mentality, chasing one glittering object after another. You display no awareness of just how limited this activity is and how lacking you are in the deeper sense.

I'm really starting to wonder why you are on this forum, and whether it actually benefits anyone. You evidently don't share the values or ideas of this forum, and, as I say, your understanding of things is extremely crude. Yet despite this, you see fit to inundate this place with reams of thoughtless New Age drivel, all for the sake of preening yourself in front of others. I don't like it. It is not what this forum is about.

Accordingly, I propose that you take a break from the forum for a few months and try to reflect on things more deeply. Come back if you make some significant progress. Don't come back if you plan to just keep pushing the same tedious American mentality on us.

-

[sevens]

If you are of the opinion that I lack proper depth, I ask you, how would I go about "proving myself." I've given my own direct definitions of the essential components of the enlightened experience. Yet, this still has not proven to you, my own enlightenment. I don't need your approval, anymore.

But, I am curious. Why this hatred of "New Age banter"? Why this hatred of entire cultures? Why the need to pigeon hole?

I assume this forum is open minded enough to discuss topics aside from fundamental logic. Why do you not wish to open your mind, and discuss, these foreign topics? As one who has lived them, and as one who respects your intellect, I would greatly enjoy speaking with you concerning these more esoteric philosophies: in that, I see them as different expressions of the same Truth.

[sevens]

I do tend to preen.

But, like A=A, some may find something worth value in my findings.

If only one.

[Leyla Shen]

I think you should start your own forum.

Then, people interested in the values you hold can come to you. Are you trying to poach followers, or something?

The values of this forum are clearly stated:

Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection

What amazes me is the number of times you contradict yourself without the slightest concern for it.

Through irrational (a priori reason) and fundamental logic, it is possible for our consciousness to expand to a level that we, at this stage in our evolution, cannot even begin to fathom.

So, how did you fathom this?

Your discourse is utterly fraught with such logic. I far from call it anything even remotely resembling wisdom.

The question is rhetorical, sevens.

I have given up.

[sevens]

That's fine, Leyla.

I hope you find what you're searching for.

I fathomed it from my own experience -- using tools that are spoken of on this site. By consciousness, I mean consciousness. Becoming aware of something greater in this Universe, than we are aware of at this present epoch.

Through contradiction, wisdom is found.

[David Quinn]

sevens,

But, I am curious. Why this hatred of "New Age banter"? Why this hatred of entire cultures? Why the need to pigeon hole?

Why do I hate the culture of self-deception and falseness? It's a mystery ......

I assume this forum is open minded enough to discuss topics aside from fundamental logic. Why do you not wish to open your mind, and discuss, these foreign topics?

I have no objection to discussing "foreign" topics, as you put it, so long as there is a connection to wisdom. But when a person comes on and only wants discuss his favourite knitting patterns and thinks that this has some sort of connection to wisdom, then I draw the line.

As one who has lived them, and as one who respects your intellect, I would greatly enjoy speaking with you concerning these more esoteric philosophies: in that, I see them as different expressions of the same Truth.

Come back in six months time and if I feel you have made some progress and can discuss these matters more coherently, then I will happy to have a chat with you.

-

[sevens]

David,

The world is self-deception and falseness.

And six months time sounds like a prison sentence.

I look forward to future discussion.

[Blair]

Goodbye sevens. You sure had a lot of nothing to say.

[sevens]

Prince,

Eh. Nevermind.

[DHodges]

You don't realize it, but your mentality is essentially on the same shallow level as most Americans. It is a mentality stuck in materialism, forms, hedonism, and crude religious concepts.

As an American, I can't help but recognise that this is true.

My question is, is it so different in other countries?

[David Quinn]

It's a matter of degree. All cultures are materialistic, hedonistic and religiously crude, but not to the extremes that American culture seems to be.

Europeans, for example, tend to have a stronger sense of irony and self-depreciation, which enables their minds to develop some deeper layers. They aren't 100% gungho about financial success and social status like Americans are.

Americans are so immersed in the rat race that they effectively become rats themselves, constantly obsessed with finding cheese and avoiding traps. Their entire religious and philosophic outlook revolves around these aims.

Of course, this obsessive focus on the rat race has been a major factor in driving America to become a superpower, but it has come at a tremendous spiritual cost. Their punishment is that they are completely unaware of this cost.

-

[Leyla Shen]

bert:

LS: The evolution, devolution and involution of things does not change the truth of Emptiness. Neither does the possibility that most experiential knowledge -- more things to know -- is subconscious.

bert: We may see the same thing by the labour of time differently,did you never experience that? Do you understand everything that you read from the first time as it is,never changing?Your conception as you enter familiar places is always the same?

Do you deny the 'flesh'?

When our purposes are at odds, yes. Of course, this occurs only when I see it as a separate, autonomous entity either with a will entirely of its own or greater than mine.

Do you?

Are you a glutton? A sex fiend? A pervert?

If I see the same thing -- whether it be an object or a place -- differently through the labour of time, is it still the same thing? What exactly is the connection you are making between this and the denial of flesh?