the underground man

[Kelly Jones]

Thanks for your honest account of your experiences of meditation and altered consciousness, AlyOshA. I won't go bloodthirstily ripping into it, sorry. I'll have to think about it a bit more, as it sounds like something profoundly meaningful to you, so I would like to tread a bit more carefully at this point.

There was one thing that sticks out, already, though. Perhaps you'd like to expand a bit on it when you get a moment. This may or may not be a bit of a sensitive area, so feel free to pass it by. You mentioned a sense of detachment from your body, or "flesh". I read it as a very early, innate feeling that you didn't really exist in the everyday, ordinary world. Like the real you belonged "somewhere else". Can you expand on this? For instance, when your family talked about the other relatives who had killed themselves, how did you explain their actions to each other?

Like I said, feel free to pass this question by. Either way, I'll get back to you with my thoughts in a day or so. I've got a rather resilient 'flu', so I'm taking it easy.


.

[David Quinn]

Since I am already familiar with the philosophical practices of this forum, I would like to discuss meditation. I will expose many personal details of my life as one would expose raw meat to a pack of wolves :) just to further elicit your perception of this topic (hoping that I don’t come across as self-indulgent). One of my earliest memories was looking down at my flesh and wondering why I had to inhabit my body against my will. I was maybe 4 years old and I remember looking at the world as if it didn’t really exist, as if I was being tricked and wanting more than anything to see the reality behind the veil. Of course I didn’t use this type of wording back then but that was the general driving factor in my life.

I have a theory that most, if not all, of those who become deeply philosophical and spiritual later in life have significant altered states when they are very young. I have memories of lying in my cot staring out the window at the trees and going into very unusual, exquisite states of mind replete with all sorts of strange, innocent thoughts. It's probably where my fascination with trees comes from.

Everybody probably has these kinds of experiences when they are young, as a natural part of becoming more conscious while still having the freshness and flexibilty of a mind not yet set in adult-like concrete. However, with some individuals, these experiences seem to have more impact and assume greater significance. Most people tend to forget all about them.

Finally I found the connection between meditation and my daily interaction in the finite world. I was able to unite "carrying water and chopping wood" with the philosophical understanding of reality, utilizing reason and logic to it's utmost, while continuously and effortlessly experiencing the ever-present, all-pervading, Infinite/Zero/Self (or as Peter Rowland labels it "the Zero Totality").

How did this connection come about?

-

[Blair]

Since I am already familiar with the philosophical practices of this forum,

What would those be?

I've been reading this forum for about ten years, must have missed them.

[AlyOshA]

(I edited the quote "When you love God there is always time for real life.)

Well I hope that just because I shared something personal and made that comment about wolves that I didn't deter anyone from speaking frankly and honestly about their perspective. Earlier in this thread, David made a psychological analysis of Sri Ramakrishna's Samadhi episodes. This was a really interesting analysis, I don't know if it is exactly true but it is a perspective that I've never thought about and could very well be true in his case.

Kelly:

This may or may not be a bit of a sensitive area, so feel free to pass it by.

Oops... I'm afraid my tone misrepresented my intention. I am not sensitive about any topic that I mentioned. Please feel free to treat every topic I mentioned with the same dispassionate discernment that you would treat something you read in a book and were discussing with a nonpartisan friend.

You mentioned a sense of detachment from your body, or "flesh". I read it as a very early, innate feeling that you didn't really exist in the everyday, ordinary world. Like the real you belonged "somewhere else". Can you expand on this? For instance, when your family talked about the other relatives who had killed themselves, how did you explain their actions to each other?

Yes the key word in this though is "early" stages because I was very young and fortunately no longer feel that way. Feeling caged or enslaved by my body eventually led to the feeling that my body was my temple. I can still recognize the animal nature of my body but as some of you note, there is no separation, no clearly definable boundary between one thing and the other, it is ultimately a non-dual cohesion - oneness and nothingness. The "silent observer" is not separate from the finite body. I value health just as one would want a healthy horse to ride, but when it parishes I will not really be attached to it in any significant way. I love the poem by William Blake "He who binds himself a joy, does the winged life destroy, but he who kisses the joy as it flies, lives in eternity's sunrise". I will "kiss" my body as it flies away. The belonging "somewhere else" is not something I can fully explain or even completely understand. It could be explained in some Hindu/Buddhist mystical way in that I was reincarnated and still trying to reconcile having to occupy a human form - yet again. But honestly, reincarnation in the literal sense just doesn't make logical sense. How is it possible to suffer the sins of past lives? What a ridiculous and maliciously contrived fantasy that is. It's a downright repulsive concept to me, when thought about in a literal manner (I feel the same way about the literal idea of heaven and hell). The only analysis that makes sense to me was that I perceived my body and the world as a shallow and empty delusion and wanted to be free from the slavery of that delusion. I went from using meditation as a form of escapism to using it to experience absolute reality. "When you love God there's always time for real life. As you know what real life is - you know what God is. This fundamental question of significance is the quintessence of all existence. God is what all is. God is All." As for the suicides in my family. Well as you can imagine this had a powerfully emotional impact on them. Many of them are trapped in the samsara of psychological hell. Needless to say they were all pretty fucked up. I am thankful for being so intimate with death at such an early age. It is one of the single most important aspects that has shaped my perspective on life (in a positive way).

Either way, I'll get back to you with my thoughts in a day or so. I've got a rather resilient 'flu', so I'm taking it easy.

Ah drink lots of fluids and take care.


David:

Everybody probably has these kinds of experiences when they are young, as a natural part of becoming more conscious while still having the freshness and flexibilty of a mind not yet set in adult-like concrete.

Yes I agree. But I want to point out that when I talk about "visions" during meditation later in development, I am not talking about the same innocent perspectives and pondering of early youth. I am also not referring to any kind of "altered consciousness" or even anything I consider "mystical". The human mind is capable of far greater things than we currently give it credit for, abilities many people don't understand so don't bother to develop further. If human consciousness does in fact advance or evolve some day (before we annihilate our species) I dare prophesy that some of these abilities of the mind that we associate with being "mystical" will seem just as normal to daily consciousness as our sense of smell and taste - but maybe I am being too optimistic :)

How did this connection come about?

Partly because of a practical shift in my approach. I would spend so many hours in meditation and I started to realize how ultimately useless it was becoming. How is the yogi immersed in meditation any different than the heroin addict slumped over his needle? Well of course very different in their states of consciousness, but in the practical sense they are not different at all. So my primary meditation from then on was to experience and understand the Zero Totality in the finite occurrences of everyday life. Once I learned to recognize it, the transition wasn't very difficult. Though I am still absolutely a fallible, stinking human being.

[Blair]

Though I am still absolutely a fallible, stinking human being.

Yeah you got that right. So what do you want, a medal for how your shit stinks?

What you are, is a weiner lost in the intoxication of your own pitifulness. You are a girly-man, a puff, a snivelling nancy-boy, a rambler of irrelevancy.

[Talking Ass]

Alyosha: "Since I am already familiar with the philosophical practices of this forum..."

Prince: "What would those be?"

• Eliminating all but a select group of notions about Reality.
• Becoming focused in holding those ideas in one's mind.
• Learning to interiorize a group of ideas about 'woman'.
• Applying those ideas to the lens through which one views Reality.
• Redefining mental illness (or, better defined, conceptual issues derived from 'mental issues') as a sign of 'genius'.
• Atomizing oneself socially. Removing oneself from the company of women. Establishing a life-style that would never allow a relationship with a women.
• A semi-intellectual process of reading and blending Western philosophy with certain Eastern conceptions. Doing this with great force. Creating a potent 'witch's brew' which acts as an intoxicant for the mind (already destablized).
• Defining poverty and a life on welfare as a 'positive value'.
• The list could go on on and. There are definite 'practices' (an ethic) that flows naturally from the House Philosophy.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

At least we can agree the brew is potent! And this might also explain your trouble with it, your sipping, coughing and spitting!

An improved version, and not only the spelling and grammar:

* Eliminating all notions about reality.
* Becoming focused on stopping to cling to any idea whatsoever in one's mind.
* Learning to stop believing in a group of common internalized ideas about 'woman'.
* Removing those ideas from the lens through which one views reality.
* Redefining 'genius'.
* Individualize and actualize oneself, even when it often means standing utterly alone.
* A semi-intellectual process of reading and blending Western philosophy with certain Eastern conceptions.
* Creating thereby a potent witch's brew which can act as purifier of a poisoned mind.
* Seeing any consciously chosen simplicity of life, including one on welfare, as having important benefits
* The list could go on and on.

[AlyOshA]

What you are, is a weiner lost in the intoxication of your own pitifulness. You are a girly-man, a puff, a snivelling nancy-boy, a rambler of irrelevancy.

Hahaha! That's funny Prince. Thanks. Hey wanna go play basketball or something? Bet I can kick your ass! (Insert sarcastic tone of voice).

Alex T:

But I'm deluded as all hell). ;-)

I'm curious why did you add this? As a reference to my post or as a reference to what others call you?

[Talking Ass]

The latter. Sorry, though. There are always casualties when one plays the game of irony. ;-)

[cousinbasil]

The list could go on and on.

Eliminating all notions about reality.
Yes, let's have notions about all the other stuff instead

Becoming focused on stopping to cling to any idea whatsoever in one's mind.
Except this one

Learning to stop believing in a group of common internalized ideas about 'woman'.
She looks 18 to me

Removing those ideas from the lens through which one views reality
Along with "any idea whatsoever"

Redefining 'genius'.
And any other inconvenient term

Individualize and actualize oneself, even when it often means standing utterly alone.
Because being alone is what life is all about

A semi-intellectual process of reading and blending Western philosophy with certain Eastern conceptions
As long as one denigrates what others read in the process - can't forget to eschew "any idea whatsoever"

Creating thereby a potent witch's brew which can act as purifier of a poisoned mind.
Poisoned by "any idea whatsoever"

Seeing any consciously chosen simplicity of life, including one on welfare, as having important benefits
As long as other people are paying for those important benefits - all the people with minds poisoned by ideas

[Talking Ass]

Some funny Kierkegaard inspired quotes:

"Has he always been like this?"
"No, he became this way while at the University."
"A love affair?"
"No, reading the works of Soren Kierkegaard."

• * * * * * * * *

• Now children, since you've worked so hard
  We'll spend a little time on Soren Kierkegaard
  
  Soren Kierkegaard refused to niggle
  With Georg Wulfgang Friedrich Higgle.
  
  Soren called for a radical schism
  With dialectical idealism.
  
  Now, God told Abraham his son to slay,
  And if he'd done it, 'twould have been okay,
  
  But, just as Abraham raised the knife,
  God said, "Spare that young man's life!"
  
  God said, "Abe, do you feel ill-used?"
  And Abe said, "No, just a mite confused."
  
  "But I'm Abraham, and you're God, you see,
  So whatever you want's all right with me."
  
  This God may seem a dictatorial cat,
  But German Lutherans are all like that.
  
  For man views God in his own image,
  And Soren was deutsch from start to finnage.
  
  That's the end of the theological session,
  And the start of the Schleswig-Holstein question.

________________________________________________________

Heavenly Father, whose beloved Son Jesus Christ felt sorrow and Dread in the Garden of Gethsemane: help us to remember that, even when we walk through the valley of the shadow of death and desolation, you are ever with us; that, encouraged by the writings of Soren Kierkegaard and others, we may believe where we have not seen, trust where we cannot test, and so come at last to the eternal joy which you have prepared for us, through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and ever.
________________________________________________________

From Chap. 3: Training in Christianity

From on high He will draw all unto Himself (John 12:23-36)

"But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

1.

Prayer

"O Lord Jesus Christ, there is so much to drag us back: empty pursuits, trivial pleasures, unworthy cares. There is so much to frighten us away: a pride too cowardly to submit to being helped, cowardly apprehensiveness which evades danger to its own destruction, anguish for sins that require holy cleansing as disease shuns medicine. But Thou art stronger than these, so draw Thou us now more strongly to Thee. We call Thee Savior and Redeemer, since Thou didst come to earth to redeem use from the servitude under which we were bound or had bound ourselves, and to save the lost. This is Thy work, which Thou didst complete, and which Thou wilt continue to complete until the end of the world; for since Thou Thyself hast said it, therefor Thou wilt do it---lifted up from the earth Thou wilt draw all to Thee."

Note: Gosh. If only he actually meant what he appeared to mean. I mean...but what do I mean? Whew! I'm really glad that we have the likes of David et al who---and praise the Totality for this---take the time to carefully sift through his antiquated and highly perishable 19th century confusions and to redescribe them to us, thereby illuminating us about what he really meant (as distinct from what he said). If it weren't for these minor but very connected geniuses I am not sure what we'd do! We'd truly be lost! You have to be really saturated with Infinity and have had many many inklings of nirvana to see through the mire! I only thank the Totality for the revelation that Kierkegaard was an absolute non-personalist atheist. My personal vow, and I'll wear it like an emblem of commitment and courage, is to be just like him!

[AlyOshA]

Alex T:

Now children, since you've worked so hard
We'll spend a little time on Soren Kierkegaard

Did you write this poem? If so, you have some wicked talent!

[David Quinn]

I only thank the Totality for the revelation that Kierkegaard was an absolute non-personalist atheist.

You and your categories. Always blocking your view.

The irony is, the "non-personal truth of the infinite" is infinitely more personal to us as individuals, in real everyday life, than the God-alien being which is conceived to exist separately from us.

Keeping oneself removed from God by the distance of the imagination is precisely the thing that Kierkegaard spent his life railing against.

Prayer

"O Lord Jesus Christ, there is so much to drag us back: empty pursuits, trivial pleasures, unworthy cares. There is so much to frighten us away: a pride too cowardly to submit to being helped, cowardly apprehensiveness which evades danger to its own destruction, anguish for sins that require holy cleansing as disease shuns medicine. But Thou art stronger than these, so draw Thou us now more strongly to Thee. We call Thee Savior and Redeemer, since Thou didst come to earth to redeem use from the servitude under which we were bound or had bound ourselves, and to save the lost. This is Thy work, which Thou didst complete, and which Thou wilt continue to complete until the end of the world; for since Thou Thyself hast said it, therefor Thou wilt do it---lifted up from the earth Thou wilt draw all to Thee."

What can I say? Crumbs for the little people. Written in a cartoonish style, completely unlike his normal writing. A weakness of Kierkegaard's, a form of protective padding, a compensation against the lofty harshness of his normal writing, the desire to reassure everyone (and himself) that he was just another little person like everyone else and not the enigmatic, judgmental, eglomaniac know-all that he feared came across in his normal writing.

Kierkegaard, being pulled in different directions, not ready to abandon the naive Christianity of his youth, not ready to become the "apostle", not ready to express the pure heart of willing one thing .....

-

[cousinbasil]

The irony is, the "non-personal truth of the infinite" is infinitely more personal to us as individuals, in real everyday life, than the God-alien being which is conceived to exist separately from us.

Probably true in many cases. Key word here is "personal," implying that either NPT or GAB can do the trick. What motivates one to choose? Maybe it comes to whether NPT's or GAB's ass is nearer to the chair when the music of delusion stops.

[Kelly Jones]

AlyOshA,

The belonging "somewhere else" is not something I can fully explain or even completely understand. It could be explained in some Hindu/Buddhist mystical way in that I was reincarnated and still trying to reconcile having to occupy a human form - yet again. But honestly, reincarnation in the literal sense just doesn't make logical sense. How is it possible to suffer the sins of past lives? What a ridiculous and maliciously contrived fantasy that is. It's a downright repulsive concept to me, when thought about in a literal manner (I feel the same way about the literal idea of heaven and hell). The only analysis that makes sense to me was that I perceived my body and the world as a shallow and empty delusion and wanted to be free from the slavery of that delusion. I went from using meditation as a form of escapism to using it to experience absolute reality. "When you love God there's always time for real life. As you know what real life is - you know what God is. This fundamental question of significance is the quintessence of all existence. God is what all is. God is All."

Thanks for clarifying. I get that by meditation you're talking about a deep exploration of the relationship between self and Reality, rather than trying to attain psychological states of relief and escape from the dreary aspects of ordinary life. But what you mean by "belonging somewhere else" is still not all that clear, yet, for me. This might just be a problem of words. How did you arrive at the analysis that your body and the world were a shallow and empty delusion? I'm guessing that you no longer think it's a true idea, and that it was possibly generated by a distaste for your relatives. But I'm not 100% convinced by that theory.

As for the suicides in my family. Well as you can imagine this had a powerfully emotional impact on them. Many of them are trapped in the samsara of psychological hell. Needless to say they were all pretty fucked up. I am thankful for being so intimate with death at such an early age. It is one of the single most important aspects that has shaped my perspective on life (in a positive way).

I'm sure that must have had a strong influence. Why do you think they were unable to use their presumably significant intelligence to think about why they were suffering? What are your thoughts on family relationships, and marriage?


On another note, I'm also not yet clear what you mean by God. I like the playful references to the "Zero Totality":

So my primary meditation from then on was to experience and understand the Zero Totality in the finite occurrences of everyday life. Once I learned to recognize it, the transition wasn't very difficult.

I noticed the "Infinite,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,Infinite" concept, and am guessing that the Zero Totality means something like "the hidden and empty source of all finitude", such that all things issue from something that has no finite essence, and so is essentially "nothing" in nature. Do you think there may be any element of nihilism, e.g. a rejection of body and "the world", in your concept of Zero Totality? Or do you think that you have closed the circle, and trust the idea of "sinking back" into your body and the world?

I had another question, but I'll leave it.


...

[Kelly Jones]

Prayer

"O Lord Jesus Christ, there is so much to drag us back: empty pursuits, trivial pleasures, unworthy cares. There is so much to frighten us away: a pride too cowardly to submit to being helped, cowardly apprehensiveness which evades danger to its own destruction, anguish for sins that require holy cleansing as disease shuns medicine. But Thou art stronger than these, so draw Thou us now more strongly to Thee. We call Thee Savior and Redeemer, since Thou didst come to earth to redeem use from the servitude under which we were bound or had bound ourselves, and to save the lost. This is Thy work, which Thou didst complete, and which Thou wilt continue to complete until the end of the world; for since Thou Thyself hast said it, therefor Thou wilt do it---lifted up from the earth Thou wilt draw all to Thee."

What can I say? Crumbs for the little people. Written in a cartoonish style, completely unlike his normal writing. A weakness of Kierkegaard's, a form of protective padding, a compensation against the lofty harshness of his normal writing, the desire to reassure everyone (and himself) that he was just another little person like everyone else and not the enigmatic, judgmental, eglomaniac know-all that he feared came across in his normal writing.

But Kierkegaard did write such prayers to himself. You can see the deeper meaning in it if you try. So it's not quite the case that it wasn't at all like his normal writing.

Kierkegaard, being pulled in different directions, not ready to abandon the naive Christianity of his youth, not ready to become the "apostle", not ready to express the pure heart of willing one thing .....

This is true. But he would never have been permitted to give such a discourse if he spoke his true thoughts. He was under a great deal of suspicion already, since, despite being a "Magister" of theology, he was not permitted by the Bishop to teach in a seminary, or hold a pastoral role. People weren't buying his "religious" books. So how could he communicate? He was walking a tight-rope, where he could have easily been beaten up by an anonymous thug on the street and left for dead. He didn't live like a cloistered monk, hidden in a secure and remote monastery. Everyone knew him, and he often got people mocking him when he went for walks. It was knife-edge living.

It was much like Diogenes having to dance in the street or play theatrical games, or like Jesus telling short childish fables, or Hakuin telling outrageous and highly imaginative stories, or Chuang Tzu being enigmatic and playful. Like a lolly flavoured with God. Something to distract low-level minds that were quick to anger.


...

[Talking Ass]

I read somewhere that Kierkegaard considered Training in Christianity to be his most perfect and truest work. From the beginning to the end it is only a conversation on the topic of Jesus Christ, God, revelation, service and commitment. Any Christian (and many Jewish theologians) have seen in it a call to delve more strongly into the core of Christianity, and not into something non-Christian (indeed, unrecognizable as such).

You have this strange 'right' to select from his writings only those portions that conform to your pre-establshed and cherished notions. All the rest of it, which is really the substantial base, you can explain away. You vacate from it its essence. 'He wrote like that to protect himself, it is subterfuge. The real meaning (that only I know and can see and explain) lies elsewhere'. 'If you read it in a certain way, you will see that what he meant is what I am saying'. 'Any reference to Jesus as a Divine Incarnation in a process of redemption is immature blathering'.

Weird. And you seem to say David that what one should ultimately take away from a reading of Kierkegaard is that one should be 'enigmatic, judgmental [and an] egomaniac'?

See, I think this is your-plural fundamental error. You completely miss the point of a genuine and very committed Christianity---the essence of it and in that sense the 'treasure' in it is unrecognizable to you---and you select all the non-human elements to construct your strange brand of atheism. But even your atheism cannot be at the very least 'humanitarian' since you have nothing but contempt for humans and humankind. This is the primary error that drives all other errors.

PS: Alyosha, I found that poem on some student website. Do you really think it was that hot? It was clever I'll admit that.

[Kelly Jones]

Alex, who are you referring to as "you"? Me? David? Adam? Diebert? Who?

It would help to not use "you-plural" because each of us is often referring to particular texts or concepts. Even if we all talk about something authored by someone called "Kierkegaard", we may not be talking about the same thing. Lumping us all into a hodge-podge of "you-plural" muddies things up, and becomes confusing.

If you want to argue for a certain interpretation of Kierkegaard's writings, such as one you favour, then go ahead. Maybe Kierkegaard meant what you think he's saying. The point is, try to bring out the actual principle and concept you want to argue for. Simply arguing that no interpretation can be correct is kind of pointless.


...

[Talking Ass]

Hi Kelly. In my last post I wrote the following which contained some paraphrases.

"You have this strange 'right' to select from his writings only those portions that conform to your pre-establshed and cherished notions. All the rest of it, which is really the substantial base, you can explain away. You vacate from it its essence."

That would be you and David.

• 'He wrote like that to protect himself, it is subterfuge. The real meaning (that only I know and can see and explain) lies elsewhere'.
• 'If you read it in a certain way, you will see that what he meant is what I am saying'.
• 'Any reference to Jesus as a Divine Incarnation in a process of redemption is immature blathering'.

The first is more or less what you wrote a few posts up. "This is true. But he would never have been permitted to give such a discourse if he spoke his true thoughts. He was under a great deal of suspicion already, since, despite being a "Magister" of theology, he was not permitted by the Bishop to teach in a seminary, or hold a pastoral role. People weren't buying his "religious" books. So how could he communicate? He was walking a tight-rope, where he could have easily been beaten up by an anonymous thug on the street and left for dead. He didn't live like a cloistered monk, hidden in a secure and remote monastery. Everyone knew him, and he often got people mocking him when he went for walks. It was knife-edge living."

The second is exclusively a paraphrase of your and David's method. I honestly feel that Diebert has a far more nuanced interpretation of K's writing.

The final one is a paraphrase of David: "Kierkegaard, being pulled in different directions, not ready to abandon the naive Christianity of his youth, not ready to become the "apostle", not ready to express the pure heart of willing one thing ....."

As to the rest: I'll get back to you.

[Kelly Jones]

Alex, it's certainly true that no one can be certain what another person means. This is fair enough. I accept your point.

But I suspect this isn't actually your point....

.... because you don't have any problem asserting that your interpretation of many texts is the correct one. This has happened more times than I can be bothered counting. Further evidence is that you assert that you know perfectly well the meaning of what I write, what Dave writes, what Diebert writes, et al. You accuse us of this and that, of being absolutist, of being wrong, etc. etc. etc. And that's not all! There's also your interpretation of what our motivations are, that you are quite certain of.

So either you are being a simple hypocrite, which seems the case anyway, or you have some other axe to grind.


.

[David Quinn]

Prayer

"O Lord Jesus Christ, there is so much to drag us back: empty pursuits, trivial pleasures, unworthy cares. There is so much to frighten us away: a pride too cowardly to submit to being helped, cowardly apprehensiveness which evades danger to its own destruction, anguish for sins that require holy cleansing as disease shuns medicine. But Thou art stronger than these, so draw Thou us now more strongly to Thee. We call Thee Savior and Redeemer, since Thou didst come to earth to redeem use from the servitude under which we were bound or had bound ourselves, and to save the lost. This is Thy work, which Thou didst complete, and which Thou wilt continue to complete until the end of the world; for since Thou Thyself hast said it, therefor Thou wilt do it---lifted up from the earth Thou wilt draw all to Thee."

What can I say? Crumbs for the little people. Written in a cartoonish style, completely unlike his normal writing. A weakness of Kierkegaard's, a form of protective padding, a compensation against the lofty harshness of his normal writing, the desire to reassure everyone (and himself) that he was just another little person like everyone else and not the enigmatic, judgmental, eglomaniac know-all that he feared came across in his normal writing.

But Kierkegaard did write such prayers to himself. You can see the deeper meaning in it if you try. So it's not quite the case that it wasn't at all like his normal writing.

Given the outstanding quality of his mind overall, these "prayers" cannot help but reflect some of that quality. Still, I have the feeling that their main purpose was to bring himself down to earth, as it were, to ground himself back into ordinary humanity, to become just another member of the community once again. To remind himself just how powerful and majestic God really is, and how insignificant and helpless he is in comparision, despite the awesome clarity of his understanding.

It was as though he was always afraid of going beyond his station .....

-

[jupiviv]

Kierkegaard was afraid to become what he called an 'apostle'' ,i.e, a personn who has gone beyond the love of Truth and become a bolt of fine white silk.

[Kelly Jones]

There's no doubt that Kierkegaard was afraid of openly attacking Christendom. I don't doubt his fear because he wrote about it alot, in very plain terms. It would be hard for anyone to misinterpret that. He had poor health, arguably had epilepsy, and the strain of his completely solitary position often caused him to use creative writing to forget his troubles. He knew his melancholy was a flaw, and that his enjoyment of purely human life was also a flaw, but he accepted these without getting ridiculously guilty about it. He knew he wasn't perfect, and that he shouldn't despair over himself, but ground himself in God and resign himself to the Infinite. So his fear needs to be taken in context of his limitations.

Consider also that that fear is not only a concern about taking on too high a level, in a psychological/physical sense, but also a fear of taking on too high a level in an intellectual-existential sense.

Attacking Christendom, or the delusions rampant in humanity, isn't as easy as relying on an intellectual knowledge, to cut down illogical thinking, or relying on a psychological expertise and intuitive insight. That is existentially a false position, where egotistical motivation moves one to act: pride in intellect, disgust for mediocrity or falseness, fear of being overwhelmed by the herd, a need for others to understand one, and so forth. Attacking has to be existentially authentic. One cannot act from a false position. Again, arguing from my studies of what Kierkegaard wrote, which I can again quote extensively if anyone would like references, Kierkegaard was constantly admonishing and encouraging himself to recognise his own actuality, and to what extent he was capable of truly bearing the position of educating others. He knew he could not pretend - e.g. start a revolution, reform the church, start one more political party, another sect, another worldly power. He knew also, that he had to venture something. But at every moment of the venture, his intellect had to test the authenticity and purity of his venture. It is not easy to do, and it is not simply cowardice or mediocrity that stops such a person venturing an open attack.

Much harm can be done by prematurely venturing. If one goes too high, that one panics, or becomes exhausted, and therefore loses one's head, then the whole venture becomes a mess. Everything becomes coloured by pretense and sham, and it eventually crumbles where one realises how great is the distance between one's knowledge and application. And other people are also slammed into the situation, becoming even more cynical and distrustful of the venture. There's personal karma from taking on too high a level, like becoming defiant against causation, or rationalisation that venturing authentically is too hard (which accumulates), and the like. And there are wider karmic effects on others. So, in effect, it is actually more cowardly to venture than not, if it is a matter of pride, and feeling like one ought to do something to rack up a quota of apostolic merit.

But there are other considerations as well. A lot depends on the individual, and their own karma. I'm just saying one can't leap into situations blindly and without thinking about the consequences --- like an animal jumping into a battle because it's frightened about a loss of territory. Everything has to be done mindfully.


...

[Talking Ass]

"An Apostle is not born: an Apostle is a man called and appointed by God, receiving a mission from him.... Authority is the decisive quality." ---Kierkegaard
________________________________________________________

Again, each of you is---and please permit me to use such strong language---outrightly lying. The problem here is your (in this case Kelly, David and now Jupe) essential dishonesty. What Kierkegaard wrote is exactly what he meant. "An Apostle is a man appointed by God". He meant God not 'infinity' or 'Totality'.

David writes: "Still, I have the feeling that their main purpose was to bring himself down to earth, as it were, to ground himself back into ordinary humanity, to become just another member of the community once again."

Really, only a complete block-head could write such a thing. The strength of your will in enforcing your interpretation-distortion is extraordinary. You deliberately mislead. The mission of Jesus as an outcome of the Revelation (God revealing himself in the consciousness and in the life of man) has only to do with men, and in Jesus' mission with men of the most common and 'ordinary' sort. Naturally, you have to vacate the Gospels of any such reference, of any such concern for average people.

You are the 'alien-god' bringing some incomprehensible doctrine. ;-)

This is how Kierkegaard put it:

"We call Thee Savior and Redeemer, since Thou didst come to earth to redeem use from the servitude under which we were bound or had bound ourselves, and to save the lost."

The meaning in the Jesusonian sense is that each and every person is valuable to God. The purpose of coming under the influence of God (i.e. becoming a sincere Christian) is to participate with God in God's project: that specific project that is Biblical Judaism-Christianity.

You two (Kelly and David) take this to mean separation from humankind and an arrogant diferentiation of yourselves in regard to the singular area of concern: people and their life. You switch terminology dishonestly. Your reading glosses over the essential import for an import you have devised yourselves, for your own purposes. Yet you claim the highest interpretation, you own it and you manage it and you dole it out to other people. Not only do you do this with Kierkagaard but you do it with every intellectual you get your grubby little hands on.

It is ethically and intellectually despicable.

For you-all, a 'delusion of humanity' would be living in the house one has purchaced with one's own labor. It would be having a job or a profession. It would be participating in civil society. It would be having a family or children. In brief, 'delusion' for you is that group of your neurotic preferences whatever and however many they are. When Kierkagaard attacks 'Christendom' he is indeed attacking the blind and drowsy materialism of Danish (hence European) culture, but what he wishes to ask from people, what he wishes to bring out of them, is not something like Kelly and David. He wishes people to stand in sincere and authentic relationship to Revelation and the the mission of Jesus.

Kelly wrote: "Attacking has to be existentially authentic. One cannot act from a false position."

Yes and what is Kierkegaard's 'existentially authentic position'? You reveal, it seems to me, how little of it you have understood and the degree that you select portions to support your own views.

Kelly wrote: ".... because you don't have any problem asserting that your interpretation of many texts is the correct one. This has happened more times than I can be bothered counting. Further evidence is that you assert that you know perfectly well the meaning of what I write, what Dave writes, what Diebert writes, et al. You accuse us of this and that, of being absolutist, of being wrong, etc. etc. etc. And that's not all! There's also your interpretation of what our motivations are, that you are quite certain of. / So either you are being a simple hypocrite, which seems the case anyway, or you have some other axe to grind."

It is not that I am saying one cannot get or take from Kierkegaard any number of different things. I am revealing and stressing that Kierkegaard was a theist, believed in Jesus Christ, in apostleship, etc. I am asserting that your interpretation is fundamentally skewed, right from the start, because you 'vacate' the texts of K's meanings. Duh!

The axe to grind is really this. I write toward a community of readership attempting to show how absurd your position is, how violently you distort 'for your own purposes'.

Does this make ANY sense to you? Do these words get through?

[jupiviv]

@Kelly Jones, all those things that you mentioned don't really matter once you achieve perfect understanding. There will always be problems, but that shouldn't prevent you from seeking ultimate truth at all costs. Otherwise, you'll end up still having problems, but no perfect understanding.