Men commit actions; women commit gestures

[Alex Jacob]

The greater part of my experiences up 'till now do not point in the direction that you-plural describe. What I am pointed to I try to express, in different ways, in what I write.

One thing I say is the following: absolute thinking is a closed loop. It only has itself as a reference, and so continually verifies itself. Within that closed loop---this is something that is known to happen in cults, for example---an edifice of belief is constructed. It is a system of thinking and perceiving.

From the look of it, this is what you are (constantly) talking about. Language is used in a peculiar way (as it is in EST, just one example) and through language the core beliefs are presented and reinforced.

You can break out of this system. It has taken quite some time to establish it, and a great deal is invested in it, but nevertheless there is a way out. (Obviously, what I write can have no influence on you but my real object is to demonstrate, at least to allude, to other people who read here just what is going on.)

[brokenhead]

Every time I try to commit an action with a woman, she gives me the same gesture.

[sue hindmarsh]

Is that when she gestures you with open arms, as you willingly surrender your soul over to her?

[Kevin Solway]

absolute thinking is a closed loop.

Is that absolutely true or only relatively true?

I presume you think that statement is absolutely true - in which case it is a closed loop - which verifies itself - which, as you say, is something that is known to happen in cults.

You can break out of this system.

Is that absolutely true or only relatively true?

(Ditto)

[Dan Rowden]

I suspect he means something more along the lines of being flicked the bird.

[brokenhead]

I suspect he means something more along the lines of being flicked the bird.

How did you guess?

[Dan Rowden]

Sometimes the obvious is just that.

[brokenhead]

Sometimes the obvious is just that.

Whew! What a relief. For a second there I though you had gotten hold of copies of various restraining orders. But I can't talk about that...

[Carl G]

Within that closed loop---this is something that is known to happen in cults, for example---an edifice of belief is constructed. It is a system of thinking and perceiving.

From the look of it, this is what you are (constantly) talking about. Language is used in a peculiar way (as it is in EST, just one example) and through language the core beliefs are presented and reinforced.

So the fuck what. There is nothing wrong nor anything necessarily cult-like about having particular lingo or definitions. Heck, NASA (the space program) even does it. What a joke.

[David Quinn]

Don't be too hard on him, as he's evidently hung up on labels - for example, giving philosophers the fixed label that they are hung up on labels.

Poets tend to have the quaint belief that if a person doesn't use language in the way they do then he must be a slave to labels.

-

[Alex Jacob]

Master wrote:

"I presume you think that statement is absolutely true - in which case it is a closed loop - which verifies itself - which, as you say, is something that is known to happen in cults."

"Is that absolutely true or only relatively true?"

Only true enough that, knowing it, it can be useful to modifying it, which in this context only mean 'opening a closed loop'.

It can be as simple or as complex as you want, Kevin.

The whole QRS-H quadruplicity has appeared here! A closing-of-the-ranks as it were.

Cult-like thought-systems are closely managed, and for good reason.

Get back to me on this...

[Dan Rowden]

Nice work Alex. In the short time you've been with us you've managed to become a parody of yourself.

[Alex Jacob]

I've done all I can for the time being. I won't give up on you and know I am always near.

[*blows kisses*]
______________________________________

Master of Freedom, show us the Way!

[Dan Rowden]

Done all you can? What the hell is that, exactly? Anyway, you should consider the possibility that you spend way too much time at Youtube and that it is wrong of you to essentially extol people to do the same with the incessant posting of links there.

[Kevin Solway]

Is that absolutely true or only relatively true?

Only true enough that, knowing it, it can be useful to modifying it, which in this context only mean 'opening a closed loop'.

Absolute truths can't be "modified". They are true in all possible worlds.

That statement itself is an absolute truth that can't be modified.

[sue hindmarsh]

brokenhead: Every time I try to commit an action with a woman, she gives me the same gesture.

Sue: Is that when she gestures you with open arms, as you willingly surrender your soul over to her?

Dan: I suspect he means something more along the lines of being flicked the bird.

Either way! If he acts like an animal, he'll be treated like one.

[Alex Jacob]

You are right of course, Dan. I have been here since August and have expressed my opinions about your-plural brand of spirituality and other things too. I agree with some of your points and concerns, of course, but a great deal I just don't share, so there is nothing more for me to learn here or contribute. I am going to avoid a useless syndrome we are all familiar with where a poster continues to hang around, month after month, year after year, 'battling earnestly' over the same points and getting (of course) nowhere. The youtube links fixation was just a bit of silliness, and I realize it is distracting and 'inapproriate'. But no matter. Time for me to move on.

[RobertGreenSky]

Absolute truths can't be "modified". They are true in all possible worlds.

That statement itself is an absolute truth that can't be modified. -

Are there thoughts without thinkers, sir? Are there worlds without thinkers? Your absolute truths - if they are true in the first place - are not true for donkeys, i.e., they are not true for all sentient beings, and whether they are in fact useful for anything but claiming you have them, no one has ever observed. You do not occupy all possible worlds; you are not omnipresent; your absolute truths are obscenely useless to the vast majoritiy of humanity past present and future, and thinking that is relative to speech (and to you and your two chums) is hardly absolute.

3/3

"Thought in its very nature is fragmentary and this causes confusion and sorrow. Thought has divided the world into nationalities, ideologies and into religious sects. Thought is disharmony. All its images, ideologies are self-contradictory and destructive.

Why did Nagarjuna show you the limitations of thinking? Why did Bodhidharma and Hui-neng teach you 'don't know'?

Freedom from the known

"Unless he leaves all the things he accumulated in the river and swims ashore, death will always be at his door. For the river is the movement of time and thought is of it. When the observer leaves everything which he is, then the observer is not. It is the timeless. You cannot know it, for what is known is of time; you cannot experience it; recognition is made up of time. Freedom from the known is freedom from time. When time is not then death is not. Love is".

"Knowledge is time, and freedom from the known is the flowering of meditation".

"Freedom from the known is the essence of intelligence".

- all from Krishnamurti, emphasis mine.

OSHO was in at least one of the YouTubes linked by Alex Jacob, OSHO pointing out that anyone who gives you a belief system is giving you a fiction, just as 'true in all possible worlds' was a fiction; you can believe Mr. Solway, but unlike him you are not omnipresent. You can believe in this second hand reference to absolute truth, and perhaps you can be comforted by belief in Kevin Solways' certainty, but you already know it is possible to believe what is false. Take the comfort if it's good for you but understand that if you can only believe it, then it cannot be the truth, neither conventionally nor absolutely.



Only the good die young, Mr. Jacob.

[Dan Rowden]

Are you irrepressively vacuous, Robert? That's not a rhetorical question.

[RobertGreenSky]

Are you irrepressively vacuous, Robert? That's not a rhetorical question.

Vacuity means in part:

3. Total lack of ideas; emptiness of mind.

6. Something, especially a remark, that is pointless or inane ...

You answered nothing, displaying a total lack of ideas and an emptiness of mind, and you made a pointless and inane ad hominem remark, a logical fallacy anywhere else in the world but not here at dear old Genius Forum, Home of Absolute Truth On All Possible Worldsâ„¢, where you spew them out post after post.

J. Krishnamurti and OSHO were quoted above. Would you like to answer them (in your second try at it) or would you prefer to announce that being authorities they have no place here?


See Dan.

[RobertGreenSky]

[Ad hominem] is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Many times, an opponent's use of an ad hominem attack is an indication that the opponent realizes that the argument itself is correct and cannot be refuted.

- Wikipedia, Ad hominem, emphasis mine.

Thanks, Wikipedia!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hello again Robert, how are you? I hope your health issues are sorted out.

Are there thoughts without thinkers, sir? Are there worlds without thinkers?

Are there actually truths without thoughts to conceive of them in some meaningful manner? How would you know? Feel your way to them, like a blind man caught in an orgy?

are not true for donkeys, i.e., they are not true for all sentient beings

Hereby secretly introducing another mystical form of 'truth establishing', some exotic form of non-sapiens? Why not bring in god, angels, heaven and hell, while you're at it?

You do not occupy all possible worlds; you are not omnipresent

As far as awareness goes, it does occupy all worlds its aware of or could imagine existing. This is by definition as the observer arises with each world that might arise, in all possible circumstances. This is just the truth of simultaneous arising in another jacket.

"Thought in its very nature is fragmentary and this causes confusion and sorrow. Thought has divided the world into nationalities, ideologies and into religious sects. Thought is disharmony. All its images, ideologies are self-contradictory and destructive.

All thoughts excluding JK's? What kind of confusion and destruction did he create by this very paragraph, one then starts to wonder.

[brokenhead]

Poets tend to have the quaint belief that if a person doesn't use language in the way they do then he must be a slave to labels.

Alex is a poet? I didn't know it!

[brokenhead]

Either way! If he acts like an animal, he'll be treated like one.

Hey, Sue - I resemble that remark!!

[Dave Toast]

You do not occupy all possible worlds

Oh dear. Anyone for Logic 101?