Toward an Antidote

[brokenhead]

As I read Poison for the Heart, I have three overall reactions. First, that it is not a closely-argued thesis, but rather a collection of observations, or nuggets of wisdom, on a great variety of topics. Second, I find myself agreeing with many of the brief passages that comprise it, so much so that there is an odd feeling that at one time or another, I must have written that myself! And third, there are also many of the passages that I do not agree with; furthermore, these same passages seem to logically contradict others.

I hope in this thread to reconcile some of these reactions.

From "The Horror of Jesus":

He urged his listeners to transcend the world of mediocrity and ordinary human values and become perfectly wise. "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect", was his core teaching.

Then Kevin chooses this quote and comments:

"If those who lead you say to you, `See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, `It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you." Thomas: 3

Jesus now articulates his vision of God, which is none other than the totality of Nature - the ALL. God is all around us and everything is a part of Him. God is Reality itself. Needless to say, this is completely at odds with the Christian belief in a human-like creator.

It is clear that Jesus is referring to an actual person when he mentions the Heavenly Father. Kevin mixes up the concept of Heavenly Kingdom with that of the Father. The true Christian view is not that the Father is a human-like creator, but rather that humans are potentially God-like creations. The first is childish and incorrect. The second is the view that Christ urges us to accept. This misconception is profound and lies at the core of what is missing and incomplete with the views of Poison. Christ was not in any way denying that another, heavenly world exists, as he said "My Kingdom is not of this world." By this, he is lamenting that because people close their hearts to the Father - and to him, for he makes it clear that he speaks for the Father - the heavenly kingdom does not extend into this world. But in the quote Kevin chose, Christ is saying that we have the power within us to make it extend to the world we live in by following his word. Poison is clearly wrong in saying God is the Totality of Nature. Rather, God has created the Totality of Nature as well as its caretakers, both seen and unseen, including man. That authority over Nature has been delegated to us in no way nullifies the fact that the Father has retained authority over us.

I fully understand Kevin's choice of wording is intended to make us see better, think more, or just plain think. However, in the chapter "Christianity" he writes":

I am a Christian, though I do not believe in a personal God. Nor do I believe in a physical heaven or hell, or life after death. I do not believe Nature was created. I do not necessarily believe Jesus was crucified on a cross, and I certainly do not believe he physically rose from the dead. I do not necessarily believe Jesus ever existed, or that if he did, that he possessed wisdom. I do not believe one has to read the Bible to be a Christian, nor for that matter does one need any respect for the Bible.

If Jesus did not exist and/or did nor possess wisdom, why do you quote him and represent him as a sage?

Kevin, Poison for the Heart has the tone of an incredibly bright sociopath. It is rambling and often brilliant. It is also a mixed bag. I once saw a squirrel lying in the road that had its lower half completely flattened by a tire. The top half was untouched, and the front paws were sticking up, running furiously at the air. Whenever a car sped by, the quirrel would cease moving and play dead. As soon as the car was gone, it would start clawing madly at the air again. Poison reminds me of this tortured creature, frantic and morbidly fascinating, either half-dead or half-alive. You don't know whether to try to save it or stomp on its head to finish the job.

edited: as usual, there is at least one spelling error that gets by...

[brokenhead]

Then we have:

In the chapter of Poison entitled "Christianity," Kevin writes:

Christians may not be directly, physically responsible (in the immediate sense) for many of the rapes and murders, but they are definitely a major cause. And why? Because every single Christian perpetuates the self-righteous and self-centred lifestyle that is guaranteed to blossom in violence and suffering.

(The emphasis above is mine.)

Then later, he writes:

I am a Christian

So, therefore: Kevin is guilty of perpetuating the self-righteous and self-centered lifestyle that is guaranteed to blossom into violence and suffering.

It is clear Kevin did not intend this to be a neat little syllogistic confession, though. What is also apparent is that he is rankled. You cannot trust his conclusions because he is not writing rationally all the time. The poison is not solely aimed at the heart. If it can strike himself, it can strike anyone, anywhere, like a gunman with a grudge loosed on a college campus.

[Nick]

From "The Horror of Jesus":

He urged his listeners to transcend the world of mediocrity and ordinary human values and become perfectly wise. "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect", was his core teaching.

It is clear that Jesus is referring to an actual person when he mentions the Heavenly Father.

Don't you think he could have just as easily been using Father as a metaphor for Nature? In my opinion that is the most reasonable interpretation. Basically what Jesus is saying is that we should embrace our true nature, which is inherently perfect just like the Father(Ultimate Reality) , and when we do that we will realize Heaven is right in front of our eyes.

Poison is clearly wrong in saying God is the Totality of Nature. Rather, God has created the Totality of Nature as well as its caretakers, both seen and unseen, including man.

Everything exists within Nature, which includes us and any pagan god you would like to imagine. Everything we imagine to exist is necessarily a part of Nature, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Also, since everything exists within Nature, everything is created by Nature, regardless of how powerful or talented an entity is, even if that entity "created" us. Nature has no caretaker, seen or unseen. How did you arrive at the conclusion Nature would require one?

That authority over Nature has been delegated to us in no way nullifies the fact that the Father has retained authority over us.

How do we have authority over Nature? And what pagan god of yours delegated it to us?

[brokenhead]

Everything exists within Nature, which includes us and any pagan god you would like to imagine.

I am not imagining any pagan god.

Everything we imagine to exist is necessarily a part of Nature, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Maybe, if you want to be the one in charge of what the definition of "Nature" is. That's fine with me. But it is patently foolish, then, to think we have imagined all that there is to it. If you are saying that if we can imagine it, it exists, then I imagine a First (Causeless) Cause. Even the sum total of your, mine, and everyone else's imaginations, then, do not account for what Nature is.

Nature has no caretaker, seen or unseen. How did you arrive at the conclusion Nature would require one?

That is your assertion, Nick. I respectfully disagree. And if you look around you, you would see that our little corner of Nature could use a little more care-taking.

How do we have authority over Nature? And what pagan god of yours delegated it to us?

We do not have complete authority over Nature. However, we do have some. And you are being childish by repeating the word pagan. I have said that I am a Christian, so you are deliberately trying to offend me. You are failing, but you are making your argument less than it could be. I am simply looking around at the state of humanity, and I see that we do, in fact, have considerable impact on the destinies of many other species. Again, as I do not view life as any kind of chemical accident whatsoever, I am merely observing what I see to exist. I think that the diversity of life proceeds from the initial divine causes. Again. I'll stress that I am careful not to make up anything. I am merely trying to make sense of what I see. I happen to agree with kevin that humans can be vastly better stewards than we have been of the small but growing portion of Nature entrusted to us.

[Alex Jacob]

[Without some understanding of the context of Yeshua, the historical personage, and "Jesus of Nazareth' the protagonist of an embellished tale, how could any of you even venture an opinion? Without an understanding, even superficial, of the Hebrew context that produced the actual hisorical figure of Yeshua, and the time frame, and the collusion between radical Hebrew elements and gentile counterparts in the following first and second centuries that worked to fashion Jesus and the Christian doctrine, how could you even venture an opinion about what Christianity is, and what it is not?

[How is it possible, then, that Kevin would even attempt to put in the mouth of Jesus some doctrine---peculiar to a post-modernist pastiche of religious and spiritual ideas---that most likely had nothing to do either with the embellished Jesus of the Gospels(who speaks in so many spiritual and historical tongues), and most certainly little to do with the actual historical figure, who speaks strictly to a Hebrew-national context?

[Because Kevin and his side-kicks are in essence uneducated hicks who have no interest in the world of ideas except as ideas may pertain to an absolutist mishmash doctrine that they are interested in promulgating, they really cannot speak about anything except their own narrow context, their narrow personal choices, their own narrow mission. They do not respect erudition of any sort, and do not recognize any authority outside of their own elected Absolutist figures. How could anyone consider this to be sufficient and interesting at all is beyond the grasp of my brain.

[What is and what is not 'genius' is a tough issue to arbitrate, but browsing Poison I found nothing remotely interesting, and nothing that amounted to 'genius', only a ridiculous and artless parody of the tone of Zarathustra, badly carried off].

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[Without some understanding of the context of Yeshua, the historical personage, and "Jesus of Nazareth' the protagonist of an embellished tale, how could any of you even venture an opinion?

Even the people who are extremely knowledgeable on the topic, like myself, or the average scholar, are still doomed to guess at all the layers of imagery and intentions in those texts. So Kevin's guess about the underlying meaning is as good as any one's, probably better if we'd assume for a moment he had similar insights as what inspired the imagined author of the Jesus sayings.

Without an understanding, even superficial, of the Hebrew context that produced the actual hisorical figure of Yeshua,

Actual historical figure? Aren't you just here trying to sound pompous and knowledgeable without anything to back it up? Is that what your current character is all about, continuously over the top? Ecco homo?

and the time frame, and the collusion between radical Hebrew elements and gentile counterparts in the following first and second centuries that worked to fashion Jesus and the Christian doctrine, how could you even venture an opinion about what Christianity is, and what it is not?

If there's deep wisdom in it somewhere, some of it could have survived any collusions and fashion, as that's what wisdom tends to do, to go beyond these things as much as possible.

[How is it possible, then, that Kevin would even attempt to put in the mouth of Jesus some doctrine---peculiar to a post-modernist pastiche of religious and spiritual ideas---that most likely had nothing to do either with the embellished Jesus of the Gospels(who speaks in so many spiritual and historical tongues), and most certainly little to do with the actual historical figure, who speaks strictly to a Hebrew-national context?

Why? Probably the original Jesus-author(s) did exactly the same as Kevin! They took some set of out-of-context popular stories with potential good elements and put their own wisdom in this wonderful new mouthpiece.

Did they, Jesus or Kevin, whoever, put something in their work what was not intended in the originals? Oh gee, lets strip it away and denounce it as false and unworthy, quickly! How can we listen to something so unauthentic! [warning: complex cynicism]

They do not respect erudition of any sort, and do not recognize any authority outside of their own elected Absolutist figures. How could anyone consider this to be sufficient and interesting at all is beyond the grasp of my brain.

You're right, they're their own authority. Do you really think they care if Jesus existed or if their translations or interpretations of old sages are correct?

I've studied all the texts Alex, for twenty years and the context, culture and root languages, studied all the symbols and interpretations. But people like Kevin approach the subject differently, inward, intuitive and authentically. That's not interesting at all seen from an academic, nuts and bolts angle.

What is and what is not 'genius' is a tough issue to arbitrate, but browsing Poison I found nothing remotely interesting, and nothing that amounted to 'genius', only a ridiculous and artless parody of the tone of Zarathustra, badly carried off].

I wouldn't know, I haven't read most of it. I dare you to write your own, then we can compare!

[Alex Jacob]

"Be as clever as snakes and as innocent as doves".
_________________________________________

Deibert wrote:

"I've studied all the texts Alex, for twenty years and the context, culture and root languages, studied all the symbols and interpretations. But people like Kevin approach the subject differently, inward, intuitive and authentically. That's not interesting at all seen from an academic, nuts and bolts angle."

"You're right, they're their own authority. Do you really think they care if Jesus existed or if their translations or interpretations of old sages are correct?"

Anyone can do whatever they want to do, and come up with any 'interpretation' they wish, if it is as subjective as you'd allow. It is quite fine to be your own authority and to invent any dammed doctrine one wants, to sell any point of view that tickles one's fancy. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for it if it tells the truth about what it does, if it KNOWS the truth of what it does. If that sort of relationship to Nietzsche Kierkegaard or Jesus is 'allowed', then heaven only knows what you'll wind up with! Ah, yes: you'll wind up with GF and the Gurus of GF, which is nothing short of an arbitrary, post-modern pastiche. If it will own itself for what it is, I really have no problem. But to represent itself as the absolute authority and as a 'qualified arbiter' of all such grand issues---now, that's where we part company.

"Why? Probably the original Jesus-author(s) did exactly the same as Kevin! They took some set of out-of-context popular stories with potential good elements and put their own wisdom in this wonderful new mouthpiece."

...and that is what I meant. You can channel into the Jesus-Actor any strain of knowledge that suits your fancy, and sell any particular brand of snake-oil you want. I do not have any problem with it, as a matter of fact it facinates me. It is a highly interesting and relevant subject. But what you are talking about, and what you are allowing, the QRS-H would never admit to. No. They represent 'absolute' truths, and absolute truths preclude other 'truths', other approaches. There is s little that is inclusive and sycretic in QRS-H. In that sense, it is a vicious, semi-retarded little dog with sharp teeth that rends at ideas and achievements it does not understand.

Humility [as it pertains to ideas] is to participate, not to dominate.

[They seem to almost literally despise what I represent or seek to uphold: literary traditions and traditions of art and literature that give expression to religious, philosophical and spiritual traditions and truths.]

"Actual historical figure? Aren't you just here trying to sound pompous and knowledgeable without anything to back it up? Is that what your current character is all about, continuously over the top? Ecco homo?"

To refer to an 'actual historical figure' is to have a sort of humble awareness of what you don't know and what you maybe cannot know. (That is predominantly the spirit of the Jesus Seminar, as I understand it).

I don't have '20 years of study' but I have more than 20 years of some experience in exposing myself to some of the same ideas and what they might mean. So, no. I was not attempting to act pompous, but to refer to people and schools of thought that have dedicated their lives and much pondering to some of these issues and problems. I do not EVER find any spirit of humility on the part of the QRS-H toward Ideas. What is offered here, overall, is puerile.

"Even the people who are extremely knowledgeable on the topic, like myself, or the average scholar, are still doomed to guess at all the layers of imagery and intentions in those texts."

That may be true, but if it is true then there is an honest, open conversation on the subject, and no one gets to set themselves up as the Absolutre Arbiter who can tell others they are 'mere fools' who don't understand [fill in the blank of what is not understood].

[Dan Rowden]

Then we have:

In the chapter of Poison entitled "Christianity," Kevin writes:

Christians may not be directly, physically responsible (in the immediate sense) for many of the rapes and murders, but they are definitely a major cause. And why? Because every single Christian perpetuates the self-righteous and self-centred lifestyle that is guaranteed to blossom in violence and suffering.

(The emphasis above is mine.)

Then later, he writes:

I am a Christian

So, therefore: Kevin is guilty of perpetuating the self-righteous and self-centered lifestyle that is guaranteed to blossom into violence and suffering.

It is clear Kevin did not intend this to be a neat little syllogistic confession, though.

I'd never noticed that before, but it's a pretty good pick up, really. He also refers to Kierkegaard as "the great Christian philosopher". I think it wise that he either change the wording of "every single Christian" or add some sort of qualifier to avoid the problem you've noted. I imagine he'll appreciate the feed back on that point.

[Nick]

Everything exists within Nature, which includes us and any pagan god you would like to imagine.

I am not imagining any pagan god.

Well could you please describe your God so that we can be absolutely certain of that?

Everything we imagine to exist is necessarily a part of Nature, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Maybe, if you want to be the one in charge of what the definition of "Nature" is.

In an Absolute sense Nature is infinite in every aspect, uncaused, and everything imaginable, even pagan gods were they to be real, would exist within it. I sometimes substitute the term Nature with God, The Infinite, The Totality, or Ultimate Reality.

But it is patently foolish, then, to think we have imagined all that there is to it.

By saying everything we imagine exists within Nature I do not mean that we have imagined everything. Certainly everything, imagined and unimaginable exists within Nature.

If you are saying that if we can imagine it, it exists, then I imagine a First (Causeless) Cause. Even the sum total of your, mine, and everyone else's imaginations, then, do not account for what Nature is.

There are many false beliefs which exist in Nature, your belief that there is a causeless cause is just another one among them. A causeless cause is is a contradiction, and therefore impossible. The only thing that has no cause is Nature alone due to it being inherently Infinite in every aspect. Every other finite thing we imagine is inherently caused.

Nature has no caretaker, seen or unseen. How did you arrive at the conclusion Nature would require one?

That is your assertion, Nick. I respectfully disagree. And if you look around you, you would see that our little corner of Nature could use a little more care-taking.

Nature is perfectly fine with or without us. I'm not talking about Nature in a limited sense as in rivers, oceans, and forests, I'm talking about The Infinite. Nature maintains us, not the other way around.

How do we have authority over Nature? And what pagan god of yours delegated it to us?

We do not have complete authority over Nature. However, we do have some. And you are being childish by repeating the word pagan. I have said that I am a Christian, so you are deliberately trying to offend me.

We have no authority over Nature in an Absolute sense, we are more or less puppets on a string, just going along for the ride so to speak. The important thing is that we go along for the ride consciously, as opposed to unconsciously. Also, it is not my intent to offend you by stating that your god is pagan, I'm just going on what I've heard other members of the christian faith define god as, and it just so happens that it is a false, i.e. pagan god. I asked you above to state your definition of God so that we can clear this up if I made a false assumption.

I am simply looking around at the state of humanity, and I see that we do, in fact, have considerable impact on the destinies of many other species. Again, as I do not view life as any kind of chemical accident whatsoever, I am merely observing what I see to exist. I think that the diversity of life proceeds from the initial divine causes. Again. I'll stress that I am careful not to make up anything.

I agree we have an impact on other species, as well as many other things, but there are many things which impact us. It's called causality, it works both ways, and there is no beginning or end to it. It's like when you throw a stone into a pond and the ripples flow out until every edge of the pond is touched by it. Every finite thing, including us, works the same way, with everything we do and think having causes rippling out into The Infinite impacting everything and vice-versa

[brokenhead]

There are many false beliefs which exist in Nature, your belief that there is a causeless cause is just another one among them. A causeless cause is is a contradiction, and therefore impossible. The only thing that has no cause is Nature alone due to it being inherently Infinite in every aspect.

"Causeless" could be an incorrect term. By it, I meant "uncaused." An uncaused cause is in no way a contradiction, and therefore it is possible. Nature most definitely has a cause, as it is neither God nor a god; I am aware that I am using the word "nature" differently from the QRSH usage.

[brokenhead]

Without some understanding of the context of Yeshua, the historical personage, and "Jesus of Nazareth' the protagonist of an embellished tale, how could any of you even venture an opinion? Without an understanding, even superficial, of the Hebrew context that produced the actual hisorical figure of Yeshua, and the time frame, and the collusion between radical Hebrew elements and gentile counterparts in the following first and second centuries that worked to fashion Jesus and the Christian doctrine, how could you even venture an opinion about what Christianity is, and what it is not?

I, for one, believe that I do not lack that understanding.

[brokenhead]

Besides, that's what we do here: venture opinions.

[Ataraxia]

Even the people who are extremely knowledgeable on the topic, like myself, or the average scholar, are still doomed to guess at all the layers of imagery and intentions in those texts. So Kevin's guess about the underlying meaning is as good as any one's, probably better if we'd assume for a moment he had similar insights as what inspired the imagined author of the Jesus sayings.

Quite so.Kevin's appraisal is as good the next mans.Like most here i have read the Bible and personally I don't believe Jesus IS talking about the Father in the same way Kevin talks about the Totality.My opinion would accord somewhat with brokenheads and for that matter most chrisitians that Jesus is talking about a creater,omnipotent,omnipresent 'supernatural' God.I 'reject' Jesus on those grounds.Jesus said many wise things(assuming he was a singular real person which i too have my doubts about) but the position attributed to Jesus by the writers in th NT is ultimately 'deluded',in my view.

Thus I can reject Kevins' interpretation of Jesus,but not necessarily Kevins overarching philosophy.

Personally i think the QSR philosophy can stand on it's two feet without the appeal to Jesus.Why they put it in nevertheless is their buisness I suppose.It seems like an appeal to authority to me, but what i do I know, I barely have a 'spiritual' bone in my body.(at this stage of my existence)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If it will own itself for what it is, I really have no problem. But to represent itself as the absolute authority and as a 'qualified arbiter' of all such grand issues---now, that's where we part company.

Do you perceive any absolute authority in their works that teaches how to interpret old books? Or how to understand results of scientific inquiries? Maybe you're thinking of the lack of qualifiers, references or alternatives when a quote is given. Fair enough, the style is bold and individual.

You're perhaps suggesting they should leave external complexities alone and only build on their own experiences in their writing all the time? It's not a bad suggestion and for example Quinn's Wisdom of the Infinite does seem to avoid naming references and authorities.

...the QRS-H would never admit to. No. They represent 'absolute' truths, and absolute truths preclude other 'truths', other approaches. There is s little that is inclusive and sycretic in QRS-H. In that sense, it is a vicious, semi-retarded little dog with sharp teeth that rends at ideas and achievements it does not understand.

How could one allow for any radically other 'absolute truths'? The moment the whole concept of the absolute is born, it follows logically there's only one or a very defined limited set possible, each one tied into the other.

I don't see Kevin extending absoluteness to quotes of Kierkegaard or any conclusions about the feminine. Surely there are far greater and accurate ideas possible in that regard?

Humility [as it pertains to ideas] is to participate, not to dominate.

There are areas, especially in philosophical thought were a certain radicalism and domination is required if one wants to penetrate unto the underlying reality of the high-brow concepts. This is why masculinity is listed here as requirement.

Pride and hubris fuel the greatest journeys, make it possible to go outside the box because one leaves the humility of accepting the usual boundaries. Same pride and hubris can also bring about the fall or corruption. This is perhaps why the Lucifer character is portrayed as light bringer but also as seducer, the greatest riser and the great fall. It's all too human.

[They seem to almost literally despise what I represent or seek to uphold: literary traditions and traditions of art and literature that give expression to religious, philosophical and spiritual traditions and truths.]

Not just seem, I think one can safely assume they are rejecting it in the context of true understanding as it will more often than not become extremely unhelpful. It's easy to see how one could get caught up in the wealth of traditions and its imagery without going into the depth of things.

To refer to an 'actual historical figure' is to have a sort of humble awareness of what you don't know and what you maybe cannot know. (That is predominantly the spirit of the Jesus Seminar, as I understand it).

Doesn't it seem strange to you to describe what you don't know or cannot know as 'actual' and 'historical'? Aren't you just doing something called: "giving the benefit of the doubt"? But there are enough multi-disciplinary reasons to not give that benefit. The most humble thing one can do is leave open a possibility.

I do not EVER find any spirit of humility on the part of the QRS-H toward Ideas. What is offered here, overall, is puerile.

No, that sort of humility you seek in vain. It's not in the spirit of this forum either. It's certainly a more basic direct approach, like a child indeed perhaps. Naive at times, yes. But mere ideas or their completeness are not the goal here.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert wrote:

"You're perhaps suggesting they should leave external complexities alone and only build on their own experiences in their writing all the time?"

In Fire and Brimstone inter-intellectual transnational high-brow versus low-brow battles of Great Import, such as the one I am engaged in with my Neanderthal colleagues from the Kangaroo Kontinent, I would not ever stoop to make 'suggestions' as to what they should do or not do 'all the time'. There is hardly a soul in the Universe who cares, quite truthfully. Like Robinson Crusoe, through fate's mishandling of my poor person, I have shipwrecked on this savage island. If it be God's Will I hope, at the least, to teach the savages to read, and I certainly would, if I could, teach my Man Friday to pray...

"How could one allow for any radically other 'absolute truths'? The moment the whole concept of the absolute is born, it follows logically there's only one or a very defined limited set possible, each one tied into the other."

Ah, it's a trick of modernity, gentle pilgrim. It's what is upon us. You could also say 'it is our Fate'. If the Absolute was 'born', what's to keep it from being hog-tied and roasted in a hickory pit? Maybe the answer is in the Question? So, don't 'follow logically', as the Wise Serpent knows. Might we follow 'alogically' and get to more interesting places? I'm just tossing a few possibilities out there...

I don't know if you've picked it up yet but I am not too much into the idea of 'absolute truth'. In another thread we were talking about the Catholic Church and its absolutisms. It is fascinating and also terrifying to face up to Absolutism in the mind of man.

If you are happy with the products of Absolutism, and if these products are useful to you personally, I see no reason why they should be surrendered. But Quixote must fight his Australian windmills otherwise the book can't be written! the story can't be told!

"I don't see Kevin extending absoluteness to quotes of Kierkegaard or any conclusions about the feminine. Surely there are far greater and accurate ideas possible in that regard?"

Everything that could be said about Woman was said in A Thousand and One Nights:

"Friend! Never trust a woman! Laugh at her promises! Her good or bad humor depend on the caprices of her vulva!"

I rest my case...let us move on to more important matters.

I am not completely sure that I capture what you mean, but it seems to me that the general absolutism of the Doltish Dingoes of the South gets expressed in any idea they venture. That is what makes them so excruciatingly boring and predictable. You cannot train the mind to run in a treadmill and then, when there are more interesting things to do, expect it could fly with the swallows of summer!

"There are areas, especially in philosophical thought were a certain radicalism and domination is required if one wants to penetrate unto the underlying reality of the high-brow concepts. This is why masculinity is listed here as requirement."

When you say 'masculinity' and the 'masculine' you are referring to pimply-faced boy scouts up in Nietzsche's Zarathustran forest, aren't you? You mean a sort of imitation of masculinity? A sort of post-modernist charade with some stereo-typical props that allude to masculinity? An angel-dust of the salient features of masculinity with which we sprinkle ourselves in the boy's room? Diebert, I have made the effort to express here time and time again that I am the one and true manly-man 'round these parts, and that I am trying to teach what it means to be a man! Now, if you think I'm going to allow some Australian cub scouts who are more than likely latent queers to define 'masculinity', well, you've got another thing coming!

My medicines are harsh, it is true, but they penetrate quickly and they get the job done.

"Pride and hubris fuel the greatest journeys, make it possible to go outside the box because one leaves the humility of accepting the usual boundaries."

Well, you could be right. But then there is the Fool's Journey which is a different sort of tale. To be a hero is one thing, but to start out as a fool, that's another. A hero can take a fool under his wing and teach it some hero tricks, some hero attitudes. A hero can land on an insignificant island where the deepest ideas expressed amounts to idiocy, and he can demonstrate to the resident fools that there are ways to come into contact with Ideas and with Life that do not lead down such narrow little ruts. But one thing a hero can never do, and that is to feel sympathy for the fool. The fool must be shown, time and time again, that he is a fool. This is called Radical Truthfulness and I first heard about it on the Oprah Winfrey show....

"Not just seem, I think one can safely assume they are rejecting it in the context of true understanding as it will more often than not become extremely unhelpful. It's easy to see how one could get caught up in the wealth of traditions and its imagery without going into the depth of things."

Did you say 'true understanding'? Are you actually implying that there is indeed a sort of 'wisdom' that is actually expressed here? Well then, we indeed part company. Because when I come across wisdom there is a sense of an internal recognition. I am not saying that 'I am Wise'---that is just a stooopid thing to say---but I do think that I am capable, from time to time, of recognizing and feeling what is wisdom. Wisdom is not expressed in these pages except on accident.

There is a grand sweep of ideas that are expressed in human literary traditions that, from time to time, take your breath away! The more that one comes into contact with it, the more one is enriched. The buffoons of GF make arrogant and foolish assumptions about their recognition of wisdom, and close themselves off to the possibility of knowing it. I come, I bring cures, the cures are administered like unwelcome but necessary rectal suppositories---and many are they who turn to me with tears in their eyes! Saying unto me, Thank you Alex! Oh thank you! Mine eyes were blind but now they see!

...and I kick them in the teeth once more just for good measure.

"No, that sort of humility you seek in vain. It's not in the spirit of this forum either. It's certainly a more basic direct approach, like a child indeed perhaps. Naive at times, yes. But mere ideas or their completeness are not the goal here."

Everyone has their purpose, and sometimes it is above-board and out in the open, and sometimes it is secret, hidden, mysterious. I was blown to these shores by the winds of mystery! I am a devil-saint spinning in a water-spout upon the seas!

Yea, and persecutions and sufferings they may render unto me, such things that befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endure: out of them all the Lord will deliver me!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I would not ever stoop to make 'suggestions' as to what they should do or not do 'all the time'. There is hardly a soul in the Universe who cares, quite truthfully. Like Robinson Crusoe, through fate's mishandling of my poor person, I have shipwrecked on this savage island.

Quite right. But do you already know what wrecked your ships, again and again? And why do you desire a new lifeboat?

If the Absolute was 'born', what's to keep it from being hog-tied and roasted in a hickory pit?

Ah, but that's why I wrote concept of the Absolute. You can roast concepts all you like. That's what this forum is about, partially.

So, don't 'follow logically', as the Wise Serpent knows. Might we follow 'alogically' and get to more interesting places? I'm just tossing a few possibilities out there...

No, logic comes with the following. You can stop following and always have your meanings exploded, off course.

I don't know if you've picked it up yet but I am not too much into the idea of 'absolute truth'. In another thread we were talking about the Catholic Church and its absolutisms. It is fascinating and also terrifying to face up to Absolutism in the mind of man.

I haven't met anyone yet who has left Catholicism definately behind but many who like to talk about the horrors, while safely tucked away in the same Church's crypts.

If you are happy with the products of Absolutism, and if these products are useful to you personally, I see no reason why they should be surrendered.

You're talking about the caricature and so your dismissal becomes caricature.

I am not completely sure that I capture what you mean, but it seems to me that the general absolutism of the Doltish Dingoes of the South gets expressed in any idea they venture. That is what makes them so excruciatingly boring and predictable.

I'm curious, could you try to point out an example of an idea and how the absolutism gets expressed and could you describe the rise of your boredom and predictability in more detail? The interesting thing is that the 'dingoes' seem to make a lot of people annoyed or indignant. Sometimes they cause a fever of counter-evangelism: people start anti-Genius crusades or watch-forums. David has been banned from open tolerant boards because of so-called 'poison'. I wouldn't call it boring unless you're looking for a different type of entertainment.

When you say 'masculinity' and the 'masculine' you are referring to pimply-faced boy scouts up in Nietzsche's Zarathustran forest, aren't you? You mean a sort of imitation of masculinity? A sort of post-modernist charade with some stereo-typical props that allude to masculinity? An angel-dust of the salient features of masculinity with which we sprinkle ourselves in the boy's room?

You really have a problem with the word, don't you? It's perhaps a good indicator where your greatest struggle lies, the highest mountain yet to climb ;)

Well, you could be right. But then there is the Fool's Journey which is a different sort of tale.

The Fool is never part of any journey or at least he doesn't know about any.

Did you say 'true understanding'? Are you actually implying that there is indeed a sort of 'wisdom' that is actually expressed here? Well then, we indeed part company. Because when I come across wisdom there is a sense of an internal recognition. I am not saying that 'I am Wise'---that is just a stooopid thing to say---but I do think that I am capable, from time to time, of recognizing and feeling what is wisdom. Wisdom is not expressed in these pages except on accident.

You're just too much of an artist. So much poet still left in you, my friend. You're making the faces to ward of evil, don't you? Ah well, good luck with your ceremonies. Here's something I quoted before here three years ago, to keep you company.

Verily, their spirit itself is the peacock of peacocks and a sea of vanity! The spirit of the poet craves spectators - even if only buffaloes.

But I have grown weary of this spirit; and I foresee that it will grow weary of itself. I have already seen the poets changed, with their glances turned back on themselves. I saw ascetics of the spirit approach; they grew out of the poets.


(Thus spoke Zarathustra: second part, 17, Kauffmann translation)

[Ataraxia]

Pride and hubris fuel the greatest journeys, make it possible to go outside the box because one leaves the humility of accepting the usual boundaries. Same pride and hubris can also bring about the fall or corruption. This is perhaps why the Lucifer character is portrayed as light bringer but also as seducer, the greatest riser and the great fall. It's all too human.

Yes,well played sir.Hit that one to the boundary[cricket euphemism,not a literal one]

[David Quinn]

Ales is upset because we don't take his poetry seriously. That's about the rub of it.

If the world can be compared to a house on fire, slowly consuming everything that we cherish inside it, then a spiritual teacher is like a fireman trying to direct people to safety outside. The poet, meanwhile, sits amongst the flames transfixed by the pretty colours and shadows cast by the fire, unaware of the growing dangers around him. He complains bitterly about being disturbed and even accuses the fireman of being repetitive, of constantly giving the same urgent message.

-

[Dan Rowden]

I gave up listening to poets long ago, which is why I don't actually read Alex's posts.

[Alex Jacob]

David, you have paraphrased an important vaishnava hymn:

samsara-davanala-lidha-loka-
tranaya karunya-ghanaghanatwam
praptasya kalyana-gunarnavasya
vande guroh sri-charanaravindam

The spiritual master is receiving benediction from the ocean of mercy. Just as a cloud pours water on a forest fire to extinguish it, so the spiritual master delivers the materially afflicted world by extinguishing the blazing fire of material existence. I offer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of such a spiritual master, who is an ocean of auspicious qualities.

[David Quinn]

As I read Poison for the Heart, I have three overall reactions. First, that it is not a closely-argued thesis, but rather a collection of observations, or nuggets of wisdom, on a great variety of topics. Second, I find myself agreeing with many of the brief passages that comprise it, so much so that there is an odd feeling that at one time or another, I must have written that myself! And third, there are also many of the passages that I do not agree with; furthermore, these same passages seem to logically contradict others.

I hope in this thread to reconcile some of these reactions.

From "The Horror of Jesus":

He urged his listeners to transcend the world of mediocrity and ordinary human values and become perfectly wise. "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect", was his core teaching.

Then Kevin chooses this quote and comments:

"If those who lead you say to you, `See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, `It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you." Thomas: 3

Jesus now articulates his vision of God, which is none other than the totality of Nature - the ALL. God is all around us and everything is a part of Him. God is Reality itself. Needless to say, this is completely at odds with the Christian belief in a human-like creator.

It is clear that Jesus is referring to an actual person when he mentions the Heavenly Father. Kevin mixes up the concept of Heavenly Kingdom with that of the Father. The true Christian view is not that the Father is a human-like creator, but rather that humans are potentially God-like creations. The first is childish and incorrect. The second is the view that Christ urges us to accept. This misconception is profound and lies at the core of what is missing and incomplete with the views of Poison. Christ was not in any way denying that another, heavenly world exists, as he said "My Kingdom is not of this world." By this, he is lamenting that because people close their hearts to the Father - and to him, for he makes it clear that he speaks for the Father - the heavenly kingdom does not extend into this world. But in the quote Kevin chose, Christ is saying that we have the power within us to make it extend to the world we live in by following his word. Poison is clearly wrong in saying God is the Totality of Nature. Rather, God has created the Totality of Nature as well as its caretakers, both seen and unseen, including man. That authority over Nature has been delegated to us in no way nullifies the fact that the Father has retained authority over us.

The above quotes are actually from my site, not Poison for the Heart. To me, there is little doubt that Jesus was talking about the ALL when referring to his "Heavenly Father". It is consistent with the other wise passages in the Gospels, which all point to this deep fundamental truth that every wise man knows. The All is "heavenly" because it timeless, indestructible, formless, free, beyond existence and non-existence, and constitutes our very being. It is our "Father" as it is the creator of our existence as human beings, and the foundation of all ethical behaviour.

Don't mock the ALL. It is glorious and pure beyond measure, and everything that we are.

As Jesus once said: "Whoever believes that the All itself is deficient is himself completely deficient." Thomas: 67

I fully understand Kevin's choice of wording is intended to make us see better, think more, or just plain think. However, in the chapter "Christianity" he writes":

I am a Christian, though I do not believe in a personal God. Nor do I believe in a physical heaven or hell, or life after death. I do not believe Nature was created. I do not necessarily believe Jesus was crucified on a cross, and I certainly do not believe he physically rose from the dead. I do not necessarily believe Jesus ever existed, or that if he did, that he possessed wisdom. I do not believe one has to read the Bible to be a Christian, nor for that matter does one need any respect for the Bible.

If Jesus did not exist and/or did nor possess wisdom, why do you quote him and represent him as a sage?

Kevin is basically saying his wisdom is his own and doesn't rely on believing in historical figures. Just as Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, spoke out of his own authority and didn't rely on the authority of Moses, Abraham, etc (and got persecuted and mocked by the religious establishment in doing so).

If a person is going to call himself a Christian, then he must behave like a Christian - that is, act like Jesus and develop a direct, personal relationship with God/the ALL. That is the bare minimum before one can begin to qualify for the lofty heights of Christianity. But of course, as soon as person does this he immediately ceases to be a Christian, in that he is no longer the follower of anyone at all, not even Jesus.

Kevin, Poison for the Heart has the tone of an incredibly bright sociopath. It is rambling and often brilliant. It is also a mixed bag. I once saw a squirrel lying in the road that had its lower half completely flattened by a tire. The top half was untouched, and the front paws were sticking up, running furiously at the air. Whenever a car sped by, the quirrel would cease moving and play dead. As soon as the car was gone, it would start clawing madly at the air again. Poison reminds me of this tortured creature, frantic and morbidly fascinating, either half-dead or half-alive. You don't know whether to try to save it or stomp on its head to finish the job.

It's wild and urgent, but at the same time very consistent and pure. There isn't a single sentence which doesn't reflect deeply of the great wisdom of the infinite.

-

[Ataraxia]

I gave up listening to poets long ago, which is why I don't actually read Alex's posts.

I'm not sure who i find weirder these days.Christian fundamentalists,or Christian post-modernists.

[Jason]

I gave up listening to poets long ago, which is why I don't actually read Alex's posts.

Funny, cos The Reasoning Show webpage describes you as:

Thinker of twenty years experience, author of the Men of the Infinite website, co-creator of Genius News e-magazine, co-founder of Genius Forum, co-founder of the Atheist Society of Australia., essayist, aphorist, and poet.

and your website has a "Romantic Poems" section.

[Jason]

Don't mock the ALL. It is glorious and pure beyond measure, and everything that we are.

David, by your own reckoning, the All isn't really glorious or pure is it? Why do you choose to describe it with such attractive and impressive(but actually quite seriously misleading) labels?

[Dan Rowden]

I gave up listening to poets long ago, which is why I don't actually read Alex's posts.

Funny, cos The Reasoning Show webpage describes you as:

Thinker of twenty years experience, author of the Men of the Infinite website, co-creator of Genius News e-magazine, co-founder of Genius Forum, co-founder of the Atheist Society of Australia., essayist, aphorist, and poet.

and your website has a "Romantic Poems" section.

And I gave up listening to myself as a poet long ago.