Drug life

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory wrote:

I think there are only two ways of knowing that are useful:

A) Through the senses, and B) Through logic

Cosmological explanations such as the Ray of creation are contrivances, they are neither the result of logic, nor the result of perception. They are the products of a fanciful imagination, which, as David mentioned, wishes to dress up reality and make it more appealing to the emotions.

Well, how do you know. You don't. You imagine.

Even if I hallucinate a vision of the ray of creation, it is merely a limited vision. You see, there are no explanations, there are only appearances which we can describe. Some descriptions aid the survival of our consciousness, other descriptions aid the survival of emotions, which thwart consciousness.

The teaching need not be taken at faith; its level of truth can be tested, to one degree or another, by the individual.

But even if I have a hallucination - isn't it just a mere appearance, like two dogs humping or a bee pollinating?

The usefulness of the model is a personal matter.

Cosmology, like any explanation, is useful only to the emotions, it gives them sustenance.

Finally, the Gurdjieff work certainly does not make reality more appealing to the emotions. The Ray of Creation is tough cerebral work to understand and integrate into one's life.

Thanks for the clarifications regarding the book you are reading. Interesting that it portrays Steiner as a saint. He and Gurdjieff tracked along the same lines in their lectures.

I don't mind saying, Gurdjieff certainly wasn't portrayed as a complete villain. The author points out many positive features of Gurdjieff, stressing that he, at times, showed considerable interest in other people and compassion for those who were suffering. But unlike Steiner, Gurdjieff was an accomplished trickster who had no hesitation in deceiving other people and extracting money from them when he needed to do so.

He also seemed to enjoy exercising power over his disciples simply for the gratification of it:

He once ordered a disciple named Orage to dig a ditch to drain water from the kitchen to the garden. Orage worked extremely hard for several days. He was then told to make the edges of the ditch quite equal, and did so after more labour. Immediately after he had finished, Gurdjieff ordered him to fill in the ditch because it was no longer needed.

He imposed a work regime on his disciples, rigorous to the point of causing bleeding and people falling asleep on the job. This regime was sold as a way of assisting spiritual development, but conversely, (storr writes) "it was a convenient way of obtaining free labour to run his retreat. Moreover, Gurdjieff, an experienced hypnotist, would have realized that physical exhaustion makes people more suggestible and easy to control."

[Carl G]

Cosmological explanations such as the Ray of creation are contrivances, they are neither the result of logic, nor the result of perception. They are the products of a fanciful imagination, which, as David mentioned, wishes to dress up reality and make it more appealing to the emotions.

Well, how do you know. You don't. You imagine.

Even if I hallucinate a vision of the ray of creation, it is merely a limited vision.

Why would you hallucinate this as a vision? Why not simply read about the Ray of Creation, and consider it as a model, and test it. And, as far as "a limited vision," aren't they all? I mean, the mind has limits. So what.

You see, there are no explanations, there are only appearances which we can describe.

Not sure what you mean. Isn't everything an appearance? But, we can observe the behavior of appearances, can we not?

Some descriptions aid the survival of our consciousness, other descriptions aid the survival of emotions, which thwart consciousness.

I don't believe all emotions thwart consciousness. I believe the emotional center can be trained to work in concert with the body and mind in a unified way.

The teaching need not be taken at faith; its level of truth can be tested, to one degree or another, by the individual.

But even if I have a hallucination - isn't it just a mere appearance, like two dogs humping or a bee pollinating?

Seems you are alluding to the QRS mantra that there is ultimately and inherently no self. And therefore, I take it, you are asking what use there might be in testing such a thing as the Ray of Creation. Ultimately, as I have already said, its usefulness -- and the utility of the entire Gurdjieffian approach -- is a matter of personal interest. And the end result, well...

The usefulness of the model is a personal matter.

Cosmology, like any explanation, is useful only to the emotions, it gives them sustenance.

Really? Like, studying the stars and planets? Like, studying the behavior of gravity on objects? Like studying one's own psychology? Indeed the study of the Ray of Creation would touch upon these same disciplines. You think investigation of the natural world and natural laws is only useful to the emotions? And even if so, and even if for the reason you give, that it gives them sustenance, what is wrong with that? Are you another one of those who sees no use for emotions? At all? Is there no place for the heart in these matters of spiritual evolution? Gurdjieff taught that there was. And, higher food for the heart, such as the Ray of Creation, would be a lot better than the swill of the nightly news, wouldn't you agree? To say nothing of the mental stimulation involved in considering the details of the Ray of Creation.

I don't mind saying, Gurdjieff certainly wasn't portrayed as a complete villain. The author points out many positive features of Gurdjieff, stressing that he, at times, showed considerable interest in other people and compassion for those who were suffering.

That is mighty big of the author to say. In fact his entire system was based on his love for humanity, devised to help turn the tides of general decay and degeneration, from within the individual.

But unlike Steiner, Gurdjieff was an accomplished trickster who had no hesitation in deceiving other people and extracting money from them when he needed to do so.

You do know that the trickster is a time-honored spiritual archetype, don't you? It is a role he played, as necessary, in order to ensure survival of the group and the system in its early and precarious stages, and in order to make one or another point to an individual or to the group. His practices and methods need to be considered in context.

He also seemed to enjoy exercising power over his disciples simply for the gratification of it:

He once ordered a disciple named Orage to dig a ditch to drain water from the kitchen to the garden. Orage worked extremely hard for several days. He was then told to make the edges of the ditch quite equal, and did so after more labour. Immediately after he had finished, Gurdjieff ordered him to fill in the ditch because it was no longer needed.

He imposed a work regime on his disciples, rigorous to the point of causing bleeding and people falling asleep on the job.

So? The issue is, was it effective? Also, the bit about G. getting gratification out of this is a total fabrication. It is from your, or the author's, imagination.

This regime was sold as a way of assisting spiritual development,

Precisely. Have you not heard the same story, about the ditch digging, in Zen history?

but conversely, (storr writes) "it was a convenient way of obtaining free labour to run his retreat.

Bullshit. The retreat was not a money-making operation. The physical work was primarily to aid inner work, and secondarily to maintain and expand the physical plant (the buildings and grounds) for use by the group.

Moreover, Gurdjieff, an experienced hypnotist, would have realized that physical exhaustion makes people more suggestible and easy to control."

Pah. Your author has a whole raft of prejudices, and knows little of what the Gurdjieff work was all about. A poor source for your edification, if you ask me.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory: Even if I hallucinate a vision of the ray of creation, it is merely a limited vision.

Carl: Why would you hallucinate this as a vision? Why not simply read about the Ray of Creation, and consider it as a model, and test it.

Models can only be tested by making predictions. Can you give me an example of how I might be able to employ the 'ray of creation' as a model, to make a prediction?

And, as far as "a limited vision," aren't they all?

Precisely. All stimuli received by the senses are an illusion.

You see, there are no explanations, there are only appearances which we can describe.

Not sure what you mean. Isn't everything an appearance? But, we can observe the behavior of appearances, can we not?

We can, and based on what we perceive, we can often make useful predictions, which aids our ability to survive.

Based on what we 'wishfully imagine' we are more likely to make terrible mistakes.

Seems you are alluding to the QRS mantra that there is ultimately and inherently no self. And therefore, I take it, you are asking what use there might be in testing such a thing as the Ray of Creation. Ultimately, as I have already said, its usefulness -- and the utility of the entire Gurdjieffian approach -- is a matter of personal interest.

Can't you give me any examples of it's usefulness? Of what use is it to you?

Cosmology, like any explanation, is useful only to the emotions, it gives them sustenance.

Really? Like, studying the stars and planets?

Well, studying such things wisely would be to realize that there are no explanations to attain, but only limited descriptions which may or may not yield useful predictions.

Like, studying the behavior of gravity on objects? Like studying one's own psychology? Indeed the study of the Ray of Creation would touch upon these same disciplines.

I don't yet have any reason to consider the 'ray of creation' a model. To me it's just a bizarre theory without any relationship to modern physics. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Unlike mere theories (such a superstring theory), examination is the cause of models - just as a device impressed upon wax reproduces the configurations of the device.

And even if so, and even if for the reason you give, that it gives them sustenance, what is wrong with that?

Like a drug, the fixation which produces emotion tends to consume whatever potential the mind has for seeing farther, broader, deeper.

Are you another one of those who sees no use for emotions? At all?

Excitement is an effective way to become thrust into truth, but it's inimical to truth if the cause of the excitement is wishful fantasies.

Is there no place for the heart in these matters of spiritual evolution? Gurdjieff taught that there was. And, higher food for the heart, such as the Ray of Creation, would be a lot better than the swill of the nightly news, wouldn't you agree?

The more elated you are by fantasy, the more reality is going to depress you.

A wise man once wrote:

If the parents are rich, successful, and happy, their children will live hellish lives ending in suicide. If one generation is peaceful, the next will go to war. How do I know this? - by looking!

You do know that the trickster is a time-honored spiritual archetype, don't you?

Yes, humanity is very masochistic.

Precisely. Have you not heard the same story, about the ditch digging, in Zen history?

I don't believe the story was about a man slavishly taking orders from the master - and if it was, then it's a crap story.

Here's a better one:

A monk visited Nansen Fugan who was living by himself in a small hut.
Nansen told him he had something to do up the mountain and asked him to
carry some food to him when mealtime came. When the monk didn't appear,
Nansen returned and found the cooking vessels smashed and the monk asleep;
thereupon he stretched out and took a nap himself. When he awoke, the monk
was gone. In later years, Nansen said, "Back when I was living by myself in a
small hut, I had a visit from a splendid monk. I've never seen him since."

[Carl G]

Cory: Even if I hallucinate a vision of the ray of creation, it is merely a limited vision.

Carl: Why would you hallucinate this as a vision? Why not simply read about the Ray of Creation, and consider it as a model, and test it.

Models can only be tested by making predictions. Can you give me an example of how I might be able to employ the 'ray of creation' as a model, to make a prediction?

I can, but it would be complicated to describe, and I doubt it would convince you.

You see, there are no explanations, there are only appearances which we can describe.

Not sure what you mean. Isn't everything an appearance? But, we can observe the behavior of appearances, can we not?

We can, and based on what we perceive, we can often make useful predictions, which aids our ability to survive.

Based on what we 'wishfully imagine' we are more likely to make terrible mistakes.

Agreed. Not sure why you are saying all this except maybe because you think Gurdjieffian ideas such as the Ray of Creation are wishful imagination. Got it. Tucked it into my Cory file.

Seems you are alluding to the QRS mantra that there is ultimately and inherently no self. And therefore, I take it, you are asking what use there might be in testing such a thing as the Ray of Creation. Ultimately, as I have already said, its usefulness -- and the utility of the entire Gurdjieffian approach -- is a matter of personal interest.

Can't you give me any examples of it's usefulness? Of what use is it to you?

As I have previously stated, I have not studied the Ray in depth, although recently I have reintroduced the concept through reading. As for the Gurdjieffian approach, it has helped me build a strong spiritual foundation on which to set a ladder to the stars.

Cosmology, like any explanation, is useful only to the emotions, it gives them sustenance.

Really? Like, studying the stars and planets?

Well, studying such things wisely would be to realize that there are no explanations to attain, but only limited descriptions which may or may not yield useful predictions.

Now, to me, that is an idea with limited usefulness. I understand the concepts of no-self and Ultimate Reality, but that isn't paying my spiritual bills, so to speak. In other words, contemplation of the infinity and eternity of the A=A cause and effect no self scenario isn't raising my vibration like the good old fashioned work and the esoteric traditions behind the Gurdjieff system. Chalk it up to my nature. Chalk your interest in Buddhism and the celebration of cerebration up to your nature. It's okay.

Like, studying the behavior of gravity on objects? Like studying one's own psychology? Indeed the study of the Ray of Creation would touch upon these same disciplines.

I don't yet have any reason to consider the 'ray of creation' a model. To me it's just a bizarre theory without any relationship to modern physics. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct yourself. If you're interested. That's my point.

[Dave Toast]

DT: Nature, by definition, is without objective meaning.

broken: By definition? Which? Whose?

Sorry, I thought you might have read my definition of the word objective from a few days ago. It's fairly bog standard, conventional and uncontroversial:

Objective - being, independent of mind.

And as you said yourself, concerning meaning, "all significance is 'projected', is it not?", i.e. necessarily subjective. I'll take it we both understand why that is.

So the conjunction 'objective meaning', by definition, makes about as much sense as the conjunction 'square circle'. Thus, just as nature is without square circles, it is also without objective meaning.

Again, why is man suddenly not "part" of Nature that the meanings he discovers and/or projects not only don't count, but don't exist?

I didn't say any of that mate. I would disagree with every part of it.

DT: In searching for objective meaning in this nature which consciousness knows to be objectively meaningless, what is consciousness really searching for clues as to the existence of?

broken: The question in your quote above seems, no offense, almost like an outward symptom of a mental defect.

Well, it's the first time that one's been levelled at me in more than 5 years here, but I suppose it's a right of passage.

Seems to me that anyone searching for square circles, most especially when they've realised that such things are impossible, would be the type of people more befitting of that analysis.

Your consciousness might know nature is meaningless. I believe it is possible for people to "know" things which are, in fact, errors. This is a good example. You obviously should not search for objective meaning, then, if you believe such a search is doomed to failure and is therefore absurd.

I didn't say nature is meaningless and it's definitely possible for mind to believe things which are, in fact, erroneous.

As for this being a good example of someone erring, I beg to differ. I don't think knowing objective meaning to be impossible is to err, just as I don't think knowing square circles to be impossible is to err.

Many people search all their lives for what may be called either "meaning" or "deeper understanding" or some other more appropriate term which is not coming to mind just now. As the world progresses step by step, sometimes at a fast pace, sometimes maddeningly slowly, it is evident that not all such searches come up empty. Some people do, in fact, find what they have been looking for, even if it assumes a form they might never have predicted. What is pretty clear is that the person - obviously educated and intelligent - who asks the question in the above quote, is one of the last people with whom one would want to share their meaningful, significant discoveries or realizations.

Why's that?

I am not trying to be critical. Well, let me rephrase that: I am trying not to be critical. But you sound in the above quote as if you have never had an epiphany of any sort which you could not, would not, and did not dismiss. It seems superfluous to think if one is going to think like that.

I'm not reading you as critical mate. I think we both know where we're coming from.

As long as you don't mean epiphany as in the manifestation of a divine being, I've had plenty of epiphanies which I didn't dismiss. By way of a for instance (spot the quote), the epiphany that meaning is necessarily subjective was a most illuminating one, magnificent and pregnant with corollaries of meaning, which I didn't dismiss.

Do you see what my gripe is here, Dave? No one is asking you to swallow everything people say. But it sounds like you won't swallow anything that has any meaning, because you are denying meaning can exist. To say meaning can only be subjective is literally to rob a meaning of its meaning!

I'm just not with you there. You're going to have to explain that one to me, on the understanding that I haven't denied that meaning can exist and would not do so.

What then does it leave you? Why bother with discourse of any sort? Why even bother to think? If you yourself were to be struck down like St. Paul with God's own illumination, it would be pointless because you could not then share it with any authority as it is purely subjective.

I really don't think anything I've said implies what you're saying it does. Is it based on a misunderstanding of where I was coming from in the first place? Alternatively, could you explain how what I have said does imply what you're saying it does?

Can you see how this is intellectually extremely unfulfilling and unsatisfying?

Not really mate, quite the opposite in fact. I value truth highly, so intellectually, I find the discovery and recognition of truths to be most fulfilling. I don't think that the truth we're talking about implies what you say it does so I have no opinion on whether those alleged implications result in intellectual gratification or not.

A proper response to the existence of junk food in the world is not to stop eating. Your quote above might simply mean you have never found anyone else's profound insights to have more than a subjective meaning which another can simply accept or reject arbitrarily at will. But it sounds as if you are willing to throw in the towel, to never search for that illumination which might change your mind about the nature of meaning itself; to hear that from an obviously intelligent person, or any person, really, I find to be profoundly sad.

Then I can only imagine that you've got the wrong end of the stick as that's not the way I experience my understanding. Discovering something of which I can be certain, by whatever method, I find awesome. Not awesome in the same way I found God to be as a child, when I was raised Roman Catholic, but similarly awesome nonetheless.

If something were to somehow eventuate whereby I found that the truth of the subjectivity of meaning were overturned (really can't even get my head around how such a thing might happen), I'd have to either examine the nature of said revelation the only way I know how - with logic - or question the working order of my faculties via the same process.

Again, no offense is intended.

Likewise.

[brokenhead]

Dave T.,

Thanks for taking the time to write that. I feel better now. Your response was frankly more heartening than I expected. I am relieved that I had such an erroneous take on your perspective. It actually sheds new light for me on some of your other posts.

The crux of my objection was my misunderstanding of your use of "objective" in "objective meaning." My thinking went as follows: If all significance - meaning - is projected, what then can be objective? Can one really say something such as "Let us be objective about such and such"? In that sense, "objective" means more "independent of ego" than "independent of mind."

I get it now that you were not implying meaning cannot be agreed upon as existing independent of a particular mind. In other words, as long as at least two people agree on a meaning, it is in some sense "objective." If, for instance, everyone agrees on the definition of a particular word, we wouldn't say that word's meaning is "subjective." And yet that word is no more independent of mind than anything else, is it?

Anyway, I do see that I was in reality shadowboxing. Thanks for the response.

[Dave Toast]

How do mate,

I don't want to destroy the understanding we seem to have come to by going on but I just wanted to make clear my overarching point - certainty versus contingency and their relative contextually relevant epistemological status.

As a geoscientist, I'd be pretty hamstrung without contingent objective meaning. Most of my associates would have me carted off for insisting there is a more reliable basis for knowledge than the scientific and I'd deserve it if I acted as such in the lab or in the field. In that context, pontificating upon whether the knowledge gained in discovering what the micropaleobiology of ice cores can tell us about the evolution of the planet is truly reliable, for instance, is worthless and counterproductive. In that context, the epistemological status of the meaning and knowledge discovered through objective methodology is unquestionable, or at least it's meaningless to question it. But when it comes to the science of self we discover that such epistemology isn't as reliable as we might have thought. The pedicament we find ourselves in is one of being unable to disprove the likes of solipsism with certainty, counter intuitive though it may be. In that context, we therefore need an epistemological basis to which such possibilities are immaterial one way or the other. Thus, in order to gain reliable knowledge in this context, we must work with only that of which we can be absolutely certain. If this epistemology is capable of providing us with all the knowledge we need in that regard, it would be remiss of us to take recourse in any other epistemological methodology, in that context.

If we, in our exploration of this epistemology, thereby come to the conclusion that God does not and cannot work in mysterious ways, the mysteries we encounter in the world at large are shorn of any meaning in that regard, and the nature of mystery itself is laid bare.

[brokenhead]

The pedicament we find ourselves in is one of being unable to disprove the likes of solipsism with certainty, counter intuitive though it may be.

No, you cannot disprove solipsism. Likewise, it is impossible to disprove the views of the quasi-solipsists like our good forum hosts.

I have not found this to be a drawback in my personal exploration of life. There are relatively few things you can prove or disprove with certainty. The warm glow of certainty is what drew me to mathematics at a young age, for once something has "QED" attached to it, it need not be proven again. Often, however, an entirely different proof of the same theorem almost magically opens doors in one's head. The key to all these wonderful doors is none other than certainty.

As I moved into physics as a course of study, I was astonished at how this same math could be meaningfully applied to the real world. I got hooked on that astonishment; the extent to which mathematical reasoning can describe nature remains for me a pristine marvel.

But when it comes to the science of self we discover that such epistemology isn't as reliable as we might have thought.

Aye, there's the rub. It goes a long way to explaining why I find philosophy so trying and vexing. Debating any facet of solipsism, for example, such as does a true solipsist acknowledge the existence of other [solipsistic] minds, is like a black hole to me. It's like an etheric suction device attached to each of my chakras and just draining the life out of me. It exacerbates my ADHD. You could not disprove solipsism to a solipsist if his very life depended on it; I'm not at all sure why it should matter to anyone else.

If we, in our exploration of this epistemology, thereby come to the conclusion that God does not and cannot work in mysterious ways, the mysteries we encounter in the world at large are shorn of any meaning in that regard, and the nature of mystery itself is laid bare.

What you mean "we," white man? I don't think I see what you are saying here, Dave. The nature of mystery itself has been laid bare. Do you mean all mysteries have been shorn of God, or that this proves there is no God in a reasonable way, or that there simply is no such thing as a mystery? You must mean something else, as I see it. Because there are many mysteries, one of them obviously being how come for every question we answer, at least two more immediately arise? It can't prove there is no God, because that can't be proven, perhaps for the very reason that there is a God. I would argue that if Jewish survivors of the Holocaust - any of them - even one of them - were not dissuaded that God exists, then it cannot be proven. Oh well, no biggie. You can't prove God does exist, either, so that's a wash.

So that leaves the first interpretation of your quote, that all mysteries have been shorn of God. I might buy this, with a caveat or two. Historically, many of "God's mysteries" have been explained eventually by scientists, rational thinkers, and just everday people. Earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanoes, the tides, eclipses, you name it. The list is virtually endless. If this is the track record to which you are appealing, you indeed have a case. But consider: None of the above were created by God to be mysterious in any way and that puny man has pulled back the curtain on the great Wizard. These were natural occurrences. Always. Man is not conquering God's mysteries, but his own ignorance. And guess who led the way in promoting these things as mysteries of God? That's right. Not God. Not his angels. Not his Messengers. But the priests - human beings each and every one, and that is using the term rather loosely. In other words, people who stood to gain in wealth and/or status by insinuating themselves between God's works and human ignorance. In all cultures, in all ages.

What of God's mysteries? They are subtle, because they are personal. (IMHO, naturally.) You do not look at the historical record for these. You do not look at the past at all. Rather, you look at the future and then say "what do I really know?" That's what forces you to "be" where we all really are: the present, now. You do not know there will be a tomorrow, especially with GWB's sweaty thumb on the nuclear button. Failing that, you don't know there will be a tomorrow for you. The big mystery, to me, is that everybody lives on the assumption that there is a personal future in this world for him or her.

Like I said, I might buy this last interpretation of your quote. But it depends on the day. Some days, most days, the cost just seems too high.

[David Quinn]

The pedicament we find ourselves in is one of being unable to disprove the likes of solipsism with certainty, counter intuitive though it may be.

No, you cannot disprove solipsism. Likewise, it is impossible to disprove the views of the quasi-solipsists like our good forum hosts.

Just to clarify, again ......

I don't actually possess any views on anything, solipsist or otherwise. That is to say, I have no views whatsoever.

Apart from anything else, clinging to views hinders the more immediate process of engaging in logic and discerning what is true in each moment.

When I communicate with others, I offer logical chains of thought which are designed to loosen people from their views and open their minds to the nature of emptiness. Nothing else.

In other words, philosophy isn't about seeking those views which cannot be disputed and building a nest inside them. It is more about recognizing what can be disputed and what can't, and why. This involves a more flexible level of intelligence, one that is constantly alive, and one that can only function properly when the mind understands the nature of emptiness and no longer seeks security and certainty in viewpoints.

-

[samadhi]

I don't actually possess any views on anything, solipsist or otherwise. That is to say, I have no views whatsoever.

So is it your view that you have no views?

Kevin taught me that ... heh heh heh.

[maestro]

Kevin taught me that ... heh heh heh.

Are you refering to the oft repeated: Are you certain that nothing is certain?

[Dave Toast]

Aye, there's the rub. It goes a long way to explaining why I find philosophy so trying and vexing. Debating any facet of solipsism, for example, such as does a true solipsist acknowledge the existence of other [solipsistic] minds, is like a black hole to me.

It doesn't really matter what a metaphysical (true) solipsist thinks, except to the psychiatric profession.

The methodological solipsist though, just like the cartesian methodological skeptic, merely regards it as a solid epistemological foundation on which to build - as opposed to a state of affairs to adhere to.

What you mean "we," white man?

Come on dude, I'm a Brit - the royal 'we'.

So yeah, white Bavarian man!

So that leaves the first interpretation of your quote, that all mysteries have been shorn of God. I might buy this, with a caveat or two. Historically, many of "God's mysteries" have been explained eventually by scientists, rational thinkers, and just everday people. Earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanoes, the tides, eclipses, you name it. The list is virtually endless. If this is the track record to which you are appealing, you indeed have a case. But consider: None of the above were created by God to be mysterious in any way and that puny man has pulled back the curtain on the great Wizard. These were natural occurrences. Always. Man is not conquering God's mysteries, but his own ignorance. And guess who led the way in promoting these things as mysteries of God? That's right. Not God. Not his angels. Not his Messengers. But the priests - human beings each and every one, and that is using the term rather loosely. In other words, people who stood to gain in wealth and/or status by insinuating themselves between God's works and human ignorance. In all cultures, in all ages.

Yep, it's pretty much that one, i.e. man made.

Which hopefully just about brings us back to where this conversation started.

[David Quinn]

I don't actually possess any views on anything, solipsist or otherwise. That is to say, I have no views whatsoever.

So is it your view that you have no views?

Not entering into views is a natural consequence of a mind immersed in emptiness (that is, a mind open to the nature of reality). Whatever views I or anyone else have on the matter are irrelevant to this.

I'm obviously distinguishing between recognizing truth and entering into views here. The latter involves a subjective element - a bias or a slant - which either is added onto the recognition of truth, or else takes over the recognition process completely. In effect, it is a moving away from the recognition of truth, triggered by egotistical needs.

-

[brokenhead]

Come on dude, I'm a Brit - the royal 'we'.

So yeah, white Bavarian man!

You've probably heard the joke, and you already know the punchline, but just for the record, it goes: 500 Iriquois to their left, 500 Shawnee to their right, and 1,000 Apache in front of them, the Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says, "It looks like we're in trouble, Tonto." Tonto quickly replies, "What you mean 'we,' white man?"

And Dave, how did you know that my paternal lineage is Bavarian...?

[brokenhead]

Just to clarify, again ......

I don't actually possess any views on anything, solipsist or otherwise. That is to say, I have no views whatsoever

This is precisely how I see myself, and it is quite deliberate, since I feel it makes me more intellectually approachable.

[David Quinn]

No, I'm talking about something else entirely.

-

[brokenhead]

No, I'm talking about something else entirely.

-

Of course you are. Since, logically, no one can even begin to approach you intellectually.

[Dave Toast]

Come on dude, I'm a Brit - the royal 'we'.

So yeah, white Bavarian man!

You've probably heard the joke, and you already know the punchline, but just for the record, it goes: 500 Iriquois to their lest, 500 Shawnee to their right, and 1,000 Apache in front of them, the Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says, "It looks like we're in trouble, Tonto." Tonto quickly replies, "What you mean 'we,' white man?"

Nope but I'm with you now.

And Dave, how did you know that my paternal lineage is Bavarian...?

Because you are a creation of my mind! [scaryrealisationmusic]Dun dun duuuuuh[/scaryrealisationmusic]

I was actually referring to the lineage of the oh so British royal family.

The transatlantic comedy barrier eh.

[samadhi]

So is it your view that you have no views?

Not entering into views is a natural consequence of a mind immersed in emptiness (that is, a mind open to the nature of reality). Whatever views I or anyone else have on the matter are irrelevant to this.

Well, for a mind immersed in emptiness, you seem to have plenty of opinions.

I'm obviously distinguishing between recognizing truth and entering into views here. The latter involves a subjective element - a bias or a slant - which either is added onto the recognition of truth, or else takes over the recognition process completely. In effect, it is a moving away from the recognition of truth, triggered by egotistical needs.

The truth itself becomes a view when you put it into words. If you want to be seen as someone without a view, you could always try silence.

[Isaac]

I have to agree with Sam on this one. David is one of the most opinionated persons I've ever come across. This 'mind immersed in emptiness' stuff is a load of shit if you ask me.

[David Quinn]

And with that, the entire history of spirital wisdom is flushed down the grugler .......

As I say, it is the difference between a clear, undeluded mind making spontaneous judgments in each moment, with nothing personal riding on it, and that of the ego solidifying within a fixed point of view for the purpose of feeling safe and secure.

Higher quality opinions always come from the former.

-

[samadhi]

And with that, the entire history of spirital wisdom is flushed down the grugler .......

lol ... sometimes that's where it belongs!

As I say, it is the difference between a clear, undeluded mind making spontaneous judgments in each moment, with nothing personal riding on it, and that of the ego solidifying within a fixed point of view for the purpose of feeling safe and secure.

Higher quality opinions always come from the former.

The fact that your judgments may be spontaneous doesn't put them in some special category of purity, nor does it relieve them of your personal imprint. Beware when someone says, "hey, I'm enlightened, trust me."

[David Quinn]

I'm going to start labeling all these various mental tricks you engage in. It will be beneficial to bring them into sharper focus.

The one above I will call "paranoid moralizing" - that is, the trick of deflecting attention away from the logic of the other person's statements by whipping up paranoid fear and moral condemnation. In this way, the other person's statements no longer have to be dealt with in a logical manner, but can be swept away by a tide of insinuation and character assassination.

-

[samadhi]

The one above I will call "paranoid moralizing" - that is, the trick of deflecting attention away from the logic of the other person's statements by whipping up paranoid fear and moral condemnation.

First, there was no logic in your statement, simply an assertion. Second, I wasn't playing on fear but rather skepticism. I don't swallow anything whole simply because someone wants to point to their bright and shiny enlightened halo. In fact, the more pointing, the more likely the opinion is crap.

In this way, the other person's statements no longer have to be dealt with in a logical manner, but can be swept away by a tide of insinuation and character assassination.

Oh please. Playing the "enlightened one" doesn't give you a free pass on any opinion you want to throw around. If that's the arena you want to cavort in, then you're going to get dirty with everyone else.

[David Quinn]

The system seemed to screw up when I replied to Samadhi's post, which resulted in the first part of his post being truncated. If he remembers what he had written, he might want to re-edit his post and include the missing part. I'll withhold my response until he does this.

-