On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

[Tomas]

Neither atheism, nor theism. The immersion into spontaneous reality beyond description.

Well said, David. You win a cookie ;-)

[Alex T. Jacob]

Deja-vu wrote: "To wait upon eternity in the manner of theism, to find contentment in the idea of it alone, for me, seems a robbery of our means to enter into it, of achieving it as something real, as feeling; the literal sacrifice of the future to the present, as opposed to its mindful subjection."

You make it sound like a choice, and that one could choose another view. It seems to me that one has to account for the origin of things, and that in reflecting on that, the reflection turns back to what is divine. I do realize that that reflection occurs in subjective space, in psychology and all sorts of errors occur there, or can occur.

And if there is 'contentment' (maybe that is a good word though I wouldn't use it) it is in feeling/knowing one is linked or connected (a part of) that orignating intelligence.

It seems to me impossible that worlds upon worlds come into existence all on their own. That's why I said it was a simple conundrum, and yet surely the original one. How does existence exist?

The 'answer' for me (which is an experience, not a reasoning, though some kind of reasoning is required to express it) is that there is an author of all that exists.

Still, your view is cogent to me, I mean I understand it, and it has its virtues.

"But what occurrence can there now be for us where psyche is not already ‘on the scene’? Would you describe our consciousness as being 'enacted' rather than having 'evolved'? If, assuming infinity (and logically, how can we not?), everything has already somehow occurred, then we must also grant the moment of its occurrence, and the reality of our will in that moment."

There are peculiar problems and 'mysteries' with that first question. From the terrestrial perspective 'psyche' evolves. But it also seems to 'come into' what (as you say) has to preexist. It all has to have been done before. On a time-line we are 'coming into' consciousness. Maybe 100,000 years of it? With an increase in the last 20,000? And special increases in the last 8,000? It is not a very good answer, I realize, but I think we need to rely on a material description for 'all intents and purposes', but understand (if inclined or attracted) that there are deeper levels to the mystery. That is the realm of mysticism, psychology and also theology.

I'm not sure how happy you'll be with these 'answers', but here you go.

[Jason]

It seems to me that one has to account for the origin of things, and that in reflecting on that, the reflection turns back to what is divine. I do realize that that reflection occurs in subjective space, in psychology and all sorts of errors occur there, or can occur.

And if there is 'contentment' (maybe that is a good word though I wouldn't use it) it is in feeling/knowing one is linked or connected (a part of) that orignating intelligence.

It seems to me impossible that worlds upon worlds come into existence all on their own. That's why I said it was a simple conundrum, and yet surely the original one. How does existence exist?

The 'answer' for me (which is an experience, not a reasoning, though some kind of reasoning is required to express it) is that there is an author of all that exists.

Who/what created the "author" then?

[Alex T. Jacob]

With that question or problem you are right in the very center of an almost 'unutterable mystery'. I think it might be like the question of the non-dualists, like Ramana Maharshi: to find out who you are, keep asking Who am I? Who stands behind the appearance? It is of course impossible that existence exists, and yet it does. The mystery is there. It is also impossible that existence not exist, and the mystery is there. The peculiar predicament of (conscious) man is right there.

No one created the 'author'.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Lay of the Zarathustra, bro...

;-)

[David Quinn]

It seems to me impossible that worlds upon worlds come into existence all on their own. That's why I said it was a simple conundrum, and yet surely the original one. How does existence exist?

The 'answer' for me (which is an experience, not a reasoning, though some kind of reasoning is required to express it) is that there is an author of all that exists.

The initial question thus morphs from "How does existence exist?" to "How does the author exist?" and remains just as unresolved as ever.

Given this, how are you able to view this as a satisfactory step and a sign of progress?

-

[pointexter]

What if it was the case that the core reason why people cannot recognize and reject the false and immerse themselves in the truth is because their minds are too tangled up in various narratives?

It may be possible to push the off-button re the tangled narratives and then allow truth to occupy the space. Without using another narrative, like psychology to 'sift' the false thoughts. Rather it may be appropriate or more efficient and effective to simply dump the rubbish, so to speak. Consistent application of logic/reason can reveal the rubbish (the false) without analysing and sifting it. That can be used as the only judgment model necessary to bin nonsense. Better still, reject it when it tries to get in.

You can't really divorce psychology from philosophy/spirituality because the process of realizing the truth necessarily involves burrowing into one's own mind and dismantling the various narratives which hold continue to hold one spellbound.

It may also be possible that psychology is a false narrative and its use may inadvertently reinforce falsehood. There's something about psychology that doesn't quite gel. Psychology may be a form of self-focus, narcissistic in nature (to use psychological narrative), that makes it harder to set aside false thinking. Possibly adding to it.

I like to attack and chip away at the various narratives which enthrall people, as well as encouraging them to attack the narratives themselves,

This may reinforce the capacity for false narrative. Possibly it is adequate to identify the inherent falsehood of self-referential narrative and desist from it, without engaging it.

...their minds can become free.

'Their mind' connotes a separation of thought out of which an 'individual sphere of thought' (mind) emerges. Which seems contrary to boundless, non-dual (awareness of) totality. Is it possible that there is thought but that the notion of mind is the binding of thought to Think-er? A construction. An expression of separation. Illusion.

It's like using a thorn to remove other thorns. One uses narratives to dismantle other narratives, until there are no narratives left.

Refraining from (true) narratives that seek to redress (false) narratives AND refraining from false narrative may cause the false thinking to naturally cease. It may be possible to forget what is false by focusing on true thinking. The sharpening of thought plus the energy not expended in addressing or cleaning up mess may then leave one open only to truth.

The woman narrative is a big one, as it not only weaves its way into the deepest regions of the ego, but it also connects to a number of other powerful narratives as well, involving values, purpose, status, reputation, approval, emotional security, slavery, etc. If you can crack it open, then a lot of other narratives fall away as well. And so that is why I like to focus on it.

l have expended much mental energy over the last few years contemplating that particular narrative, only to come out where l started, which it is all a load of nonsense. i.e yes, 'she' is false. Obviously.

Thinking about 'her' can reinforce Her. She loves to be thought of. She loves to think about Her Self. She loves Her. She cannot exist but for 'other' to be plugged into thoughts about Her. Unplugging from Her is Her greatest fear. Revealing the truth that there is nothing there. Simply looking at what is attempting to 'be' there reveals that there is absolutely nothing there. SHE is Her favorite subject. Neither tone nor sentiment matter to Her, as long as there is focus. Without the focus She disappears. As do all things. The thinking about it, breathes life into it. There is nothing there. Nothing at all, to the idea of Woman. Nor Man. They are bounded thoughts. Constructs. False in every way.

Short translation... look, but don't try to see (interpret). There's nothing to see. Only a reflection, an echo. That puts an end to it. The tangled depths of that particularly pervasive false narrative ceases.

l understand the way you use gender-identified psychology to frame the type of thinking required to break out of the false and thus emerge, as it were, in the realm of truth. Though it seems unnecessary to use the gender construct to encapsulate the frame of reference or type of thinking that yields truth. It would seem more straight forward (or less of an obstacle) to elucidate the qualities, in and off themselves. The gendered focus gets in the way and folks generally recoil further into falsehood. Those who respond in such a way, may simply be incapable of the thinking required to get beyond the false. Indeed, they may use the whole thing to dig their 'self' in even deeper. l half suspect that this is the reason you use the gender thing. As a deliberate hurdle, a screening process.

...that which surrounds people's love of woman

Possibly its the 'love of', that is the most potent of all falsehoods, born out of illusion of separation, manifest in a vain 'returning to' through the unity of shared falsehood. In psychological terms, the projected merging of delusion to escape illusion. A doubling-up that ensconces one more deeply in falsehood. There is nothing to unify as nothing is separate. There is nothing to return to as there is nothing that One is away from. 'Love' as it were is a deep (posibbly the deepest) expression of the narratives attaching one to illusion.

What narrative?

The teaching.

What teacher?

The one attached to teaching the teaching. Or really, attachment to the narrative that is projected (taught). Is it possible that its not really possible to teach another? That one can only interpret i.e think and translate.

[Alex T. Jacob]

David wrote: "The initial question thus morphs from "How does existence exist?" to "How does the author exist?" and remains just as unresolved as ever. / Given this, how are you able to view this as a satisfactory step and a sign of progress?

You mean the question for Jason or for Deja-vu---or you? I think that that sort of question arises in a certain kind of mind, a mind organized in a certain way. When I pose it as a question: How does existence exist? I honestly do not think there is or can be any sort of answer that could ever be given. It is the one unanswerable question to resort to a poetic reference.

As I see things, there is no way to 'resolve' the question, and I think it is useful to note the term you select with its mathematical tint, as if it were an equation subject to your analysis. But it seems to me that, before such a magnitude, one is more subject to it than it is subject to one. I think that is the point of referring to a Mystery that stands outside of the realm of human comprehension.

The issue or question of 'progress' is an interesting one, and definitely in the context of my opposition to some of the tenets of your religious philosophy. Where I feel I agree with you, as was said in the early part of this thread, is in your focus and seriousness. In the crazy mixed-up 'post-modernist' soup it is a powerful stance to pose a serious question and to see how the question is answered. That is the essence of masculinity. It is a necessary territory to explore and defend.

On a mundane level, like in self-help literature, they also ask such potent questions but only about one's self-organization, one's discipline, one's focus, the lists one makes to organize one's activities, the written-out life goals one has. To ask certain kinds of questions and to push them forward is powerful medicine.

Similarly, all this asking about one's relationship to women (for example), all this looking into it to see what in fact it does for a man and what it doesn't do and can't do (where it inhibits and side-tracks) is all very important. This group of questions and inquiry---a sort of yoga really---is very relevant and powerful. A great deal of it is preliminary to defining and having what I call 'spiritual life' and what you call---with a wee bit of grandiosity---that Ultimate Path or enlightenment. Still, as in many things in life, to have ambitions is very important. And it is true that to have ambitions, to believe in them, one has to resist more mediocre minds who inevitably say, 'Oh, you can't do that'.

But when one comes into this issue or question of 'progess' I think one has to slow down and really think things through. Life is surprising and puzzling and sometimes thwarts our 'terrestrial will'. One might imagine one is making oodles of 'progress' and find out later that one has really not progressed. Or one might think 'I am making no progress here!' but it turns out that in truth one is. Man proposes, God disposes, that sort of thing. I think this might be the core of my issue and concern with y'all. You seem to think you know everything. The whole tone of this forum (Q-R-S and affiliates) is ... oddly arrogating in this sense. You know what is progress and what isn't. You know who is wise and who isn't. You look (pretty superficially) at the whole Western canon (well, all canons really, East and West) and pronounce on them. You're just some dudes from the Australian back-country but you have given yourself the right and the authority to pronounce judgment on everyone who has ever existed to date! You know who was 'enlightened' and who wasn't. You know which enlightenments were real and which were false. It is pretty incredible when you think about it.

But 'progress' is such a tricky question, such an issue of maturity and real wisdom.

[Jason]

It is of course impossible that existence exists, and yet it does.

Is it absolutely certain that existence exists?

[Alex T. Jacob]

It is not at all absolutely certain that existence exists. And yet, by the same token, it exists. The 'tool' for perception on such mystical and 'mysterious' levels is the self, in its holistic sense. In the first part of this thread, though it is likely that you have completely forgotten it (or never took it in), I brought up the issue or the question of 'mystical relationship'. Every people, every civilization, seems to dedicate itself to defining the metaphysical and cosmological structure in which it exists, and then discovers and defines its 'mystical relationship'. Mystical relationship is not mental relationship or a mathematical description, it is (if you will permit me) the soul's relationship, both above and under language, of one's essential sense of what one is related to, what originated one, and into what one resolves or returns.

It defines a macrocosm of cosmology, structure, 'science' (in the primitive sense), and a microcosm of human concerns, ethics, right and wrong, values and counter-values---everything in fact. In Western culture, in Mediterranean culture, we most certainly had that. We exist in the falling structure of that, in the ruins (but not yet completely fallen; dying but not dead; dead but alive and boiling in its death). It was the Roman-Catholic system comprising the State and material life (social organization, law, ethics, etc.) as well as a comprehensive theological system. But quite importantly it was a system that contained 'the whole world' and even more importantly the human individual. And in relation to the totality another unique feature existed for the individual: sanctification. The knowledge (the sure knowledge) that if one lived right, thought right, acted right, that one thereby entered into or achieved a mystical sanctity with 'all that exists'. One was blessed. The whole concept of redemption and salvation was a 'real thing'. It is important to realize, I think, that we still have very real vestiges of that particular knowledge or belief. I suggest that this shadow knowledge, or dream of knowledge, is strong in Q-R-S, but it operates under the threshold, perhaps unconsciously or subliminally. 'Salvation' and 'Redemption' are real issues and concerns for them, and perhaps for you. It just takes a new form.

Again, (I repeat it because I think it is important), we are in a process of redefining our mystical relationship to the Whole, to what is created, to what exists, and also (at least in my case) to that which 'created' everything, which is literally unutterable mystery. To have ideas about such wierd things, which are so far beyond our ken, ideas and images that are mystical and intangible, is to enter a difficult territory. It is the realm of the mystic: the one who puts his self on the line, who becomes the intrument of perception and then speaks about what is 'seen'. And it is also the realm of the artist: the one who also uses his self in a unique way that extends beyond reason and formula. The artist also offers a mystical vision into life, even if it is local, and so when you look at artistic productions---poems, paintings, sculpture, literature---you are brought into a 'mysterious' sort of relationship with life through the 'instrument' of the artist. You see what the artist sees. I focus on this because, if the truth were to be told, Q-R-S are illiterate and incapable of even the most basic appreciation of art, or even a basic understanding of what its value is. This is a pretty tragic mistake.

Of course it extends beyond that too: a great portion of the importance and relevance of Ideas is beyond their grasp, and many of those who participate here seem often clueless as to the synthetic relationship between mind and emotion, internal masculine and feminine modes, and really so many other things. (The Great Reducers: who do not understand the little they know, who get confused, who therefor wish to throw everything out as if it has no value. Real Vandals)*

But they pretend to be Masters and to stand on top of everthing and everyone and pronounce. True Superior Men. This forum is, in many ways, an invitation to the illiterate and unprepared to do harm through their mediocrity and willful incomprehension. To be truthful, this is herd activity boys and girls.

For us, now (I assert), the issue of what is mystical connection, to what and how? And what does it mean? What is this existence? What is self? Who are you and who am I? What is the beginning of us and what is the end? Where do we come from and where are we going? What is 'progress' and what isn't? (Et cetera, et cetera). These are all the exact sharp question we all need to be asking. But, and as I say, we need to always question those whom I have lovingly labeled 'the snot-nosed brats'. Maybe they know far less than they let on...

Jason wrote: "Is it absolutely certain that existence exists?"

The answer to that question, as I understand it and would attempt to 'answer' it, is that all is a creation or 'emanation' of a supreme being, the magnitude and fullness and intensity of which is beyond our grasp. The energy, which I think even physics can't really define, that is 'behind' all existence (matter)---what exactly is it? Does it really 'exist'? What are we really talking about? I think (my own limited, subjective opinion) that we 'assemble' this realm of existence, or it is 'assembled' for us, out of an infinity of possibilities, and we 'participate' in this reality (sphere, loka). I also have the sense that when it ends, the story ends, the narrative ends, and possibly the dream ends, but we remain, forever linked to that which originated us, and in which we forever have our existence, nothing lost and nothing gained (in a manner of speaking). There is both beauty and 'bliss' ('ananda') in this knowledge. Though many of our stories and narratives are sad and tragic, there are other stories and narratives into which they subsume.
______________________________________________________

*The Vandals were an East Germanic tribe that entered the late Roman Empire during the 5th century. The Goth leader Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostrogoths and regent of the Visigoths, was allied by marriage with the Vandals as well as with the Burgundians and the Franks under Clovis I.

The Vandals are perhaps best known for their sack of Rome in 455. Although they were not notably more destructive than others, the high regard which later European cultures held for ancient Rome led to the association of the name of the tribe with vandalism: senseless destruction, particularly in diminution of aesthetic appeal or destruction of objects that were completed with great effort.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Deja-vu wrote: "It is extremely amusing to me that I, the atheist, am seriously looking at the possibility of not having to die. Is this impious from your perspective? Do you think I'd do better to look at it religiously?"

You mean that, somehow, through some energetic trick you will convert your body to some other kind of substance and escape biological death? A kind of alchemical flip into the infinite? Or, like some Taoist sage way up in the cloudy pine forests where the ravens caw you will sit so still, for so long, and so empty, that you will slow down time and your biological organism will just keep living, on and on and on? There is of course another mythological alternative: vampirism. To find a way (the way?) to feed off the energy of other biological entities and to keep postponing death.

Piety and impiety? I don't think in those terms. To be a constructive person in this strange, strange world and also, if one can, to be kind (which really means to refrain from cruelty) is 'piety' in my book.

The only other thing to say about fantasies of avoiding death is that they can be a foil the psyche constructs to avoid seeing clearly certain fundamental truths about this realm that, sooner or later, have to be faced. Sometimes we 'use' these foils not because of strength or clarity but because of weakness and childishness. But, at a certain point, usually a crisis, that construct falls and reality is seen in its naked form and we also 'see' ourselves.

"How do you and I, who both believe existence is real, find ourselves in the positions of theist and atheist? We are divided by "god".

Clearly you have not taken big enough doses of mushroom, laddy! ;-)

All jokes aside...

Possibly this 'god' of yours is an idea-structure in your mind that is clearly false, and so when you hear me use that word, your 'server' just keeps bringing up the same dreary image. What about when David says it? You get goose-bumps?

'God' as I am referring to is only something knowable through your own self, your own psyche. 'God' is discovered in our consciousness. I have tried to use language to express what it is I perceive about 'it' but it is really a kind of preaching to the choir: only those who already think/feel like that will 'relate'.

Also, I said there is no way to know if it is absolutely real or not, and yet for all intents and purposes it is real (existence). I think that the world is an imaginary construct of 'God' and that we, through something like what the Hindus call 'Maya', are forced to participate in it, to believe it absolutely. The trick is that it is really all more like a giant dream. I realize as I have written these last 20 posts or so how essentially I am a sort of Vaishnava (worshipper of Vishnu and his avatars) and that I accept, in many ways, the basic Vedic description of Reality. I have taken it all and in my own internal processes come to both experience and understand it in a perhaps unique way, but the core is still there. It is really my 'subjective hook-up' if you will. I don't think I arbitrarily chose it though. It is just part of who I am.

[Jason]

Alex Alex Alex. Where to start. I will say that I enjoyed your last post. It was interesting and thought provoking. Maybe we could discuss the contents of that post soon - don't think that your words have gone to waste. However, and this is a major however for me - I don't think that you really answered my question. And, it is such a simple question...

Here it is again:

It is of course impossible that existence exists, and yet it does.

Is it absolutely certain that existence exists?

Is it absolutely certain that existence exists? I would have thought that our conversation alone, or any post you make in response to this question I pose, would be proof in itself that existence certainly exists.

Does it pain you to affirm any type of absolute certainty? Is this why your voluminous last post seemed to sidestep the question? You've been in a long campaign against the absolutists here, maybe it would hurt you tactically and reputation-wise too?

I still want you to try to directly and succinctly answer that question "Is it absolutely certain that existence exists?" but also I have another which may help - "Is is absolutely certain that something exists?" By something, I mean literally anything you can imagine - a car, a thought, a poem, a feeling, a being. Is it absolutely certain that something, anything exists? What I want you to consider is that the question itself is some-thing, and any reply you make to my question will also be some-thing, so it seems you can't evade the fact that some-thing certainly exists.

I'm pushing you toward certainty, and I'm not sure that you can sincerely escape.....what are you gonna do? You're cornered. :)

[Alex T. Jacob]

Jason asks: "Is it absolutely certain that existence exists?"

"Does it pain you to affirm any type of absolute certainty?"

"Is is absolutely certain that something exists?" By something, I mean literally anything you can imagine - a car, a thought, a poem, a feeling, a being."

Sometimes the simplest questions are not in fact so simple. One thing I notice on GF is the attempt to use apparent 'simplicity' as a way to avoid veritable complexity. I do not think that 'solving' the existential dilemna is something 'easy'. Yogis sometimes refer to stories that elucidate that, for complex-minded man, the solution is 'easy' in fact. I am aware of those stories. I think here people use simplistic diagrams of 'reality' (reductions) to narrow perception and options in an attempt to arrive at the definite, the absolute, the sure, etc. As you know I don't think that is a smart way of going about it. And it would be arrogant (by my own definitions) to propose that I have in my possession any solid or definitive answers. For me the questions are more relevant.

You notice that I return to, say, the most essential when I apparently side-step your question. Existence surely exists. There is really no doubt about that, ipso facto. The main issue or mystery (as I say) is there and nowhere else. But I seem to sense something in Existence (the question, the fact) that you don't. At least that what it seems to me. The fact that anything exists and can exist, in comparison to the impossibility of non-existence, is a strange conundrum for the conscious mind. It is like a rubber band that is stretched, something that poses itself to man, is a challenge, a dare if you will. To focus on the Question How can Existence exist? is to experience a strange existential itch, and perhaps it functions in the same way a Koan is supposed to function. As you know I believe that this 'existence' is in essence the only thing (I feel) 'logic' would ever allow it to be: a Living God, a Supreme Consciousness beyond imagining, beyond mentation, beyond conception---utter and absolute mystery.

I think there are deeper levels in that 'fact' too. One is that if one understands things in this way: that there is an unutterable potency or 'being' in which all this occurs, one is automatically forced (at least I think so) understand that it can be anything it wants to be. There are no limits to its creative ability. (It of course sounds absurd to describe 'it' in these terms but we are constrained by language). If as I say it 'creates' the universe, the kosmos, the loka in which we exist and which we perceive and map---a world that is simply incredible beyond any level of realization a mind could conceive. It is also almost necessary (in a philosophical sense) that any sort of world, an infinity of worlds, also exist (somewhere, somehow), and by 'worlds' I mean entire discreet universes of possibility, potentially radically different from the one we perceive, exist within, define. I don't think it is so hard to see my point. If there is an 'originator', the originator has to be entirely in control of the show. It is a strange speculation to assert but there you have it. One of the most relevant (and necessary) keys to all this may be closer to hand than we think: the human imagination. Not to say that we fantasize 'billions and billions' of different sorts of spheres of existence, but that our imagining ability connects to them through God.

You surely agree that this kosmos exists, and that it is simply unreally magnificent, unimaginably incredible (etc.) Why should it be limited only to this, whan anything was possible?

So, you ask "Is it absolutely certain that existence exists?" and the answer is surely 'yes'. But the question is really to define in what way it exists. In my internal perceptions, which are subjective and unquantifiable (of course), I have 'seen' that this world and universe does not exist as we all think that it exists. God's being is infinite and this Living Consciousness is infinite and eternal. It is impossible to say what sort of 'stuff' it is since it is of course beyond mental description and perhaps any sort of description at all. I suppose one could attempt to explain our existence by saying that we are forces by a supreme 'command' (if you will) to perceive a world of hard and cold facts, the material universe as we now describe it. But we 'agree' to perceive this world in this way and, I suppose I am saying, there are alternatives. The fact that there are alternatives is very, very important in my book.

This question: "Does it pain you to affirm any type of absolute certainty?" is an important one. Insofar as 'you', Q-R-S and those who generally agree with these views, who construct these agreements seem to impose a limited and limiting conception on 'reality', yes, it is certainly 'painful' to accept this kind of 'absolute certainty'. I have written probably a million words about that to date. I also have suggested it is a kind of act of desperation and yet an entirely 'logical' one. I have attempted to define a 'psychology' that can be used to understand modern desperation. But you know all this.

I am aware of a problem that I open up with these outlandish descriptions or speculations. No doubt about it. I say that we absolutely need a strict material science to understand and manipulate the world in which we live. No doubt. But science in this sense assembles facts and no more. We are forced, or we will be forced, to weave a cosmology and a 'new mysticism' from those facts and from the new picture of the cosmos. And I sugges that we will have to use the totality of ourselves as an 'instrument' by which that is done.

However, for certain people---spiritual types, mystics, visionaries and the like---we have a need to do this now and personally. All of us have done or are doing something just like this. It is the art of defining one's place within the Whole.

[David Quinn]

What if it was the case that the core reason why people cannot recognize and reject the false and immerse themselves in the truth is because their minds are too tangled up in various narratives?

It may be possible to push the off-button re the tangled narratives and then allow truth to occupy the space. Without using another narrative, like psychology to 'sift' the false thoughts. Rather it may be appropriate or more efficient and effective to simply dump the rubbish, so to speak. Consistent application of logic/reason can reveal the rubbish (the false) without analysing and sifting it. That can be used as the only judgment model necessary to bin nonsense. Better still, reject it when it tries to get in.

The only problem is, these narratives extend their roots far into the subconscious. So even if you could lop off their visible parts within consciousness, or push them aside for the time being, it won't be long before they are rearing their ugly heads again.

I agree that it is possible to gain some insight into the nature of reality by temporarily quietening the narratives - indeed, this is essentially the aim of formal meditation which involves "stilling the mind", and it can also be experienced in certain drug states when the mind is free of its normal worries - but it can only ever be temporary at best, and if one's mind is still being distorted by its underlying narratives, one is likely to misunderstand these insights.

Nothing beats using reason as a kind of shovel and pulling these narratives out by the roots, so that they can never grow back again.

You can't really divorce psychology from philosophy/spirituality because the process of realizing the truth necessarily involves burrowing into one's own mind and dismantling the various narratives which hold continue to hold one spellbound.

It may also be possible that psychology is a false narrative and its use may inadvertently reinforce falsehood. There's something about psychology that doesn't quite gel. Psychology may be a form of self-focus, narcissistic in nature (to use psychological narrative), that makes it harder to set aside false thinking. Possibly adding to it.

For a time that might be a problem. But as a person becomes more skilled in reasoning and more familiar with the nature of truth, his psychological work will become far more effective.

...their minds can become free.

'Their mind' connotes a separation of thought out of which an 'individual sphere of thought' (mind) emerges. Which seems contrary to boundless, non-dual (awareness of) totality. Is it possible that there is thought but that the notion of mind is the binding of thought to Think-er? A construction. An expression of separation. Illusion.

That's true. So the process of the becoming free involves realizing that there has never been any mind to begin with.

The woman narrative is a big one, as it not only weaves its way into the deepest regions of the ego, but it also connects to a number of other powerful narratives as well, involving values, purpose, status, reputation, approval, emotional security, slavery, etc. If you can crack it open, then a lot of other narratives fall away as well. And so that is why I like to focus on it.

l have expended much mental energy over the last few years contemplating that particular narrative, only to come out where l started, which it is all a load of nonsense. i.e yes, 'she' is false. Obviously.

Thinking about 'her' can reinforce Her. She loves to be thought of. She loves to think about Her Self. She loves Her. She cannot exist but for 'other' to be plugged into thoughts about Her. Unplugging from Her is Her greatest fear. Revealing the truth that there is nothing there. Simply looking at what is attempting to 'be' there reveals that there is absolutely nothing there. SHE is Her favorite subject. Neither tone nor sentiment matter to Her, as long as there is focus. Without the focus She disappears. As do all things. The thinking about it, breathes life into it. There is nothing there. Nothing at all, to the idea of Woman. Nor Man. They are bounded thoughts. Constructs. False in every way.

Short translation... look, but don't try to see (interpret). There's nothing to see. Only a reflection, an echo. That puts an end to it. The tangled depths of that particularly pervasive false narrative ceases.

l understand the way you use gender-identified psychology to frame the type of thinking required to break out of the false and thus emerge, as it were, in the realm of truth.

Good.

Though it seems unnecessary to use the gender construct to encapsulate the frame of reference or type of thinking that yields truth. It would seem more straight forward (or less of an obstacle) to elucidate the qualities, in and off themselves. The gendered focus gets in the way and folks generally recoil further into falsehood. Those who respond in such a way, may simply be incapable of the thinking required to get beyond the false. Indeed, they may use the whole thing to dig their 'self' in even deeper. l half suspect that this is the reason you use the gender thing. As a deliberate hurdle, a screening process.

You're very insightful. I see it more as a crystallizing process. The issue of woman is a very polarizing one. People generally fall into two camps, in which they either understand in an instant why one would speak against womanhood, or they haven't the faintest clue why one would do it and can only reconcile it as pure misogyny. In my view, those in the latter camp have very little potential for wisdom and can be dismissed out of hand. Those in the former camp will have already given some thought to the way in which woman/femininity operates in the world and discerned many of the lies which surround her, and will have an inkling of the greater mode of existence which lies beyond her. It is for these people I write, crystallizing what they already suspect by bringing it into sharper focus.

-

[Alex T. Jacob]

It has been fun posting here but I have to bring it to a halt. To write discursively is so attractive (a little addictive really) because it is easy to see one's accomplishment quickly. Writing fiction is a very different process. You labor for long periods with no sense of satisfaction before 'something' coalesces.

Thanks to all the people who responded to my posts. And good luck!

[Dan Rowden]

See ya soon, Alex.

Take care.

[Beingof1]

It has been fun posting here but I have to bring it to a halt. To write discursively is so attractive (a little addictive really) because it is easy to see one's accomplishment quickly. Writing fiction is a very different process. You labor for long periods with no sense of satisfaction before 'something' coalesces.

Thanks to all the people who responded to my posts. And good luck!

Take care Alex - did you get in contact with the theologian from Denver?

Namaste and maranatha

[Tomas]

Haven't quite left yet, but of course no hard feelings. I try to affirm what I think is positive here but, like suspicious dogs, the Sons of Thunder don't have much use for me. If I say it, it must conduce to ignorance...

It is a great forum and yet it could be better if the closed loop of ideas could expand. Not into stupid chatter and back-story, but into more thorough and genuine explorations of the World of Ideas. I don't know exactly what to think of 'enlightenment' but 'Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection' are good values.

1) You are interesting enough if you'd leave the bull-shit out of your dialogue.

2) Speak only to those who you deem worthy of a response.

3) This is your third go-around here, like in baseball .. strike three and you are out.

(No foul tips, dropped balls by catcher etc., on a called third strike) Ninety feet to 1st base with all of us dogs a'chasing you.

PS - If you can't run with the Big Dog stay on the porch.

Good luck in all your endeavors, Alex. Really :-)

Warm Regards,
Tomas

-Alex-
It has been fun posting here but I have to bring it to a halt.

Thanks to all the people who responded to my posts. And good luck!

-tomas-
Strike Three .. yer outta here ;-)

[Kelly Jones]

David,

Alex Jacob: Maybe it would be useful---it would certainly be interesting---to start a thread where we each describe (in 'classical' prose but now that I think of it a 'romantic' Virgilian prose might be better) the most unsagelike thing we have done in, say, the last year. I'll volunteer to go first...

David: I don't think there is anything too remarkable behind my curtain. Just some of the usual minor things - I get irritated on occasion, masturbate when I have to, like to smoke a joint every now and then, enjoy watching soccer, am a sucker for music, etc. Pretty dull stuff, really, most of it involving downtime. Of course, other observers might have a different point of view.

You wrote in 2006:

Because epilepsy involves increased activity in the frontal lobes, it can stimulate a person's thought-processes, helping him gain new insights and new ways of thinking - not unlike taking LSD or pot. So it's no surprise that some of the great thinkers of history were epileptic.

On the other hand, you don't need to be epileptic in order to become a great thinker or become enlightened. There are other ways to stimulate the frontal lobes. Engaging in intense contemplative thought, for instance.

Kevin mentioned last year that you had been "smoking a lot of pot". Is that true? Kevin sometimes exaggerates, and I don't really know how to measure "a lot", since I've never taken any drugs in the classical sense of the word. To my knowledge, marijuana causes one to forget things, to lack motivation, to sound like a moron, be mildly paranoid, and, it is addictive; it sounds like it has some serious drawbacks. In the context of ageing, and becoming absent-minded anyway (no one can escape this), a cannabis habit could become a concern. So, a lot might be even a small amount. What does it do for you, that you think it's worth smoking?

[edit: I deleted the other questions, but have kept them in my own notes. It's not especially relevant, is something I can work-out myself, and I think is likely to be misunderstood by current posters, so amounts to a distraction. --- KJ, 28/2/10]

Sorry to put you on the line publicly, but I think this might benefit someone besides myself, and myself. And if not now, then at some point down the track.

.

[David Quinn]

Kevin mentioned last year that you had been "smoking a lot of pot". Is that true? Kevin sometimes exaggerates, and I don't really know how to measure "a lot", since I've never taken any drugs in the classical sense of the word.

I wouldn't say a lot, but probably more than I should. About once a month, for the past three or four years, I have been visiting an old friend that I knew from my university days and smoking some pot with him. He is a wild, cynical fellow with a lot of darkness in him, very intelligent, but possessing a strong criminal mindset and a perverse sense of humour. He comes from a world that I normally have nothing to do with, so I generally find it an amusing, stimulating experience. But it has more or less come to an end, as he has recently tipped over the edge and become a little psychotic. I've only seen him once in the past six months and it looks like that little phase in my life is over.

To my knowledge, marijuana causes one to forget things, to lack motivation, to sound like a moron, be mildly paranoid, and, it is addictive; it sounds like it has some serious drawbacks. In the context of ageing, and becoming absent-minded anyway (no one can escape this), a cannabis habit could become a concern. So, a lot might be even a small amount. What does it do for you, that you think it's worth smoking?

I see it as downtime, really. I don't really gain anything from it in a philosophical or psychological sense, save the occasional quirky insight. I get more insight from conversing with my hellish companion than I do from the pot, although the pot does make his hellish demeanour and stories seem more surreal. It's probably the surreal aspect that I like about it the most.

I've never had any problems with it in terms of memory, paranoia, addiction, etc. I probably don't smoke it often enough for these things to become a concern, and when I do smoke it, I only have it in very small doses. My companion usually has around 8 to 10 ten times as much as I do when we have our sessions.

-

[Kelly Jones]

Okay. Thanks for explaining.

Just one further question: do you think the inaction on a couple of whimsical plans, like being a public pest, or a wandering traveller, (presumably you haven't been able to act) has slowed your spiritual progress in any way? Not being able to express one's thoughts in the way one visualises, can have a stifling effect, creating the internal impression that one has delayed or procrastinated an important project, which I would call a "poeticising effect" --- even if one consciously understands what the scenario is, and that one hasn't deliberately chosen not to act. Do you get that?

.

[David Quinn]

Do you want me to become a public pest, Kelly?

At the moment, I don't have the desire to do anything that will attract psychotics to my side. I'm happy enough to continue leading a quiet life for the time being. If I do become more "public" in the future, I want to ensure that it will be too grounded and authentic for the psychotics. It is something that can only work if it happens naturally, with a high degree of egolessness, and I'm not yet at that stage.

-

[Kelly Jones]

Okay. So you don't think that remaining private has stifled your progress.

But what about: "one who is carrying on the life of calm will sooner or later find that he is unable to enter into the active life at all"; and that the highest is "the Lotus living in the midst of the fire"?

... And then, as you say, one has to be solidly enlightened, having already been thoroughly developed by finding ways to challenge oneself while containing the effects of slip-ups during the transition.

.

[edit: I have again deleted material, but have kept it in my notes. I apologise for deleting material, but it's obviously not suitable for most current posters, and because of all the misunderstanding, I've chosen not to let it remain published. It involves the subject that, by and large, drew me to post again to the Forum, so I have to admit being disappointed, but it helps teach me to be more realistic about others. --- 1/3/2010 KJ]

.

[Blair]

Kelly I can tell you in all honesty, (and I'm sure I am not alone in this)

That no sane, reasonable, rational and functional person would take what you say seriously. You are taking misanthropy to the extreme and the abyss will stare back..Just think about it young lady. I know the place you are headed, and it's not worth it.

[Kelly Jones]

What misanthropy? People cannot be expected to be more than they are.

.