I have Realized the Infinite

[guest_of_logic]

All sorts of narcissistic thoughts are at play here. For example:

- The sight of a peaceful, non-threatening environment making your ego feel a bit more secure.

The appreciation of security is narcissistic? You really need to look up the meaning of the word "narcissistic".

You would have to ask yourself, would you experience the same joy if these ducks were being killed by a man shooting at them?

Of course not. What an odd question to ask. The joy was at their peaceful existence, not at their suffering in destruction.

The "uniqueness" of the situation would be the same, the fact of the ducks and the man existing at all would be the same, indeed everything is the same

Peace and tranquility are "the same" as death and destruction?

except that your reaction is likely to be very different.

I thought that cause and effect was your thing, David. Different cause => different effect. Cause: peaceful and tranquil co-existence => effect: feelings of joy. Cause: death and destruction => effect: feelings of horror/anger/courage to intervene.

This alone would show that the joy you experience is not related to agape at all, but is entirely narcissistic in nature.

The agape is present in both situations, it's just that proactive emotions take over in the case of the shootings: those emotions are motivated by agape, at least in the ideal.

- The ego patting itself on the back for being so amazing and special to be able to experience this joy in the first place. The initial joy of feeling more secure is thus multiplied by the feeling of being special.

Why would you think that back-pats are a necessary component of this experience?

- The "appreciation" you feel over the fact that these creatures exist at all, etc, is generated by the unfounded idea that "nothingness" is somehow the natural state of reality and that existing forms are therefore a miracle to behold. In other words, the joy is a product of ignorance of the nature of duality, which in turn is a product of systemic narcissistic thinking. Egotism (and emotion) thrives in unchallenged dualities.

You go from "appreciative of the miraculous" to "narcissistic" very rapidly - it's quite an unfounded leap. Again I suggest that you check a dictionary.

And so on. There are probably other narcissistic factors involved which are unique to your personality and set of attachments. If you're honest enough, you should be able to seek these out for yourself.

You're confusing "personal" with "selfish and narcissistic".

guest_of_logic: Too pure for joy and contentment? Untroubled waters and all that - tell me, what about these modes makes them preferable to ("infinitely more amazing" than) joy and contentment?

David: This is something you can only really understand by going into these modes yourself and then looking at things like joy and contentment from that perspective. From that perspective, they are seen to be prisons which have no foundation at all. "Castles in the air", as the Buddha called them. "Black holes of insanity", one could equally call them.

But according to you, nothing has any "foundation" (except, ultimately, in/as the Totality). Your modes are as foundationless as the joy you claim them to be superior to. Subjective purpose is all, right? If joy serves a subjective purpose, then feel joy, just as if eating serves a subjective purpose, then eat.

The big question, though, is to what extent do you exist in these modes from day to day, and to what extent do you still experience joy in your day to day life?

You don't really want to see anything, Laird. That's the problem.

That's somewhat paternalistic of you, David, but I suppose you're only carrying out your self-assigned role as teacher and guide, and it's pretty innocuous stuff, so I don't really mind. What I "see" is you stretching definitions and meanings beyond what's reasonable, to support your agenda, which often seems to be made up on the spot and then subsequently defended to the hilt, come what may, as if to admit defeat were unthinkable... perhaps testament to your own psychological need to have "won" and "conquered", particularly in relation to other people? I don't know, and I think that the game of amateur psycho-analysis over a forum is pretty dicey, so that's all that I'll suggest on that matter.

This whole "conquering" and "winning" theme that you've got going probably stems back to that thread several years ago in which you introduced the idea of humour being the result of the overcoming of oppression, which, despite its obvious inadequacy as a full account of humour, you continued to defend no matter what others threw at you.

In any case, to the degree that appreciation involves feelings of joy, it is being driven by a form of egotistical winning. Feeling joy at seeing some ducks paddling around the sunlight is the ego reveling in the momentary conquering of its ever-present fears in life.

Conquering? Why need the ego feel that it's "conquered" anything? It's simply happened into a fortunate and happy circumstance, which it appreciates for what it is. "Winning" and "conquering" need not have anything to do with it.

[guest_of_logic]

Prince,

To be hit by a truck whilst agazing a duck is unfortunate luck: it would suck. But pick up your pluck; be a daring young buck: there is much to be found in the mud and the muck ... if we just give a ****. And I know you do (preaching to the converted).

[Blair]

Preaching to the choir!
I salute you young squire,
Your intentions hold in good stead

But if you think emotions
are the key to reality
then you are verily fucked in the head

[Dan Rowden]

Oi! Genius Forum is a doggerel free zone. Enough of that!

[guest_of_logic]

Aw, Dan. No more doggerel, but how about catechism?

"I affirm feeling as an unavoidable consequence of human consciousness.
I deny the primacy of feeling over reason in deciphering reality,
but I do not deny that the causes of feeling, once investigated
often point to hitherto unknown truths."

[jupiviv]

The appreciation of security is narcissistic?

Being attached to security is narcissistic.

Cause: peaceful and tranquil co-existence => effect: feelings of joy. Cause: death and destruction => effect: feelings of horror/anger/courage to intervene.

That's not a good conception of causality. People are attached to peace because(be-cause) they are want to run away and avoid what they perceive to be chaos and destruction. So chaos causes peace, and vice versa. There's no escaping this.

[Kelly Jones]

But according to you, nothing has any "foundation" (except, ultimately, in/as the Totality). Your modes are as foundationless as the joy you claim them to be superior to.

We talked about this several months ago when you were up this way. Exactly the same issue, and you didn't understand it then. You asked, why shouldn't a person who is enlightened not have emotions and do things that unenlightened persons do since an enlightened person lacks the delusion of inherent separation from things, and is deeply connected to Reality? Why shouldn't they be immersed in delusion, since delusion is a part of the Totality?

There are two parts to it, and I think your issue is in the second part.

One: the definitional truth, "Every thing is the Totality".

Two: understanding this truth, is not the same as not understanding it. They are not identical. Yet both are parts of the Totality.

It is mistaken to equate all things as equal in regards to truth-quality. One cannot understand at the same time as not understanding. All things are the Totality, but not all things include consciousness of this truth. One simply can't have truths at the same time as falsehoods. Truth-consciousness discriminates, and only through discriminating, has understanding.

.

[Anders Schlander]

Hm, Kierkegaard does seem enshrouded in a more personal mist, compared to reading wisdom from Eastern philosophers, but I can sense the infinite ideal...

The streets of copenhagen are indeed quite old, and the houses also, the names of streets havn't really changed, not in the eastern part of town. (google maps is pretty great)

I really wonder how one would be a real apostle of Truth, in light of Christian contamination if you will, people already have the pre-conception of Christianity that has gone down the drain, it is no longer impressive, so how would you share it to the world so they will definitely not be impressed with absolutes, and for people it's 'old and outdated'

Only A sith deals in absolutes, remember?

[David Quinn]

Hm, Kierkegaard does seem enshrouded in a more personal mist, compared to reading wisdom from Eastern philosophers, but I can sense the infinite ideal...

He may have been shrouded in a more personal mist, but the upside is that he tackled areas that Eastern philosophers rarely gave attention to - such as the suffering involved in advancing along the spiritual path and subsequently clashing with the world, and also his wisdom-infused psychological analyses. In this way, he contributed enormously to the articulation of wisdom.

I really wonder how one would be a real apostle of Truth, in light of Christian contamination if you will, people already have the pre-conception of Christianity that has gone down the drain, it is no longer impressive, so how would you share it to the world so they will definitely not be impressed with absolutes, and for people it's 'old and outdated'

It can never go out of date - unless, of course, a society of Buddhas happens to arise. Short of that, societies will always have their delusions, myths, false values and attachments, and thus will always remain vulnerable and fearful of the apostle of truth. Jesus's warning that "all men will hate you because of me" applies just as much today as it ever did.

-

[guest_of_logic]

Being attached to security is narcissistic.

My guess is that, as it appears for David, you don't know/understand the definition of "narcissistic", or at least that you're stretching it beyond what's reasonable.

People are attached to peace because(be-cause) they are want to run away and avoid what they perceive to be chaos and destruction. So chaos causes peace, and vice versa. There's no escaping this.

I'm sorry that you can't conceive of a wholly peaceful society, even if only in theory.

What's it with your need to substitute "attachment" for "appreciation" anyway?

[David Quinn]

You have to appreciate the level of Kierkegaard's sense of irony in everything that he said and did.

That can very easily be viewed as a cop out. Whenever the philosopher isn't according with our view of what he is 'really' saying we can always attribute it to irony. I've seen it quite often in recent times at university whem PoMo's, Feminists or Neo Marxists appeal to Nietzsche to support their world view.

I'm not necessarily charging you with this but to my mind with this response you haven't given any meaningful account of why he used 'he' and 'him' so regularly if he was such the nondualist.

I'm not sure that I understand your concerns here. I use the term "Infinite" and speak about the need to "open one's mind to it", or to "uncover what it is and dive into it", etc - all of which is dualistic in nature. It doesn't necessarily follow from this that I regard the Infinite to be dualistic in nature, and the same applies to Kierkegaard. The path to Infinite-consciousness is always dualistic in nature, as is the language used to describe it.

Very rarely did he approach a matter without his mind twisting it around and folding it back on itself several times over. One could say that this maze-weaving was both a strength and a weakness of his - a weakness because it prevented him from going at truth more directly, and a strength because he was able to generate amazingly intricate analyses of things.

This relates to his fear of expressing himself more openly and directly, as alluded to in these sorts of passages:

I'm somewhat sympathetic of that reasoning. The same could be said of Eckhart.

However....

- This is how one rises in the world, when a person has reached one rung of the ladder, he hankers and tries to go higher. But when a person has become involved with God, so that God truly has hold of him and uses him, this is how he rises: at every higher rung he is supposed to climb, he begs like a child to be exempted, for he well understands that, from a human point of view, suffering and wretchedness and spiritual trial mount on the same scale. How often an apostle has pleaded for himself in this way.


- God can involve himself with the human race on one of two conditions, either in such a way that individuals are found who are willing to venture out so far in hating themselves that God can use them as apostles, or in such a way that the true situation is honestly and unconditionally admitted. The latter is my primitivity.

As far as the former is concerned, this is certainly the instruction of the New Testament. But with respect to venturing out so far, the following must be noted. This is something so dreadful for a human being that it is permissible to say: I dare not.

(Taken from Venom Crystals)

here he is describing his battle with spirituality. Again, one has to squint pretty hard to see an argument for a pantheist view, in my opinion.

Again, he is talking about the path to truth here (which is dualistic in nature) and not about truth itself (which is non-dual).

Those quotes from Kierkegaard are referring to the level of suffering and persecution and clashing with the world which results from the individual trying to become perfectly truthful and serving the cause of wisdom to the fullest extent. A "poet" holds himself back to a degree in order to minimize the suffering, while the "apostle" throws everything to the winds and never looks back.

-

[David Quinn]

All sorts of narcissistic thoughts are at play here. For example:

- The sight of a peaceful, non-threatening environment making your ego feel a bit more secure.

The appreciation of security is narcissistic? You really need to look up the meaning of the word "narcissistic".

Love of self. Again, the point I am making is that the joy you experience at such a sight emanates purely from an underlying egotism and not from any kind of airy-fairy spiritual source.

In the end, the emotions are nothing more than short-term survival tools for an insignificant species on an insignificant plant in an insignificant galaxy. It is only our narcissism and anthropomorphism which desires to treat them as something more than that.

You would have to ask yourself, would you experience the same joy if these ducks were being killed by a man shooting at them?

Of course not. What an odd question to ask. The joy was at their peaceful existence, not at their suffering in destruction.

The way you described it - "a feeling of deep appreciation for what it means that these creatures exist at all, alive in the sunshine by the water, let alone in the unique form that they possess with the delightful sounds that they make." - applies equally well to the ducks being shot incident. Yet the fact that you experience joy in the former, but not in the latter, indicates that there is another factor involved - namely, your own egotism.

The "uniqueness" of the situation would be the same, the fact of the ducks and the man existing at all would be the same, indeed everything is the same

Peace and tranquility are "the same" as death and destruction?

In the eyes of God, they are. Both scenarios consist of unique forms existing and partaking equally in the nature of reality. It is only your own egotism, and your underlying obsession with your fears and emotional highs, which separates them.

- The ego patting itself on the back for being so amazing and special to be able to experience this joy in the first place. The initial joy of feeling more secure is thus multiplied by the feeling of being special.

Why would you think that back-pats are a necessary component of this experience?

I know how the ego works. The ego loves to believe it is special by default and is quick to latch onto any opportunity which promises to confirm this.

- The "appreciation" you feel over the fact that these creatures exist at all, etc, is generated by the unfounded idea that "nothingness" is somehow the natural state of reality and that existing forms are therefore a miracle to behold. In other words, the joy is a product of ignorance of the nature of duality, which in turn is a product of systemic narcissistic thinking. Egotism (and emotion) thrives in unchallenged dualities.

You go from "appreciative of the miraculous" to "narcissistic" very rapidly - it's quite an unfounded leap. Again I suggest that you check a dictionary.

At root, miracles are purely the product of narcissism and nothing else.

guest_of_logic: Too pure for joy and contentment? Untroubled waters and all that - tell me, what about these modes makes them preferable to ("infinitely more amazing" than) joy and contentment?

David: This is something you can only really understand by going into these modes yourself and then looking at things like joy and contentment from that perspective. From that perspective, they are seen to be prisons which have no foundation at all. "Castles in the air", as the Buddha called them. "Black holes of insanity", one could equally call them.

But according to you, nothing has any "foundation" (except, ultimately, in/as the Totality). Your modes are as foundationless as the joy you claim them to be superior to.

Indeed, they have no foundation at all. Pure freedom in the absence of foundations.

Subjective purpose is all, right? If joy serves a subjective purpose, then feel joy, just as if eating serves a subjective purpose, then eat.

And if escaping all prisons and immersing oneself in the foundationless freedom of reality serves a purpose, then escape away.

The big question, though, is to what extent do you exist in these modes from day to day, and to what extent do you still experience joy in your day to day life?

Does it matter? To the degree that my mind isn't fully free, I continue to experience joy and suffering.

This whole "conquering" and "winning" theme that you've got going probably stems back to that thread several years ago in which you introduced the idea of humour being the result of the overcoming of oppression, which, despite its obvious inadequacy as a full account of humour, you continued to defend no matter what others threw at you.

You no more understood my point about humour back then, than you do about joy today. The same mental blocks are in play, the same lack of introspective insight, and the same desire to keep yourself locked in a fairy-tale land filled with elves and cosmic emotion.

-

[Kelly Jones]

I really wonder how one would be a real apostle of Truth, in light of Christian contamination if you will, people already have the pre-conception of Christianity that has gone down the drain, it is no longer impressive, so how would you share it to the world so they will definitely not be impressed with absolutes, and for people it's 'old and outdated'

Bring back the things that Christendom suppressed. All the things they discarded were the truth. And what they discarded set the scene for greater selfishness, since everything they chose was self-serving. They chose consistency in ideals, rather than truth. They chose ideals reliant on an external authority, not their own reasoning. They chose concern for the welfare of others less fortunate in material possessions, not concern for their own spiritual wealth. Thus, it was only a matter of time before scientific materialism became the new authority, enabling them to worship animal instincts, comfort, wealth, the emotions, etc.

I think that there cannot be any more apostles, in the sense of people bringing a new truth. One has to unclog the drains, and get all the muck sorted. The truth is still what it ever was, it's just that there is more and more muck with every passing generation. If anything, an apostle has to be the most proficient muck-sorter.

.

[Anders Schlander]

I really wonder how one would be a real apostle of Truth, in light of Christian contamination if you will, people already have the pre-conception of Christianity that has gone down the drain, it is no longer impressive, so how would you share it to the world so they will definitely not be impressed with absolutes, and for people it's 'old and outdated'

I think that there cannot be any more apostles, in the sense of people bringing a new truth. One has to unclog the drains, and get all the muck sorted. The truth is still what it ever was, it's just that there is more and more muck with every passing generation. If anything, an apostle has to be the most proficient muck-sorter.

.

I understand how people will hate truth in the same fashion as ever. As you say Kelly, the drains have been clogged up, and it needs to be cleaned so the truth can stand on its own, flushing away the evil. Christianity is such a drain. It serves two ends, those who would rather have that it was clogged, and those who would rather have it flowing freely. The thing is, even if people will hate you for unclogging Christianity, then that is atleast the beginning clearing up a contrast between truth and untruth - then theres just the small matter of actually living in truth and giving up ones life..

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: The appreciation of security is narcissistic? You really need to look up the meaning of the word "narcissistic".

David: Love of self.

You missed the key word: "excessive love of self." You're not distinguishing between healthy self-respect (necessary for sanity) and narcissism (warped perception of self). Perhaps this is because, to you, any form of self-love is excessive, in which case I'd point out that feeding oneself is a form of self-love.

In the end, the emotions are nothing more than short-term survival tools for an insignificant species on an insignificant plant in an insignificant galaxy. It is only our narcissism and anthropomorphism which desires to treat them as something more than that.

Insignificant in which context though? You can't determine significance without some sort of context or value system or standard. I suppose that your context is physical scale in the universe, and since - so far as I can tell - you consider the universe to be physically infinite insofar as it can be conceived of in those terms (I think you'd claim that ultimately this "physical universe" is merely an appearance to consciousness), then any part of it is infinitesimally small in relation to the whole, and hence insignificant. Is that about right?

I prefer a different context: the context of conscious experience. In that context, emotions are far more than short-term survival tools, and our species, planet and galaxy are far from insignificant.

The way you described it - "a feeling of deep appreciation for what it means that these creatures exist at all, alive in the sunshine by the water, let alone in the unique form that they possess with the delightful sounds that they make." - applies equally well to the ducks being shot incident. Yet the fact that you experience joy in the former, but not in the latter, indicates that there is another factor involved - namely, your own egotism.

If a duck is shot, it's not existing, alive and in the sunshine, anymore. Does it seem reasonable to feel joy at the death of that which was being appreciated?

Egotism isn't the issue. The issue is differentiating between two situations: one favourable to the ducks and one unfavourable. It's also about empathy.

David: The "uniqueness" of the situation would be the same, the fact of the ducks and the man existing at all would be the same, indeed everything is the same

guest_of_logic: Peace and tranquility are "the same" as death and destruction?

David: In the eyes of God, they are. Both scenarios consist of unique forms existing and partaking equally in the nature of reality. It is only your own egotism, and your underlying obsession with your fears and emotional highs, which separates them.

We're not talking about God's eyes - the dispassionate is-ness of the universe - we're talking about yours and mine. I value life and I presume that you do too - you don't seem to be the serial killer type. Our values inform our emotions.

David: - The ego patting itself on the back for being so amazing and special to be able to experience this joy in the first place. The initial joy of feeling more secure is thus multiplied by the feeling of being special.

guest_of_logic: Why would you think that back-pats are a necessary component of this experience?

David: I know how the ego works. The ego loves to believe it is special by default and is quick to latch onto any opportunity which promises to confirm this.

I think that, again, you're blurring the distinction between healthy self-respect and unhealthy narcissism. By "[t]he ego patting itself on the back" you seem to mean unjustified and unwarranted self-praise, whereas having an experience of joy need not involve anything unjustified. I think I already know where the core of this disagreement lies though: to you, consciousness and life are logically neither superior nor inferior to any other part of the universe; they're simply a facet of the infinite causal workings of the Totality, and any awe in the face of these things is logically unjustified. You spurn the natural human awe for these things as naive and illogical, whereas to me it is an intrinsic part of our humanity: appreciation for the gift of life. The Christ of the New Testament has a special love for children, and urges us to be as children if we want to attain the kingdom of heaven: this, to me, is a part of what it means to be as a child in the sense that Christ intended; not turning oneself into a robot, but marvelling at the wonder of what we have and are, and, most importantly, appreciating and being grateful for it.

David: - The "appreciation" you feel over the fact that these creatures exist at all, etc, is generated by the unfounded idea that "nothingness" is somehow the natural state of reality and that existing forms are therefore a miracle to behold. In other words, the joy is a product of ignorance of the nature of duality, which in turn is a product of systemic narcissistic thinking. Egotism (and emotion) thrives in unchallenged dualities.

guest_of_logic: You go from "appreciative of the miraculous" to "narcissistic" very rapidly - it's quite an unfounded leap. Again I suggest that you check a dictionary.

David: At root, miracles are purely the product of narcissism and nothing else.

Let me get this straight - is this your logic?

1. The perception of a miracle is a false perception of reality.
2. People with false perceptions of reality are narcissistic.
Therefore
3. People who perceive miracles are narcissistic.

If that's it, then, to me, the key premise is the second one: you have made no good case for it, and prima facie it seems unsupportable. "Deluded" seems to be a more appropriate word than "narcissistic".

guest_of_logic: Too pure for joy and contentment? Untroubled waters and all that - tell me, what about these modes makes them preferable to ("infinitely more amazing" than) joy and contentment?

David: This is something you can only really understand by going into these modes yourself and then looking at things like joy and contentment from that perspective. From that perspective, they are seen to be prisons which have no foundation at all. "Castles in the air", as the Buddha called them. "Black holes of insanity", one could equally call them.

guest_of_logic: But according to you, nothing has any "foundation" (except, ultimately, in/as the Totality). Your modes are as foundationless as the joy you claim them to be superior to.

David: Indeed, they have no foundation at all. Pure freedom in the absence of foundations.

First you imply that foundationlessness is (in the case of emotions) a bad thing - imprisoning - and then in your second comment you imply that foundationlessness is (in the case of these modes) a good thing - pure freedom. Why the contradiction?

The point, I think, is that if nothing has any foundation, then we have no (logical) basis on which to choose one state over another. It comes down to personal preference.

guest_of_logic: Subjective purpose is all, right? If joy serves a subjective purpose, then feel joy, just as if eating serves a subjective purpose, then eat.

David: And if escaping all prisons and immersing oneself in the foundationless freedom of reality serves a purpose, then escape away.

What purpose would that be, David?

The characterisation of emotions as "imprisoning" is a subjective, and not a logical, characterisation. A different person might feel "imprisoned" by your modes: unable to access and utilise emotional energy.

guest_of_logic: The big question, though, is to what extent do you exist in these modes from day to day, and to what extent do you still experience joy in your day to day life?

David: Does it matter?

Of course it does. As one of the three supposedly most enlightened beings on this planet, the extent to which you are capable of meeting your ideals is very relevant.

To the degree that my mind isn't fully free, I continue to experience joy and suffering.

What degree is that? You like to smoke the odd joint - is that a joyful and/or contented experience? Do you, in other words, ever consciously seek out joy and contentment?

You no more understood my point about humour back then, than you do about joy today. The same mental blocks are in play, the same lack of introspective insight, and the same desire to keep yourself locked in a fairy-tale land filled with elves and cosmic emotion.

Maybe this is the part where I take a good hard look at myself and realise that you've been right all along; that I'm just being obstinate. Is that how this is supposed to play out?

[Kelly Jones]

This clarifies things quite a bit regarding Kierkegaard's concept of God.

God's Fatherly Love

..... and if it seems to you, as your thoughts wander off from the paternal home and stray about in the wide world in order to rise to the concept of him as the almighty creator of all things and yet also the common father of all, if it seems that you still are missing some of the preferential love that was bestowed on you in your paternal home because he, your earthly father, was your only father and you were his only child, and if as a result it seems to you that the metaphor is not completely satisfactory, if you feel that such earthly representations ought not be included, well, then we admit that the metaphor falls short somewhat.

But when you yourself were anxious and troubled and went to your earthly father for consolation and assurance and found him to be downcast and sorrowful himself, so that his sorrow only augmented yours and did not alleviate it even if you momentarily forgot your own in your sympathy for his sufferings, and on the other hand when you, weak and crushed, turned your mind and your thoughts to him who cares for all and found him always powerful in weakness, the more powerful the weaker you yourself became, then, my listener, the metaphor does not quite fit, either, and you feel all the more that it does not fit you. But if in the preceding lines you felt a certain sadness about taking the best there is on earth to express the divine and it still did not reach up to heaven but along the way dissolved and disappeared before your eyes, this is now not the case, for now you have perceived that God is not called father according to the earthly designation, but that it is the other way around, that it is as scripture says, that all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named after him, the heavenly father, that the name of father does not strive upward from earth to heaven but descends from heaven to earth, so that even if you had the best father there could be on earth, he is still only your step-father, only a reflection of the father-love after which he is named, only a shadow, a reflection, a picture, a metaphor, a dim expression of the fatherliness from which all fatherhood has its name in heaven and on earth. O, my listener, I trust that you have apprehended this blessedness, or rather that my presentation has managed to make you mindful of what you possess better, more richly and blessedly, or rather that I have disturbed nothing for you.

.

[Nick]

You say that I'm (implicitly, I suppose) making a claim to absolute truth. We're not talking about individual absolute truths, though, we're talking about Absolute Truth - the ultimate stuff. I don't care to get into a discussion as to whether your characterisation of my claim really is an absolute truth (nor whether your characterisation is accurate), but assuming for argument's sake that it is, then it's far from Absolute Truth - it's just a measly little crumb of an individual absolute truth (uncapitalised), relating to but not constituting Absolute Truth. One can know individual absolute truths without knowing Absolute Truth: 1 + 1 = 2. There, now I know absolute truth...

You just don't understand the nature of the absolute, and because of this you make absolute statements without realizing they are absolutely false.

There is no approaching the absolute.

But Nick, David wrote a book taking a step-by-step approach.

David's book is a tool which can ready and prepare one's mind to understand how absolutes work and indeed discover what is absolutely true. Misconstruing this as approaching absolute truth in the sense that you mean it is another example of why you don't understand the nature of absolutes.

That, to me, is regrettable - I think you can do better.

Better at what being the question. Obviously we don't share the same values, so why does it matter if you think I can do better at something you value? Go do it yourself if you think you know enough to tell me I'd be better at whatever you're talking about.

I know, though, that you don't want to hear it from me. After all, you're a conqueror holding the Holy Grail, and I'm just a grubby wretch who hasn't even begun the search.

I'm just a man who knows the truth, and you're not.

[Ataraxia]

This clarifies things quite a bit regarding Kierkegaard's concept of God.

It still reads to me like he is describing a 'small' God (for want of a better word). In short, a Christian God.

[Kelly Jones]

If Kierkegaard was deluded, then we could say that any sage who used metaphors to communicate about the Infinite, is also deluded. Since he generally used the fatherly metaphor to entice him to remember that his suffering was not really a loss, but a gain, to remind himself of the ultimate goal which was in his own best interests, then if he was deluded to do that, then most of the Buddhist sages who taught of reincarnation through a mandala of different psychological realms, are also deluded.

No, I really think that he was talking in a very profound way about the Infinite. In the same way that a Bodhisattva is conceived as a motherly figure, e.g. Quan Yin, but is just a convenient metaphor, an aspect of the Buddha, that lifts one out of a "small" perspective.

.

[Steven Coyle]

in zoo zerp

[Unidian]

"I have Realized the Infinite"

No you haven't, and you're retarded for saying so. One cannot "realize" the infinite, or even become "one" with it. One becomes none with the infinite.

[Kelly Jones]

One always has been the Infinite, therefore, whatever one does, one does. It's fair enough to say one has realized the Infinite if that's what the Infinite has done.

.

[Foreigner]

His approach in talking about it, however, is very different to Kevin's or my approach, in that he rarely spoke about it directly.

If SK meant what you guys mean, then I find his approach utterly foolish, pretentious and emotional in nature.

You mightn't not with a greater appreciation for the times and circumstances in which he lived, as well as with a more complete picture of the little known earliest years of his life.
We've grown up in a far more liberated and secure times, i reckon, and enjoy freedoms and opportunities that Soren could only have dreamed of-- it's sometimes difficult for modern folk to fathom just how distinct and unbelievable some societies in the past operated. Here's where it pays to now and then put aside the personal journals and take up a history book or two.

99% of his readers are going to think he's referring to actual deity or cosmic consciousness, and that's just stupid. How wise is SK if he couldn't even see the glaring problems his pretentious/emotional writing style was going to cause for readers?

Perhaps his concern was primarily with the 1% of his eventual readership with a bit of brains (can you think of anyone?)-- perhaps for these he was less concerned about the consequences of retaining his religious christian style through his awakened years.
Don't you think that the thought that someone in town- perhaps after his death- would not see to it to preserve his writings, but instead use them to start a warm fire in the cold of winter as a service to God, filled him with daily dread?

If I were to take a stance, I would say SK was a mystic, and like most mystics (Alan Watts, J.Krishnamurti), he had some notion of God being sentient. You know, like "cosmic consciousness" or something.

Only in the beginning, when he was borrowing from the gospels, in the example of Jesus. But at some point it is clear as a bell that enlightenment was his, and that he had his reasons for not too obviously displaying those changes within.
One should not read and is certainly in error to do so-- that is to interpret his words on page as a precise reflection of the situation within, to be taken as his purest unadulterated thoughts and as an accurate indicator of his position within the Genius Realms.

In a manner of speaking. And except for the sage.

[Kelly Jones]

Foreigner, in regards to "putting aside personal journals and picking up a history book": I don't think you understood the nature of Kierkegaard's journals and papers. Perhaps you didn't look at them.

In regards to "far more liberated and secure times": nothing has changed much in regard to flimsy opinionising. The same mechanism is in place: words uttered conversationally are the fastest forgotten.

In Kierkegaard's day it was still the same.

For instance, exactly the same situation: he would publish a large, intricately reasoned book that demanded time, meditation and introspection. No one would read it. But everyone would have an opinion on it --- after reading a review by a critic who had also not read it. Everyone would know everything about it --- which was nothing at all.

I published his journals, an enormous collection of a life-time of intricately reasoned ideas wrought by his own existential meditations. No one read more than a page. Everyone had an opinion.

.

[Tomas]

Talk about deja vu. You remind me of another fellow, dejavu, who was on here a few years who had exactly the same views on this issue. suergaz, I think his name was. He also found it impossible to fathom what I was talking about, so attached was he to his "existence is inherent" concept.

Yes, David. Suergaz and dejavu are the same forum person. Unknown as to why suergaz was evicted.