Arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis: How do you pull the ground from I Am to realise groundlessness?

"I [thought] will never leave or forsake you." Of principles and patterns of thought you are created, of principles and patterns of thought you are guided, of principles and patterns of thought you are moved.

Which means that in order to go beyond the mind of conditioning, one must step into a principle and pattern of thought that points to or suggests the unconditioned state. Both Gautama and Jesus were masters of this walk of thought that allowed them to live in the world, yet, not be of the world.

What is the nature of such thought that is "the lamp unto thy feet" of enquiry that allows the Son of man to be expanded beyond his logic seeking mind of cause and effect? Such thought is called myth and metaphor. The Son of man is always a myth and metaphor to himself, this is why "he has no place to lay his head," but he is not always conscious of this, his nature of Word. However, when he becomes consciously aware that he is a living myth and metaphor to himself, he can then embrace this walk or path of thought and apply it to his awareness of standing on the invisible ground of himself. Of living his myth consciously, of living his metaphor consciously, man is expanded beyond his belief that he cannot go through the mind to go beyond the mind.

The language of myth and of metaphor of the invisible ground of I Am was best revealed by the Master Jesus. He was not the originator, for the Old Testament uses myth and metaphor as a path of Self Realization, but he was the Master who brought it forth in all its glory as the Way, the Truth and the Life. "I and the Father are One." "The Son of man." "The Son of God." "The Kingdom of God." Words that were void of humanism, but not void of words that one who believes themselves to be human can use to go beyond their humanism or belief in being human.

Jesus and Gautama both walked the walk of ascension into thought that cleansed/purged/dissolved their conditioned awareness, "precept by precept, line by line, here a little, there a little."

[Carmel]

Imagine that somebody believes the Tao is beyond reason to grasp or talk about. He can't reasonably say this, because if he did, he'd be reasoning about the Tao's "beyond-reason-abilities", so clearly the Tao can't be beyond reason to grasp or talk about, that would be impossible.
However, most men do not reason about the Tao, and so, the Tao is beyond men's reason, not reason.

Reason can be an aid to undertanding the Tao, but The Tao can't be defined solely through language/reason.

The Tao=The Tao

Talking about the Tao=Talking about the Tao

In accordance with A=A, Talking about the Tao does not equal the Tao itself, though it may reflect or express a particular aspect of the Tao. The same is true for reason. Reason=reason, it is merely a tool and not the Tao itself, hence "the unutterable Tao".

[Pam Seeback]

Carmel wrote:
Reason can be an aid to undertanding the Tao, but The Tao can't be defined through language/reason.

The Tao=The Tao

Talking about the Tao=Talking about the Tao

In accordance with A=A, Talking about the Tao does not equal the Tao itself, though it may reflect or express a particular aspect of the Tao. The same is true for reason. Reason=reason, it is merely a tool and not the Tao itself, hence "the unutterable Tao".

The Tao = The Tao

Talking about an aspect or reflection of The Tao = Talking about an aspect or reflection of The Tao = the horizontal [intellectual] translation of The Tao

Inquiry of the nature of The Tao of oneself = Inquiry of the nature of The Tao of oneself = the vertical [spiritual] transformation of being the Tao of oneself

[Carmel]

Movingalways,

In the last two of your statements, you are violating A=A, by using the format A=A=B. Therefore, those statements are logically invalid.

It might be better if you wrote them out in language form, as opinions.

[Pam Seeback]

Carmel, no problem removing the "B" from the equation:

Talking about the Tao = Talking about the Tao

Inquiring of the Tao of oneself = Inquiring of the Tao of oneself

[David Quinn]

The above comments made about women by the QRS are, to me, written in the same emotional, non-philosophic tone of which they accuse the female gender of demonstrating.

They were written in no more an emotional tone than any of my other comments. Like all my comments, they express passion for God, passion for the Infinite.

Perhaps, rather than focusing on the humanism of gender when considering the state of mind that is needed to use logic and reason, the QRS could use more philosophic terminology, such as objectivity/subjectivity, stillness/movement, disciplined/undisciplined, or righteous/self-righteous.

I can and do use these approaches as well. There are many different analytical tools that one can call upon to awaken people out of their slumbers. The man/woman thing is one of them. I like using it because the other tools too easily avoid the huge attachment to woman that nearly all people have, an attachment that apparently we're no longer supposed to even acknowledge.

Not that modern society has any taboos, of course!


-

Dennis ....I've already considered the perspective that you're preaching at me, and that it has only limited value to me. I find an agency-based perspective more fruitful.

"Dennis, reality has limited value to me, as I find a tree spirit-based perspective more fruitful."

-

[David Quinn]

Reason can be an aid to undertanding the Tao, but The Tao can't be defined solely through language/reason.

I would put it like this: The experience and understanding of the Tao cannot be triggered solely by reason, but by a combination of reason, courage, open-mindedness, and passion for truth. Without these things combined together and brought to an intense focus, the experience and understanding of the Tao will never arise.

-

[Dennis Mahar]

Hi MA,

"I [thought] will never leave or forsake you."

I (thought)= thing.
will never leave or forsake you= property.

Of principles and patterns of thought you are created, of principles and patterns of thought you are guided, of principles and patterns of thought you are moved.

principles and patterns of thought= thing.
you are created, you are guided, you are moved= property.

You've provided a pattern.
What we already know is I Am seeks patterns and makes patterns.

So by saying that, I Am is a thing with the property seeks patterns and makes patterns.
A thing is an appearance. There must be a prior to an appearance.
What is the prior to appearance?
To what does appearance appear to?

[Carmel]

Reason can be an aid to undertanding the Tao, but The Tao can't be defined solely through language/reason.

David:
I would put it like this: The experience and understanding of the Tao cannot be triggered solely by reason, but by a combination of reason, courage, open-mindedness, and passion for truth. Without these things combined together and brought to an intense focus, the experience and understanding of the Tao will never arise.

Carmel:
I like that, actually...and while I don't think it negates my statements, yours appears to be a more 'complete' answer than the one I gave.

--

movingalways,

Thanks for the correction. There's no arguing with that logic. ;) Btw, my intent wasn't to discourage you from expanding on those thoughts, if you so choose...

[guest_of_logic]

A is a property. There are an infinite number of A's.
B is a label to point to all A's.
B is not an A.
The concept of B is an A.

I don't have the patience to explain how confused those five sentences are.

Laird, it was lovely of you to respond at all, thankyou so much. If you have time, could I kindly request as to how I am in err?

I'll try to find the patience then.

I think I partly understand what you're trying to get at, but not fully, probably due to how confusingly worded it is. For example (a minor one to start with, and easily fixed), you say that "A is a property", which seems to limit A to an individual case (one could ask, "So which property then is A? Is it the property that is the colour green of my second car?"), but immediately afterwards you talk about an infinity of A's - so it seems like you ought to have said something more like, "'A' represents an arbitrary member of the class of individual properties", rather than "A is a property".

Another example is that you say that "B is a label", which introduces an extra layer of indirection ('B' as a symbol is already a label), which wouldn't be there if you had simply said "B points to [or better, 'comprises', or 'constitutes the set of'] all A's [properties]". You later refer to "[t]he concept of B", and putting this together with the original quote we have "the concept of a label", which is an unusual beast. It's not clear to me what you're trying to get at with that. I've tried a few times to put my best guess into words, but I'm finding that even my best guess doesn't make the cut. You seem to be trying to say something about the distinction between an (infinite) set/group of all properties, and the abstract idea of that (infinite) set/group of all properties, but the fact that a set/group of properties is already abstract turns it into a confusion, at least for me.

In other words, if "the concept of a label" (referring to something abstract) is a property, but not the label itself (but which also refers to something abstract), then how exactly are you defining a property?

[cousinbasil]

In other words, if "the concept of a label" (referring to something abstract) is a property, but not the label itself (but which also refers to something abstract), then how exactly are you defining a property?

Do not bait him, Laird, lest he slit all our throats.

[Carmel]

David:
They were written in no more an emotional tone than any of my other comments. Like all my comments, they express passion for God, passion for the Infinite.

Carmel:
You've used the word "passion" two posts in a row, better slow down there, cowboy!;)

...anyway, I see neither emotion nor logic in the woman quotes that Laird provided. Those quotes were utterly random and arbitrary. They are neither offensive nor persuasive for that reason. There really is no substance to them, particularly in their isolated form. I will grant you, that they are taken out of context, but even so, they are an indicator of an aspect of your philosophy which, in large part, simply rings hollow.

That isn't to say that there isn't some merit to the some of the gender philosophies that are espoused here, but far too often the discussions don't seem to be philosophical at all, but rather, deviate and devolve into something entirely different...lowly and mundane or even downright ugly, on occasion. The deeper core issues are often bypassed entirely, as a result.

David:
I can and do use these approaches as well. There are many different analytical tools that one can call upon to awaken people out of their slumbers. The man/woman thing is one of them. I like using it because the other tools too easily avoid the huge attachment to woman that nearly all people have, an attachment that apparently we're no longer supposed to even acknowledge.

Carmel:
It's been acknowledged. repeatedly. It's a dead horse, really...but let me be clear that I am not offended by these discussions, if they are executed in a responsible way. If the intent is to provide a deeper understanding of our own masculine/feminine aspects, or more to the point, our emotional-ego/rational aspects, I'm all for discussions which are conducted in that spirit...but, if you'll forgive my skepticism, It is all too rare an occurence from my experience here.

David:
Not that modern society has any taboos, of course!

Carmel:
True. As I like to say: "Society is to blame." ...Keeping that in mind, one should, nevertheeless, exercise some prudence and not wear red, pleather sequined assless chaps to a parent-teacher conference.

David:
"Dennis, reality has limited value to me, as I find a tree spirit-based perspective more fruitful."

Carmel:
I don't know, David, but there may be some unintentional wisdom in that statement.:)

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis: So by saying that, I Am is a thing with the property seeks patterns and makes patterns.

The I Am of the conditioned human mind seeks patterns and makes patterns from remembered moments. The I Am which is the unconditioned Foundation of the appearance of the human mind IS patterns.

Dennis: A thing is an appearance. There must be a prior to an appearance.

A thing both appears and does not appear. For something visible to appear, there must be Something invisible to bring it into visibility.

Dennis: What is the prior to appearance?

Man, who is consciously one with his interpretations of appearance is not consciously one with his 'prior' or invisible state of being, therefore, he cannot know what this prior or invisible state IS; however, what he can logically surmise of IT is that like himself, IT is an interpretative awareness. The metaphor used by Jesus for this invisible interpretative awareness that is the Foundation for visible appearance is "the Father." The metaphor for Its property [your metaphor] that is one with the Father in 'priori' or invisibility, is "the Son of God." The metaphor for Its property that is one with the Father of appearance or visibility, is "the Son of man."

Dennis: So what does appearance appear to?

Appearance appears to the conscious awareness of the property [the Son of man]. Although you have used the word 'prior' for what I assume is for the purpose of 'pointing beyond the visible', there is no separation in any way between Father and Son; no thought returns void.

[Anders Schlander]

Reason can be an aid to undertanding the Tao, but The Tao can't be defined solely through language/reason.

Well, defining things is a product of language and reason, God or anything else is defined by using these tools. God is defined to be infinite, and language and reason are excellent tools to understand this, but the other way I can understand what u said, like David, is to really define God in the utmost personal sense.

To 'really' define god is so utterly different from merely agreeing that, sure, God must be infinite. You could say that to truly define God is the same as truly knowing God, and is the same as being enlightened, I guess, and then I am agreeing with you. However, it is not as if language and reason is somehow inadaquate for the job. Even though I think many would like to think that it is, simply because it is easier to keep things a mystery. Also, if it is a mystery rather than something tangible that you can just pursue, should you really want to, it takes away the pressure. I'm sure most people are quite comfortable thinking it's not possible to be perfect or to become enlightened through actual tangible effort, it means they don't have to think of themselves as imperfect, because when perfect does not exist, neithe does imperfect.
Many will humbly claim that they make mistakes, but because they are human, always with the intention that being human makes it impossible to be perfect; christians love to say this and then claim that God is perfect and lacking in all our mortal flaws, while maintaining their finite views of God. It's certainly not humbling to make the claim that all humans shall always be unable to be rid of our vices, is it? would be much more humbling to say 'I don't know if you can be perfect, but it sounds hard', the truth is, most people can agree to this humbling sentence if confronted with some of Jesus' teachings, but when save to do so, they would rather belief the opposite. From this, I suppose it means that you should be careful about overestimating people when they appear to have spouts of wise ideas.

[Dennis Mahar]

Dear MA,
Whatever it is that wakes up stirs in the presence of your whisperings. My eyes moisten automatically in the presence of Wisdom due to love for Wisdom and they are moist.

You've brought Jesus alive in the most authentic light I've experienced.

Thanks.

[jufa]

movingalways

[David Quinn]

David:
They were written in no more an emotional tone than any of my other comments. Like all my comments, they express passion for God, passion for the Infinite.

Carmel:
You've used the word "passion" two posts in a row, better slow down there, cowboy!;)

I'm on a roll!

...anyway, I see neither emotion nor logic in the woman quotes that Laird provided. Those quotes were utterly random and arbitrary. They are neither offensive nor persuasive for that reason. There really is no substance to them, particularly in their isolated form. I will grant you, that they are taken out of context, but even so, they are an indicator of an aspect of your philosophy which, in large part, simply rings hollow.

And yet I often have people writing to me saying how much they enjoy the woman writings on my website, how much truth the writings contain, how the writings have crystallized what they have been privately thinking for many years, and so on. They can't be all that hollow.

That isn't to say that there isn't some merit to the some of the gender philosophies that are espoused here, but far too often the discussions don't seem to be philosophical at all, but rather, deviate and devolve into something entirely different...lowly and mundane or even downright ugly, on occasion.

Sure, but then people's treatment of women more generally, including that metered out by loving husbands and women themselves, is very ugly to begin with. We are dealing with a very emotional issue here, one that runs deep into the human psyche.

The deeper core issues are often bypassed entirely, as a result.

Such as?

David:
I can and do use these approaches as well. There are many different analytical tools that one can call upon to awaken people out of their slumbers. The man/woman thing is one of them. I like using it because the other tools too easily avoid the huge attachment to woman that nearly all people have, an attachment that apparently we're no longer supposed to even acknowledge.

Carmel:
It's been acknowledged. repeatedly. It's a dead horse, really...but let me be clear that I am not offended by these discussions, if they are executed in a responsible way.

Glad to hear it. You can exclude yourself from the generalization, then.

If the intent is to provide a deeper understanding of our own masculine/feminine aspects, or more to the point, our emotional-ego/rational aspects, I'm all for discussions which are conducted in that spirit...but, if you'll forgive my skepticism, It is all too rare an occurence from my experience here.

The subject hasn't been thoroughly thrashed out on this forum for some years now. I'm not all that motivated to discuss it these days, partly because most people completely misunderstand the intention of discussing it in the first place. It's too much work battling people's prejudices, for too little return.

-

[jupiviv]

About the defining the infinite issue - the definition of the infinite is just a part of our mind, and there is no infinite either beyond this definition, or within it.What exactly is this definition about then?

[Blair]

Aaahaha!

Laughing at the dick with the Bach with sunnies avatar.

[Kelly Jones]

Woman and worldliness go hand in hand. I don't think it's worth talking about philosophy if there's no profound challenge to the essential character of one's life. Poison for the heart, and all that.


.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis, thank you for bringing the idea of the living Jesus forward in your response to me above, for indeed, for this writer, the walk of the living Jesus of oneself is the walk of thought that allows one to be in the world, but not of the world. To walk on a path of interpretation of one's invisibility while being crucified of one's interpretations of one's appearance of visibility.

Within the next day or so, I will post a thread I am now fleshing out [in the spirit of the true meaning of 'the Word made flesh'] that will expand upon what I have already expressed.

[Dennis Mahar]

Hi MA,

Dennis, thank you for bringing the idea of the living Jesus forward in your response to me above

that's OK.
I can't resist taking this context to another context that appeals to me, that being 'in order to do philosophy'.
To set up the salient points I have to provide some back story.
I was pushed into Sunday School by a parent and that culture presented Jesus in a certain way that, in my childish mind, unprotected by wisdom, had me having to decide whether I was good enough for Jesus.
I fell into the not good enough for Jesus way of being and in relation to Jesus I was emotionally crippled as well as suffering from illogical reasoning.
People reading this are perhaps thinking I'm an idiot and that's OK but I can only be real about where I've been unreal.

So now you've opened up Jesus authentically, in such a way that Jesus as emotional dynamite has no relevance. Baggage handled. So, thanks for that.

Now for the salient points in relation to 'in order to do philosophy'.

How can philosophy be done when one comes at it loaded up with emotional dynamite based on illogical reasoning. Dynamite, easily triggered, that has one fighting from an agenda?

The topic can be any topic.
Jesus, Woman, Man, Money, Politics, anything.

You can bring all the seeming logic you like into the agenda and make it seem plausable but if the whole house of cards is unreal, well its not true philosophy.

Philosophy needs ground or 'a clearing'....that's clear of emotion based agendas for it to shine in its true possibility: of having it be knowable, and really that strikes me as the greatest possibility of all.

I don't think people need to access years of psychotherapy to handle the load of emotional dynamite they carry into each new topic, but I think there is a possibility for people to be coached about how to come at it, how to have it in such a way, about the necessity of being firstly structured up in a correct kind of way for the fruits of philosophy to be realised.
People aren't inherently dumb, can get it quick, can soon enough own up and be real in the owning up of where they're being unreal...it can be picked up as easily as picking up a knife and fork once it's grokked.

Well, maybe some lack capacity.

[Dennis Mahar]

Hi MA,
Sorry to trouble you again.

This:

The I Am of the conditioned human mind seeks patterns and makes patterns from remembered moments. The I Am which is the unconditioned Foundation of the appearance of the human mind IS patterns.

That struck me and ignited the mood of love for wisdom and the possiblity of it being knowable.
In particular, 'the human mind IS patterns'.

I hadn't quite grasped it like that but I was getting close. It's like a new territory has been discovered.
Thanks.
If it's OK can I have your first name, if it's not OK then that's OK too.

[Carmel]

David:
And yet I often have people writing to me saying how much they enjoy the woman writings on my website, how much truth the writings contain, how the writings have crystallized what they have been privately thinking for many years, and so on. They can't be all that hollow.

Carmel:
I don't doubt that, but the popularity(or lack of) of a philosophy neither confirms nor negates its viability. Ultimately, It's just a theory, a highly subjective one. It either resonates with a person or not. I find it neither offensive nor compelling. My main criticism of it that it seems incomplete. There is a thesis and antithesis, but no synthesis. This gives it the effect of being ungrounded in reality.

David:
Sure, but then people's treatment of women more generally, including that metered out by loving husbands and women themselves, is very ugly to begin with.

Carmel:
Too often, that's true...Did it ever occur to you that this might, at least partially, explain the feedback you receive about your woman writings?

David:
We are dealing with a very emotional issue here, one that runs deep into the human psyche.

Carmel:
True again. Mature adults work it out internally.


C:The deeper core issues are often bypassed entirely, as a result.[/quote]
D: Such as?

Carmel:
Oh Lordy...If you don't mind, I think I'll save this one for a rainy day...then hope for eternal sunshine... :)

David:
The subject hasn't been thoroughly thrashed out on this forum for some years now. I'm not all that motivated to discuss it these days, partly because most people completely misunderstand the intention of discussing it in the first place. It's too much work battling people's prejudices, for too little return.

Carmel:
I quite agree with you here, and though we may be working with a different set of prejudices, I'm sure there is some overlap between the two sets.

I've sporadically read parts of the women threads in the archives. From them, I learned far more about the psyche of men, than that of women. People unintentionally reveal volumes about themselves when discussing their perceptions of women...

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis, my first name is Pam. I will post, very soon, a thread that expands upon what we have already discussed, that is, of the [living] pattern of thought that allows one to go through the [illusory] human mind of imagination, to go beyond the [illusory] human mind of imagination.