Diebert wrote:Sadly enough you avoided my direct question of how David would preach a specific praxis: some way to handle affairs, do ones job, clean ones house or manage ones finances, give to charity, help others or not, that kind of stuff. You cannot answer my question because there's nothing there to my knowledge. Just your innuendo and caricatures of what you think he wants people to behave like in their practical lives or some imagined consequences only you can spell out for us.
First, there would be no 'job' because 'the wise' choose not to work, remember? They get their money from the state and by 'abusing' social security (almost a form of fraud). So, no finances to handle, no charity, and therefore no economic help rendered. All the figures who (like Mother Teresa) dedicate themselves to 'helping' others, alleviating suffering, etc., have been routinely torn apart and ridiculed. There have never been, to my knowledge, any ethical recommendations that have to do with 'service' (in a specifically Buddhist sense), and the conversations have never turned on this. As to practical recommendations, the first order of business is to ditch the woman. No 'wise' man will have a wife or a girl friend. There is a decided anti-woman stance which, as I see it, necessarily becomes an anti-human body stance. If you are not having and dealing with female relationships, on the fact of the female, it seems to me that you are 'shearing off' from a substantial part of the human facts. Still, a good and necessary conversation can be had, should be had, about a 'male defensive position' in respect to a state-inculcated femininity, as I have often said. Honestly, Diebert, you have either not paid attention to the myriad ethical recommendations put forth by dear David
et al, or you choose not to think them through.
Even with all the interesting cases present as this forum, still your abundant intelligence, the recurring obsession and the controlling tendencies do at times point to a "Hannibal Lector" type. Perhaps a psychopath is a failed genius, like a journalist or forum stylist points always to a failed writer ambition. It's like all the elements are in place but that one sense is missing, and instead a monster, or something approaching its opposite is arises and yet the monster is so familiar, so much related to the very thing it cannot manage to become. And frustration, even persistence arises. The psychopath, like the journalists can only dream of recognition by one who can understand or at least appreciate, he might even search the easiest of audiences or some exclusive witness. As opposed to a genius which craves understanding by, of and from all.
My dear Diebert. In an honest and open conversation I am a kind of miracle worker. Really. There is no conversation I am unwilling to have, no area I will not explore. We have been over this before but I guess we'll do it again: many of my parodies were born from the labels people attempted to stick on me. Instead of letting that get me down, I took the matter into my own hands, ran with it so to speak. One is offered so much good material among people who refuse to really explore the issues, who instead build a little fort for themselves in partial constructions, or partial divinations. Let's take an example: Dennis. I love Dennis and wish him all the best. But anyone can see that he places his eager, wet tongue right up into the assholes of those into whose grace he ingratiates himself. His 'intellectual work' is no intellectual work at all. But he wants to 'do battle', and he desperately wants to 'win'. Because he is locked into the struggle by his own internal mechanisms---impelled along as it were---he stumbles again and again into the same traps, and renders himself a fool (without seeing it). Y'all aid an abet him because, well, he 'supports' your positions.
If you were really to begin to tell the truth, Diebert, I really think your discourse would be very very different. Surely you
MUST have noted the extraordinary ridiculousness of Bob's recent attempt to sidle up to David. Here's how it goes: he (seems) to admit David's 'enlightenment state' (this is deeply seductive to David), then he seems to sympathize with him and speak of the classical Christian determinism for salvation in the context of this 'enlightenment' that he (obviously shares). With his sidling maneouvre he accomplishes quite a bit, doesn't he? But
YOU know as well as anyone here that this use of the term and title of 'enlightened' is a farce! You
KNOW this, and I know you know it. But what do you do? You suppress it as a 'fact' out on the table, as you suppress so much else. You're in this conversation but you are in it
DISHONESTLY. In contrast, I am in this conversation
HONESTLY. And my honesty includes (I have declared all this openly) a wide group of different (intolerable) tactics of communication. Obviously, you have never liked this. It offends your sense of propriety. And like many, you certainly don't like parody. Who would, especially if they hit the nail on the head, or come close?
But let's look at this:
Perhaps a psychopath is a failed genius, like a journalist or forum stylist points always to a failed writer ambition. It's like all the elements are in place but that one sense is missing, and instead a monster, or something approaching its opposite is arises and yet the monster is so familiar, so much related to the very thing it cannot manage to become.
First off, you have begun with your own presupposition. That of 'genius'. Anyone who reads on these pages readily sees that the term has been expropriated and hitched to a peculiar wagon. I don't accept the GF forum's definition of genius. Never have. And another thing. If it
IS a definition of genius, the definition falls out of the mouth of a group of dullards. Put explicitly: no genius will arise from this matrix. Not even a spiritual genius, whatever that could be. In this sense, if one were honest (a very rare trait here on the GF because very few appear as they are but as a charade of themselves)(that's my opinion), it is many who appear here who might be characterized as 'journalists' (hacks) when they might actually have created something of greater or perhaps more sincere value. But, I sense you bring up the thing about journalism and writing because you are aware (more than anyone else here) of my own writing ambitions? You also know, because I told you once, that I feel myself to be a 'frustrated writer'. Is there an angle here you think you might use? Can I help you in any way with it?
But going more to the grain: it is 'vitally important' to make honest efforts to define what really is 'spirituality' and what really is 'enlightenment'. If I have failed as a 'spiritual person', if I am failing spirtuality (which is a direct conclusion by the Gfers, and certainly David as we see just above: reasoning with us is like reasoning with chickens and pigs)(or like the I-Ching says 'with pigs and fishes'). But is this
TRUE, Diebert? Stop your inveterate tendency to obscure your truths, to fail to state what you really think. What really is 'spirituality'? What really does this mean? If I am failing it I'd sure like to know how. But can you even approach articulation of this? You really don't Diebert. So again, in another way, you are a dishonest participant in this and these conversations. Perhaps you should be left alone and, ten years later, or a hundred, you will still be here, still playing the same role?
Okay, for me, still, apparently, there is still stuff I had to work out about my relationship to this forum. No doubt of that. I think that there are some very important things that are dealt on here (broached) and there are some very very dangerous tendencies that will take a man away from 'wisdom' and place him in something far less than even mediocre. If 'failure' is a term we can use here---you used it---I will say that that exactly describes it. To
fail at the challenge placed before us because we remain enmeshed in...
And just what is it that we remain enmeshed in? It is such a good question but there is no one to have a conversation with about an answer. So I guess we are in an odd agreement. I accept that it is possible to become a 'monster' (a distorted being). The real question is just what indeed is
monstruous.
Post script: Lest anyone think I deceive myself. I know that the thrust of this present post will not be registered or dealt with. I
KNOW that these topics cannot become the topic of a genuine conversation. I know they will be skirted, as they always are. What that means, once again, is that 'I write for the invisible', those dismembered, incorporeal multitudes floating...
out there. (It's
marevllous actually).
Push it, Diebert.
Push it!
