Musings, Critiques.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alex, any description of causality as singular principle isn't a system. Just as much as a phrase like dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum isn't. They are all principles. There are other manners and choices which can be made in how to talk about it. But in the end those choices are informed by experience, by intuition and temperament. How many more ways do you suggest?

The biggest issue here is how you appear to lack the simple quality of instinctive understanding, or how you appear to respond less to feeling than to intellect. What do you know about romance, for example? Do you have a problem with the idea of (insanely or not) losing oneself in the world, in humanity or in nature? Is it problematic for you to think of your environment as something alive? Is it such a struggle to accept the notion of a true conception of life, its oneness, of its being an organism, a complete web: a true conception of the personal side of life? (to dangerously paraphrase Werner Sombart).

[Jamesh]

Here is some more ammunition for you Alex.

Whoever wrote it in Wiki seems confused - I don't find the entry to be very coherent.

The Redeemer type

Nietzsche criticized Ernest Renan's attribution of the concepts genius and hero to Jesus. Nietzsche thought that the word idiot best described Jesus. According to Walter Kaufmann,[35] he might have been referring to the naïve protagonist of Dostoyevsky's book The Idiot. With an antipathy toward the material world, Jesus was "...at home in a world undisturbed by reality of any kind, a merely 'inner' world, a 'real' world, an 'eternal' world... . 'The kingdom of God is within you'... ."[36]

According to Nietzsche, the redeemer type is determined by a morbid intolerance of pain. Extreme sensitivity results in avoidance of the world. Also, any feeling of resistance to the world is experienced as pain. Even evil is therefore not resisted. "The fear of pain, even of the infinitely small in pain, — cannot end otherwise than in a religion of love... ."[37] Jesus was a distorted version of the redeemer type. The first disciples, in their Gospels, described him as having Old Testament characteristics such as prophet, Messiah, miracle–worker, moral preacher, etc. Dostoyevsky could have revealed his sickliness and childishness.[38] According to Jesus, "...the kingdom of heaven belongs to 'children'... ."[39] Everyone has an equal right to become a child of God. His spirituality is infantile, a result of delayed puberty. Jesus does not resist or contend with the world because he doesn't recognize the importance of the world. His life is its own kingdom of God at every moment. Early Christians used Semitic concepts to express his teaching, but his anti–realism could just as easily have been a characteristic of Taoism or Hinduism. Nietzsche asserted that the psychological reality of redemption was "...[a] new way of life, not a new faith."[40] It is "...[t]he deep instinct for how one must live, in order to feel oneself 'in heaven'... ."[40] The Christian is known by his acts. He offers no resistance to evil, He has no anger and wants no revenge. Blessedness is not promised on conditions, as in Judaism.
The Gospel's glad tidings are that there is no distinction between God and man. There is no Judaic concern for sin, prayers, rituals, forgiveness, repentance, guilt, punishment, or faith. "[E]vangelic practice alone leads to God, it is God!" "t is only in the practice of life that one feels 'divine,' 'blessed,' 'evangelical,' at all times a 'child of God.'"[40] There were two worlds for the teacher of the Gospel's glad tidings. The real, true world is an inner experience of the heart in which all things are blessedly transfigured (Verklärung), eternalized, and perfected. The apparent world, however, is only a collection of psychological symbols, signs, and metaphors. These symbols are expressed in terms of space, time, history, and nature. Examples of these mere symbols are the concepts of "God as a person", "the son of man", "the hour of death", and "the kingdom of heaven".[41] Jesus did not want to redeem anyone. He wanted to show how to live. His legacy was his bearing and behavior. He did not resist evildoers. He loved evildoers. Nietzsche has Jesus tell the thief on the cross that he is in Paradise now if he recognizes the divinity of Jesus' comportment

I call David religious as he seems to have a much earlier experienced and higher degree of sensitivity than me, creating a great difference in desire, valuation and perceived achievability of rational enlightenment. He has obtained a release from that sensitivity via enlightenment, by being mind not body, and this where his consistent enlightenment joy comes from (his other joy being an egotistical one of communicating rational viewpoints). I recall reading something Kevin wrote about his childhood years where he describes this hyper-sensitivity to reality - it seems to be be par of the course in the genius type. The Feminine-Masculine debates here in the past also seem to bring out excessive sensitivity in some people - perhaps the extreme valuing of masculinity and total dismissal of femininity has more to do with the resistences-to-sensitivity that masculinity provides and femininity does not.

I've noticed a greater degree of sensitivity in myself than in others. At work where there is constant stupidity, disorganisation, managerial ego playing then it affects me more than others. Most just shrug it away, but I seem to retain it and let it build up.

[guest_of_logic]

Hi Diebert (sometimes I think of you privately as "Deebs", I wonder what you make of that). I'm doing OK, thanks - my life is not problem-free but other than that it is open and flexible. Right now, I'm just doing a bit of travelling on the Australian mainland, visiting family and friends.

At Dennis's suggestion, and as implied by you at the end of your bus analogy, here's a fifth sense of "absolute" as used on this forum:

• 5. [of experience] direct and unconditioned.

The end of your analogy actually reads: "In the existential ride, the most important thing is always the bus; the absolute nature of us experiencing (so I guess #3)".

And this does seem to be a core recognition and recommendation of the house philosophy: that the fundamental truth of reality is that "experience is happening", and to strip away the cognitive biases through which we filter that experience, and instead to experience "directly". The putative nature of the cognitive biases (beliefs in free will, in "objective" reality, in God and religion, in the impossibility of absolute truth, etc) are detailed in WOTI, as are the putative correctives, and, perhaps if bluerap had been interested in answering Alex's question, "How will you speak about this? How will you prove and demonstrate that it is what you say it is?", he might have told Alex that David already speaks of this, proves and demonstrates it, in WOTI.

I think then that to fully critique the house philosophy, one would have to methodically critique WOTI, and perhaps some day I'll do that (a while back I posted a critique of the final chapter, but, aside from an incomplete and unpublished critique of the proof of causality in WOTI, that's as far as I've already gone in writing). For now, I'll just make this observation: the brute fact of experiences happening might be more fundamental or ultimate than the nature of those experiences, but the nature of those experiences is, it seems to me, more important than the fact that they are happening, because of the fact that they can be pleasurable or painful in nature.

I agree with Alex that the house philosophy is reactionary: I think it reacts against that which is painful in the world, including, as Dennis's contributions make clear, lack of authenticity. The quotes that James has just offered (on intolerance of pain) are interesting in this respect too. I think a useful way to approach a full critique of WOTI, and the house philosophy in general, would be from the perspective of it being a system of pain management: to view it as a way of reducing e.g. the pain of having a free will, and the personal responsibility that comes with that freedom, of reducing the pain of having to "fit in" and live a conventional, limited/mediocre life, of reducing the pain of broken romances, of reducing the pain of loss and broken attachments in general, and, ultimately, of reducing to zero all pain altogether (or rather, by its terms, all suffering, since it distinguishes between the two).

From this perspective, the ultimate truth of the house philosophy might be seen not just as "experiences are happening and can be perceived directly", but also as "life is suffering, which can be avoided".

This could be the launching point for a dialogue, because I don't think anyone would argue that there is not suffering in life, nor that it would not be preferable to avoid that suffering. A dialogue might, though, take place on the extent to which there is suffering in life, the extent to which suffering is avoidable, the extent to which the house philosophy succeeds in eliminating suffering, the extent to which suffering is unavoidable in the achieving of higher goals (most superficially, those leading to pleasure), and, most broadly, the extent to which we ought to focus philosophy in the first place on avoiding suffering, to the exclusion of all else that might be valued positively.

Again, just my two cents.

[guest_of_logic]

Just an addendum: I think Alex has been addressing these questions in one form or another over the course of his time here, in particular, I see him as concerning himself with the last, broadest one - he has consistently characterised the house philosophy as limited in its concerns, even if he might not have framed it and its concerns as being limited in exactly the same sense in which I've just framed it (as a system of pain management); he has consistently been suggesting ways in which it might broaden its scope. Perhaps, seen from this perspective, his contributions might be seen as more valuable than they have been until now by some.

[Bobo]

Somewhat contrary to Jamesh's quote above:

There's this wonderful bible verse: "Foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to sleep." This could be expressing something about manhood. Always in one or more aspects outcast, double, cursed, dwelling, uncertain, disturbed, troubled, lost, just that bit out of tune....call it the "restlessness" of the eternal. Good or bad?

According to the Bible it is bad, at least it is a punishment for man having acquired the god-like knowledge of good and evil, with the promisse of the good to come(?). Then god comes back and bring the news that there's no punishment or attainable good, for god (and god alone?) is good, and man is irremediably bad, the son of man has nowhere to sleep.

[Jamesh]

[the son of man has nowhere to sleep]

Which I suppose, is why even though while out mentally traveling, and one minute I’m supporting the QRS position and the next I’m not, I consistently return to the vision of what seems like more of a permanent home than any other - the solid, safe place of a totally rational home in one’s own mind, as a respite from the needy suffering of emotions and the angst repercussions of logical incompleteness or plain delusion.
However, though I’m tired of traveling in the worldly realm, that tiredness is more about the increasing difficulty of finding excitement and novelty, rather than having an inherent desire to create a perfect rational structure in my own mind so as to be able R.I.P. in retirement from the negative emotional interferences of the clearly non-rational.

And now for a bit more self-pitying emotional-masturbation I do seem to love so much.

(Jackson Browne – The Road)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKV4dwB9ajM

[Russell Parr]

perhaps if bluerap had been interested in answering Alex's question, "How will you speak about this? How will you prove and demonstrate that it is what you say it is?", he might have told Alex that David already speaks of this, proves and demonstrates it, in WOTI.

Alex has been here for a long time. He's already made clear his stance on David's language. Besides that, his question is rather ridiculous if you would realize that I had been "speaking" of it the whole time, as have others. But that's just the point, the two of you can't grasp its simplicity in the form of forum posts, nor if thoroughly explored as it is in books like WoTI.

In Alex's case, he has made up his mind that there is a cult-like culture in place based on an active system, and everything said by those in favor of the philosophical tenets explored here ("house philosophy" as you prefer to call it) must be somehow fitted into the imagined system. This scenario probably plays out a lot around here with visitors that come and go, but it takes a special case for it to develop into an all out addiction of piecing together and destroying this system, over and over, and a bizarre 'latching onto the host(s)' is the result.

As for your suggestion that this 'system' may be for "pain management," What David and others discuss here (the "path of enlightenment" you could call it) is clearly not about avoiding pain.. what could be more painful than doing away with all worldly desires? Friends and family turning against you as you turn to reason? The path of enlightenment is much more about embracing the "pains of life" (or "long suffering" as they say in Christian traditions) in route to buddhahood, not in seeking avoidance.

[Dennis Mahar]

Laird,

This could be the launching point for a dialogue, because I don't think anyone would argue that there is not suffering in life, nor that it would not be preferable to avoid that suffering. A dialogue might, though, take place on the extent to which there is suffering in life, the extent to which suffering is avoidable, the extent to which the house philosophy succeeds in eliminating suffering, the extent to which suffering is unavoidable in the achieving of higher goals (most superficially, those leading to pleasure), and, most broadly, the extent to which we ought to focus philosophy in the first place on avoiding suffering, to the exclusion of all else that might be valued positively.

recognising emptiness isn't a formula for pain management or risk management of pain.
It's a way of being.

Most pain people experience is because of a culturally induced territorial imperitave.
People in relationships think they 'own' each other in some special way and they hold each other and their own selves in that paradigm.
In that paradigm the experience is frequently of the nature 'restless, irritable, discontent'.
suspicion, jealousy, manipulation, controlling show up and a general lack of freedom.
Granted there are nice, sweet moments of genuine intimacy.
It's of an uneven nature, up and down.

people say to me,
what a wonderful smile,
you look happy.
my laughter rings out and they join in, their laughter ringing out and I can tell for many its been a long time since their laughing gear got a decent workout.
some say, do I know you, you seem so familiar.

this is only possible for me because I have no designs on them.
I don't see them as 'equipment' to be sequestered for my life to work out.

I really 'got' people in a major distinction.
It was a great turning point for me.
I heard an interview on radio by a guy involved in the analysis of warfare.
He said forensic investigation of battlefields after the second world war disclosed 50% of bullets were fired in to the ground.
Guys out there under extraordinary pressure, forced to war by culture, could not bring themselves to maim and kill in the light of their own understanding.
Isn't that fantastic.

[Alex Jacob]

people say to me,
what a wonderful smile,
you look happy.
my laughter rings out and they join in,
their laughter ringing out
and I can tell for many its been a long time
since their laughing gear got a decent workout.
some say, do I know you, you seem so familiar.

It is true that Wisdom of the Infinite as a formula for approaching living and understanding life can be---quite easily---ruthlessly critiqued and in fact 'disassembled' (though 'disemboweling' is sometimes longed for), but what is really more relevant here is why it is that people are drawn to such terrible reductionism; what it 'answers' for them; and what they DO with it.

In my case, although I have glossed WOTI, I have instead chosen to focus on the 'What people do' part, and to describe the reduction and how it affects the possibility to interact with life and culture, as well as what results from a vision of the dissolution of the self in one's relationships with other people and literally 'the world'. It is a Thinking System. It is arbitrary although it is based to some degree on intelligible ideas. The Thinking System has to be 'installed'. But once it is installed, at least from the look of it, the True Believer will then of his own accord defend it and his realization of it against all comers. The defensive posture is actually PART of the Thinking System. In this sense it is radical and 'reactionary'. The more resistance it gets, the stronger it gets. It is a System that can literally take on the whole world...and win!

I am uncertain if it is fair to use Dennis as an example of how the Thinking System functions. No one of the True Believers (Kelly, David, Ryan, Jupi...) seems to enter into dialogue with him as far as I have seen. Still, I will make a few comments on his discourse because I think it does reflect on how the Thinking System functions in others here. From what Dennis has written, he validates the specific philosophical tenets by using his own person as an example. Where he goes his laughter rings out and in the timbre of that laughter is an irresistible call to a happiness and joy that most people do not know. But they can be reminded of it. And 'hearing' this ringing note, something in them is awakened. Would that all men might here this note! Dennis no longer makes any claim on people in any sense. He is fully atomized into some Original particle. The reason is that he knows that he does not 'inherently exist' nor do those others. The world is a Fabrication and a Mirage spun out of the Empty Void (about which we can know nothing and into which we simply stare, mute). The Self is a false-understanding. And if the Self is a false understanding all creations of such a self will all be distortions.

To speak about this, in my case, because I see it as essentially absurd, always begins to sound like a parody, but I will try to keep a straight face: All human creations starting from the Self, all philosophical schools, all concepts of morality, and specific organization of ethical principals (if not I assume based on some Buddhist doctrine? Or on WOTI? Or in how Dennis feels today?) are false. This extends to the organization of a people in a tribe, culture, municipality, state---whatever. These are all false designations, inventions of man that, when the tenets of the Thinking System are applied, dissolve right in front of you. Please note: This means all creation of man's intellect. Our whole history. All of it.

So now we jump ahead a little: in view of such an understanding, a world conflagration like WW2, a violent attempt to create a totalitarian state and to annihilate opposition, and the 'necessary' attempt to resist it, to turn it back, is IINTERPRETED as merely a silly game of man. All man has to do is to see this and, instead of firing into his enemy, he will 'fire into the ground' which is 'fantastic'. At that point, I suppose, we all lay down our weapons, see that all the structures and ideas we have invested in are false, we embrace, and the Kingdom materializes on Earth. Holding to such a philosophy, one can separate oneself from all responsibility in the world and all efforts to build within this plane of existence. If you cannot make a moral or ethical decision in any field, because nothing in any field is 'inherently real', what happens to you? Like the smile of the Cheshire Cat you just hang in the air, abstracted from everything, but your laughter rings out.

One might continue with picture after picture, demonstration after demonstration as to why this philosophy is absurd. It is based in a species of 'solipsism' as a form of 'self-pleasuring', and a very immature one. It is attractive because it has some cogent elements. One can in personal relationships 'lighten up'. One can begin to look into greed and other negative traits as sources of human conflict. But this has to be done on the basis of a far more comprehensive system of understanding humans and the human world.

[Alex Jacob]

Jamesh wrote: Which I suppose, is why even though while out mentally traveling, and one minute I’m supporting the QRS position and the next I’m not, I consistently return to the vision of what seems like more of a permanent home than any other - the solid, safe place of a totally rational home in one’s own mind, as a respite from the needy suffering of emotions and the angst repercussions of logical incompleteness or plain delusion. However, though I’m tired of traveling in the worldly realm, that tiredness is more about the increasing difficulty of finding excitement and novelty, rather than having an inherent desire to create a perfect rational structure in my own mind so as to be able R.I.P. in retirement from the negative emotional interferences of the clearly non-rational.

What I find valuable about your views and discourse is that I sense a real person there. Every person faces, in one way or another, a similar group of issues and problems. Our mutual heritage, our European culture, has been dealing directly with these same core issues throughout. How man's spiritual and material estate is seen and how we choose to relate to it and interact with it, is right at the core of our philosophical, ethical, moral, spiritual and existential ideas. The problem does not go away and it may never go away. It seems to me that our 'only choice' is to face it squarely. How that is carried out is of course where everything hangs...

[Alex Jacob]

Bluerap wrote: In Alex's case, he has made up his mind that there is a cult-like culture in place based on an active system, and everything said by those in favor of the philosophical tenets explored here ("house philosophy" as you prefer to call it) must be somehow fitted into the imagined system. This scenario probably plays out a lot around here with visitors that come and go, but it takes a special case for it to develop into an all out addiction of piecing together and destroying this system, over and over, and a bizarre 'latching onto the host(s)' is the result.

What I try to explain is similar to your re-description, but different. The order of ideas that leads to the specifics of the choices that are made by those who practice this thinking system is what I suggest needs to be examined. If we really take seriously the whole notion of philosophy and what it can and should do for man, we are duty-bound to subject any given platform to rigorous examination. I said at the beginning that 'you-all' do not engage at all critically and 'you-all' behave like sheep. Among the TBs there is a decided and obvious lack of critical examination of 'the tenets'.

I have tried to explain that my continued focus on critique of THIS thinking system has a great deal of personal relevance to me because I have lived under and known similar reductions and have also lived their effects. If David (or you or anyone) has a right to define what is (and isn't) 'wisdom', I have a right to offer up my vision. What no one of you seems able to grasp is that my efforts are not hostile, not as you feel them to be. You would really have to understand this non-hostility (in an essential sense) to understand why I hang in there. But it is clear that you view my energy, irony and intensity as a threatening force. Can't say that I blame you but there are alternatives.

[Dennis Mahar]

It depends Alex how you 'listen' or what you 'hear'.

Your soliloquoy fronts up every morning in the always/already space 'its dangerous'.
What you can give up is nit-picking.

Heidegger points out we live in a House of Language and we are predisposed to 'hear' what it is our conditioning determines we 'hear'.

Zen also goes with that distinction.

Its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I think Alex is developing quite well, Dennis. He's already voicing the idea that all the structures and ideas are essentially false. That all essences are false. Brilliant!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hello Laird. You could privately think of me as "Deeb", like many do. Some friends say jokingly "The Deeb" or when I'm philosophizing "the Messiah" or "the Devil", depending. Good to hear you're doing ok and flexible.

• 5. [of experience] direct and unconditioned.

I'm not sure if direct experience is still "experience" in the usual definition. It could get confusing that way, as if I could experience "apple" in a pure state, some essential "appelness" or deep dualistic relationships between the bowl and the fruit. Experiences can be of course more visceral and vivid, they can be more primitive or cultured ("Nice looking McIntoshe there, perfectly ripe") but any direct experience will not be about apples in that sense in particular. Although I do believe wise people know how to vary the perspective between the visceral and primitive towards the cultured and abstract. I think the whole range needs to be known.

Your observation that the nature of the experiences would be more important than the fact (observation?) that they are happening at all, leaves something to be desired. In the context of knowing "what's going on" it's obviously important to apply reason to organize experiences, to interpret them, the whole cognition factory. But when it comes to knowing what or who oneself is, the fact of experiencing itself looks like a crucial subject. To get that in focus might have surprising effects. This lies in the realm of the experimental though.

From this perspective, the ultimate truth of the house philosophy might be seen not just as "experiences are happening and can be perceived directly", but also as "life is suffering, which can be avoided".

But if life really equals suffering, how to avoid any of it without avoiding life? Perhaps I misunderstood? You are mixing "life is suffering" with "life contains seperate elements of suffering". Those are I think two different philosophical starting points altogether.

[Dennis Mahar]

I think Alex is developing quite well, Dennis. He's already voicing the idea that all the structures and ideas are essentially false. That all essences are false. Brilliant!

Yeah, he's got his foot on the till.
He's a joy that lad.

that thing he's got going,

its dangerous, its dangerous, its dangerous,
red alert, red alert,

Fire!, Fire!.

dial 911 for western liberal traditions!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Dennis, you remind me:

• Fire in the disco
  Fire in the taco bell
  Fire in the disco
  Fire in the gates of hell
  
  Don't you want to know how we keep starting fires?
  It's my desire, It's my desire, It's my desire
  
  Danger! Danger! High Voltage!
  When we touch, When we kiss
  Danger! Danger! High Voltage!
  When we touch, when we kiss
  When we touch, when we kiss
  
  No more
  
  Fire in the disco
  Fire in the disco
  Fire in the taco bell
  Fire in the disco
  Fire in the disco
  Fire in the gates of Hell
  
  Gates of Hell

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Jamesh, thank you for posting about Nietzsche's Redeemer type. He described Jesus as a great symbolist but at the same time degrading him somewhat as naive and childlike, or perhaps he was just conflicted on what to think about it. He does appear to gravitate to something he senses there underlying the degraded good news. After his break to "insanity" he writes a couple of letter signed by "The Crucified". During his saner years he looked for a way to link Dionysus with Jesus: "Caesar with the soul of Jesus", in his own words.

Here's another possible link between Nietzsche and his view on Jesus as symbolist (master of forbidden metaphors?). A great paragraph in any case.

• That immense framework and planking of concepts to which the needy man clings his whole life long in order to preserve himself is nothing but a scaffolding and toy for the most audacious feats of the liberated intellect. And when it smashes this framework to pieces, throws it into confusion, and puts it back together in an ironic fashion, pairing the most alien things and separating the closest, it is demonstrating that it has no need of these makeshifts of indigence and that it will now be guided by intuitions rather than by concepts. There is no regular path which leads from these intuitions into the land of ghostly schemata, the land of abstractions. There exists no word for these intuitions; when man sees them he grows dumb, or else he speaks only in forbidden metaphors and in unheard-of combinations of concepts. He does this so that by shattering and mocking the old conceptual barriers he may at least correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition. [On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense - 2]

I think you have a great point about sensitivity, and how could anyone having less than great sensitivities develop the circumstance where the more subtle forms of thinking could start taking place? As much as I love Alex, his quick wit and his decent knowledge, he looks to me still rather clumsy and crude when it comes to the finer points in this particular discussion (sorry mate, the knife cuts at both sides). For this reason some, including myself, have described a few of his charges as "blocks", something actively maintained to freeze the whole movement up, becoming completely insensitive and stunted when it comes to something that threatens some core issue, inside the psyche, something to let go. Then again, who really knows? Perhaps it's a game to him or a desire to bang his head against a brick wall.

Do the over-sensitive hide from the world or do they experience "world" more vivid, more strongly, more complete than the average folks? Does the over-sensitive suffer more, because the world is suffering? I can certainly remember crying as I had never cried before, screaming even, when I for the first time out of the blue, without warning or mood present, understood some of the suffering of existence, the insane wideness and weight of the world and the crudeness of all attempts to live. It's a view that needs to be dosed and getting used to. Taking on the weight of the world might be in the end delusional, but it's not something to walk away from either.

One question that is often asked is if these "meek" could indeed inherit the "Earth" in any literal sense. Could they actually deal with the toughness of nature and society, wouldn't they be too squirmy and dreamy to handle life's chaos, manifold requirements, demands and constant challenges? Or could the meek only survive in special reserves, left alone and payed for? This is quite hard to answer as it already implies a certain set of characteristics and weaknesses to be actual. It also implies a certain type of world defined in terms of trouble and harshness which might be relative to the perception of the questioner. I just have no good answer on this subject at the moment. The problem seems to me always more the drama of "the others", Sartre style.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert wrote: As much as I love Alex, his quick wit and his decent knowledge, he looks to me still rather clumsy and crude when it comes to the finer points in this particular discussion (sorry mate, the knife cuts at both sides). For this reason some, including myself, have described a few of his charges as "blocks", something actively maintained to freeze the whole movement up, becoming completely insensitive and stunted when it comes to something that threatens some core issue, inside the psyche, something to let go. Then again, who really knows? Perhaps it's a game to him.

Diebert as his sophistic finest! A light academic touch with a falsifying rhetorical brush. You really know how to cooly jazz it up, brother! If it is to be a conversation that has to do with the subtle possibilities of perception, understanding, the living of spiritual life, depth of feeling, wonder, love and so many other things, that whole conversation does not and likely will not occur on these pages. It will never occur within the structure of the WOTI dogma of that I am fairly certain. But how terribly funny it is that you bring this up as an ideal. Here?! Can you really find this sort of sensitivity (a tear comes to me eye...) in any of the writing of the Trio? Is there something in this Teaching that even holds 'sensitivity' as a remote ideal? or desired outcome? My dear sir, you are rapidly going round the bend. You are out-doing previous obfuscating efforts. Next the Bulldog of GF will, what, quote Keats?!

Que?!: '...becoming completely insensitive and stunted when it comes to something that threatens some core issue, inside the psyche, something to let go.'

Every strategy in the book, and every possible angle of attack, shall be used to discredit anyone who brings genuine and thoughtful critiques against The Edifice. It has to be protected and supported at all costs.

'...the finer points in this particular discussion'.

That is a fucking classic line.

;-)

[Dennis Mahar]

Do the over-sensitive hide from the world or do they experience "world" more vivid, more strongly, more complete than the average folks? Does the over-sensitive suffer more, because the world is suffering? I can certainly remember crying as I had never cried before, screaming even, when I for the first time out of the blue, without warning or mood present, understood some of the suffering of existence, the insane wideness and weight of the world and the crudeness of all attempts to live. It's a view that needs to be dosed and getting used to. Taking on the weight of the world might be in the end delusional, but it's not something to walk away from either.

When the battle subsided for the moment,
and the field was strewn with the dead bodies of young German kids, thrown despicably at an activity by a Culture,
Their pockets were emptied,
many had well thumbed copies of Nietzsche books and Heidegger's Being and Time.
These idealistic, sensitives turning to philosophy in their direst hour.

Its hard to know whether to celebrate or weep.

[Alex Jacob]

We really need a soundtrack! 'Make you emotional cry'.

[Dennis Mahar]

Thankyou dear.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Every strategy in the book, and every possible angle of attack, shall be used to discredit anyone who brings genuine and thoughtful critiques against The Edifice.

Well Alex, it could also be said that every time anyone hands over your ass on a plate, the same old cynical defense is being employed by you: ridiculing, making a silly dance and generally retreating. Alex the untouchable! Never defeated in combat because when the end is nigh he runs quickly to the nearest bar and laughs at you from behind his half empty glass. That's the impression you give at least.

You forget also conveniently to mention you received similar reactions to your critiques at let say the Lifeboat forum or at Keep it Real. Weren't you banned at both places after being vilified? I think on any forum I know you would have received far worse treatment than at GF. But instead of recognizing that, you come out with the same old whiny canard of persecution, that people would feel threatened by what you stand for, instead of just giving normal reactions to your particular more of communication. It's always the others who are immature and intellectually stunted, right?

So lets talk about the problem you are having with cults where in your experience the philosophical system in place dehumanized the participant in some ugly manner. Was this the Castaneda group or Heaven's Gate or were you even fucked over by the Family? We could talk about this in more detail, instead of all the generalities. If you really think suicides, mutilations or other abuses are a possibility, it would be more useful to study a mirror - if a mirror would be the case.

[Dan Rowden]

It's extraordinary that this thread is 13 pages long yet Alex in his opening post said absolutely nothing. I just read it for the third time thinking I missed something; but no, as usual, it's a self-indulgent wank.

I wish I had the energy to do more than simply point this out, but everyone knows anyway, right?

Alex,

Stop hiding yourself in the labyrinth of those things you claim you can't believe and settle on something. Stop bathing in the milk-bath of words and concepts and rose-petals of mind and think about something basic. Stop being a tedious philosophic dilettante. Say something or shut up.

Do you even understand that in the context of this forum you haven't ever really said anything?

[Alex Jacob]

• Remember, Dan: I did not agree to make any modifications to the ideas I discuss nor the manner in which I discuss them. I did agree to alter a few descriptions but that is all. If you like what I write or if you don't is to me irrelevant. What you do in relation to it is not my choice to make.
• Most of what I write about, though it is not kosher by your standards, is in my view very much related to questions that revolve around 'ultimate reality' and also 'enlightenment'. But it is true that I do not write religiously about concepts of 'ultimate reality' nor religiously of 'enlightenment'.
• I argue that we cannot know either 'ultimate reality' nor 'enlightenment' (since I am not comfortable with the term 'enlightenment' in its religious sense I prefer to think of 'enlightened attitude' but in fact I try to avoid the term altogether) if our core predicates are insufficient or as I say 'skewed'. There are at least 2 ways to go about exploring how predicates might be skewed. One is to see what they produce and to critique that. The second is to examine the predicates and to refute them. I have focussed, obviously, on the former. So, while it might be argued that I do not share the exact predicates of you or others, seeing them as distorted or erroneous, it is not accurate to say that I am not concerned for the larger questions posed, though it is true I do not myself have nor offer a religious program to answer those questions or achieve the goals they seem to propose.
• While it is true that 'everyone' has their opinion, and that opinion may not hold what I say in high regard, still there can be no doubt that, at the least, the conversation I elicit revolves around the core concerns of the forum, and frankly very much more so than many people who write here and many topics and subject that are discussed. So, while I grant you that my ideas are clearly unorthodox in relation to the religiously inclined (as a view structure outlined in WOTI is strictly a religious view structure), I can't accept any grossly negative charge against what I write or the way I write it.
• Although it is not recognized, and any label du jour is attached to me varies with the mood of he who labels, I would place my concerns at least in one broad sense in this general area. This is a quote by Jacob Needleman, less strict philosophical musing and more revelation of a personal process of realization:
  

  "The general theological literature never made an impression on me; it was too philosophical. I, as a professional philosopher, had long since been forced to accept that philosophical ideas by themselves change nothing in the life of an individual. Without the practical knowledge of how to bring great ideas into the heart and even into the tissues of the body, philosophy cannot take us very far. On the contrary, as Kierkegaard saw it, it only supports the weakness in man that makes him believe he can make progress by his own efforts. Systems, explanations, clarifications, proofs---through these, modern man squanders his attention in the intellectual function while remaining cut off from the emotional and the instinctual sides of his nature, wherein reside the most powerful energies of our being, and without the corresponding development of which no authentic moral power is possible."

• Now, I do not offer this as a statement of my personal creed since my views do not precisely coincide, but there are a number of points about which I think I agree quite strongly. And since this represents a different or alternate approach to the Grand Question posed by the forum, I think these and other related questions are not at all irrelevant within this 'conversation'.
• One important thing I have done or at least suggested with a certain force, is that Sri David does not and did not ever understand Christianity. We spent a little time going over this. If there is not a general understanding of Christianity, though it is a broad subject, I definitely do not believe it possible to understand (or interpret) Kierkegaard or even Nietzsche. This is not in any sense an unimportant misunderstanding or misconstrual, either from an academic or a religious viewpoint. Clarification in this area is actually vital and therefor quite relevant. But what does this mean in a broader sense, you ask? (Wiping the drool from your chin). As I understand it, which is to say as I understand spiritual life, it is all part of a whole in which intellect, emotion, feeling, and indeed the very flesh of the body are all parts-and-parcels of an existential philosophical or religious platform. For this general reason, I suggest, one must work slowly through the predicates---as for example in WOTI---and demonstrate how they may operate against a fuller program of understanding, or even directly against it, and possibly even 'destructively' against both knowledge and 'wisdom' (this is my own view). Additionally, one might also show how certain ideas and predicates may produce 'skewed results'. To engage in this, though it is unpopular among those who have absorbed a given system of view, is not destructive work, not a 'milk-bath of words', nor 'rose-petals of the mind'. In fact they are crucial elements in a sober and intelligent conversation. It is this sort of conversation that needs to occur in relation to all religious systems of thinking and really toward all important questions (examination, criticism, exploration).
• THEREFOR, 'in the context of the forum' I have in fact said a great deal, and on this basis refute your claims. I will let you off this time but the next time I will be forced to level a fine against you of $100.00 for saying stupid shit. The fines go up from there. ;-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"...spiritual life, it is all part of a whole in which intellect, emotion, feeling, and indeed the very flesh of the body...." - Alex

And don't forget motive. Your motive appears not clear, not fresh, actually a bit smelly after four years of rotting flesh. Someone who believes to have found the Kingdom of God at least has a healthy looking motive to talk about it for the rest of his life. People who are not really interested have a motive to laugh about it and move on. But to campaign against it, year after year, is more like a tragedy unfolding. So much bleeding and nothing to stop it.