I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

He has merely transplanted half the contents of wikipedia over to here.
Never had an original thought.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Bobo »

Dennis Mahar said:

"Bobo,
My declaration is...
I will pull anything I deem as a perfect expression out of the 'global brain' that fits in a conversation that is undertaken as a possibility for transformation.
Everything you say Bobo originated in the global brain.

You meant to cause harm Bobo. I didn't.
It's true.

Trust me Bobo.

Love me without condition as I love you."
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Yeah,
let's do that as a possibility.

the problem is the deeming of a perfect expression.

I get to say what that is.

When I say its not, its not.
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Unidian »

Hi Dennis, are you referring to Alex as "never having had an original thought?" If so, I'm not sure about that charge, although I will admit he does seem to go off on a lot of Crowley-esque tangents...

Although I really wouldn't want to insult Alex that way - Crowley was obviously a huckster looking for attention and money. Anyone can see that, but why Alex writes similar prose is still a mystery to me. I guess this could be taken as a compliment - Crowley was quite famous and well-noted, after all.

Of course, you may be referring to me. In which case, I plead guilty - I have never had an "original" thought. I have had the thoughts my causal factors and circumstances dictated, naturally.
I live in a tub.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Of course, you may be referring to me. In which case, I plead guilty - I have never had an "original" thought. I have had the thoughts my causal factors and circumstances dictated, naturally.
I 'get' you as a deeply moral person with a conscience.
Struggling to express that in your unique fashion or originally, after absorbing much reading, thinking and experiencing suffering.

We don't 'need' anything from each other.
No need for PM's.
I look on fondly.

I also have a crack at the guitar.
liked your jazzy composition.

thanks.
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Unidian »

That's odd, I was just trying to find that jazz thing tonight. It appears to have dissappeared down the intertubes somewhere.

So you're a fellow guitar noise maker, eh? Don't you hate how people say it's all about sex? It's all about self-expression.

Piss on them all I guess. They can either listen or plug their ears.
I live in a tub.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Pye »

okay, also guitaring here, ever since a 14 year old hippie, but strumming-singing shit with very little riffing, original comps, but not that guitar-itself-gently-speaking . . . .
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Pye »

(cross between Sade and Rickie Lee Jones, I was called . . . :)
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Alex Jacob »

Hi Nat. I didn't see your comments, above, until now. You shouldn't take that sort of writing too seriously. Generally speaking when I write in straight prose, as on the Century of Self thread, that is 'me' speaking. The above is not me. In that instance it is little more than a sort of inside joke between Diebert and myself (held in contempt by him, naturally).

You don't have to worry at all about 'insults'. Even if you insulted my thinking or writing when I was attempting to be the most serious! Still, if you were to say 'That schizzy style of writing is stupid' I would have to agree with you. Truthfully, I have not always been very 'fair' in my tactics. I do recognize it is annoying.

But in fact, at least as I understand, I don't write about nor am I concerned about what Crowley was interested in, which I do not understand. There is no real thesis in his writing.

And the idea about 'original ideas'. Aren't 'original ideas' really combinations and recombinations of existent ideas? My way of thinking is the following: I think we need to keep reading and digesting the material that is out there: the Great Books. That is our 'collective repository' and it is yours and mine and ours. If we don't do that---also my view here---we tend to stay within our own little pond and our water is not refreshed. And then there is another possibility: taking a break from it all and allowing in no information. I have done that for periods of time, too.

Nat, what are you interested in? What are you reading? What are your goals?
___________________________

Have you ever read Cyrano de Bergerac? What if you blended A Talking Ass (Balaam's Ass), with the Golden Ass of Apuleius, with de Bergerac? This is a funny excerpt:
  • "My nose is Gargantuan! You little Pig-snout, you tiny Monkey-Nostrils, you virtually invisible Pekinese-Puss, don't you realize that a nose like mine is both scepter and orb, a monument to my superiority? A great nose is the banner of a great man, a generous heart, a towering spirit, an expansive soul--such as I unmistakably am, and such as you dare not to dream of being, with your bilious weasel's eyes and no nose to keep them apart! With your face as lacking in all distinction--as lacking, I say, in interest, as lacking in pride, in imagination, in honesty, in lyricism--in a word, as lacking in nose as that other offensively bland expanse at the opposite end of your cringing spine--which I now remove from my sight by stringent application of my boot!"

    ---Cyrano de Bergerac.
If you guys would READ more, you'd understand more...
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Dan Rowden »

If you read less, you'd have more time to think, but that's not the aim of the game, is it?
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Unidian »

Hi Alex, thanks for your response. I don't have anything particular to add here, except that I do agree reading can be overdone. As Dan stated, if all we do is read, when are we going to think? I did most of my reading when I was younger, and nowdays only occassionally crack a book. I have the intellectual tools to draw my own conclusions about most things of sigtnificance by now, so what need is there to keep reading endlessly?

I'm not advocating ignorance - there's definitely a place for reading, especially near the beginning of one's journey. There's really no other way to get a solid foundation in the things of signifcance otherwise, and people who are new to unconventional ideas should probably read tons. But there comes a point of diminishing returns, that's all I'm trying to say here.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Alex Jacob »

Dan wrote:If you read less, you'd have more time to think, but that's not the aim of the game, is it?
That was a nice opportunistic parry, Dan. Touché. And also a little defensive-offensive? We generally equate literacy with wide reading but it is true that there are many ways to 'know'. But too what you mean is 'think like me'. If my goals were yours or similar to yours I don't think at all that the wide reading I value would have as much value. It probably would be distraction. But let's try a direct approach. I have said a few times that 'the folks here' seem to have cut themselves off from their own traditions and are not really familiar with them. Or not enough. If you were to describe an 'ideal education' what would it be composed of? Let's say that you had a child and you had the responsibility to plan out its education?
Nat wrote:As Dan stated, if all we do is read, when are we going to think?
You've established a false predicate, following Dan. I did not say that one should ONLY read and not think. Obviously they go together. But it is true that some people use reading like a drug or to avoid living.
I have the intellectual tools to draw my own conclusions about most things of significance by now, so what need is there to keep reading endlessly?
I ain't your mother so I can't make recommendations ;-) But who said 'reading endlessly'? Reading selectively is always a better choice. Reading quality. The way I see things reading is like nourishment: you have to cook with the best ingredients you can get and only put the best into your body.
I'm not advocating ignorance - there's definitely a place for reading, especially near the beginning of one's journey. There's really no other way to get a solid foundation in the things of signifcance otherwise, and people who are new to unconventional ideas should probably read tons. But there comes a point of diminishing returns, that's all I'm trying to say here.
I am nearly completely in disagreement with you on those points. But that's par for the course. I won't press the issue since you have made clear your comfort zone.

But my impression has always been, speaking in a general way, that 'the Forum' is a weaker place than it could be because of a lack of continued reading. And I've made harsher statements too. ;-)
Ni ange, ni bête
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

I was lucky enough to only be held back for a while before reading from the sages, you should try it Alex, I remember hearing you express disinterest in the eastern philosophies...that means there is only one thing for you to do if you want to get where you are going, re-read Buddha a few times, keep in mind how old it is, and focus on the large amount of text about self clinging and the immortality of truth, which cleaves to no self. Eventually you will get smarter and stop reading, then after that you may decide to start again, but for different reasons and without all the ego. I'm not sure how the suffering presents itself for you, or if you deny it, but I know it's impossible for you not to be feeling it, so why not give the "suffering teacher" another chance?

Written by: A little child who acts without thinking, or thinks without acting.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Alex Jacob »

At the age of 17-18 you were 'held back', huh? Now, full upon 19, you speak from a mature height. There was once a 'Perfect Sixteen Year-Old Guru' who developed a long standing Sangha (still going). You will find many people interested in the wares you present.

It makes no sense to you at this time, I don't doubt that, but 'the West': the route 'we' took away from the East, though it is also a troubled path, is the path that has remodeled the world and has established a dramatically new path for the world. Don't be mistaken in thinking that I do not appreciate all sorts of elements in Eastern scriptures, but 'the East', speaking broadly, is not part of a way forward but a dream of regression. You know the term Brave New World? A turn in the road where there is no turning back? On a really grand scale I think 'we' have ventured into new territory. No disrespect to you, but you seem 'evidence of' a dead-end street. I can easily imagine how it feels for you to be so sure of yourself, so full of yourself. But in the larger picture you just can't see. Or you don't (seem to) see beyond the tip of your own nose. Certain things you are saying now, that you really believe, may become modified a little further down the line.

And the little child thing, boy that's cute. Are you wearing a little sailor's suit too? ;-)
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am enlightened.

Post by Unidian »

It's okay, I knew everything at 19 too. Many of us did, i think.
I live in a tub.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

I knew everything when I was younger, now I know almost nothing. You still know everything don't you Alex? You call it regression because it is unlearning, but as was said, the path forward seems to go back, you look at it as a dead end but it is the opposite, often described as "salvation" from the "perpetual dying" of those who cling to self, do you know of what this refers to?
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

Post by Alex Jacob »

Yep, 'the forum' in the most general way, is a forum or religious zealots. The term 'enlightenment' is interchangeable with 'salvation', and as with a Jesus Freak you cannot argue. Interestingly, rationality and reason, as with certain theologians, is just pretext. The realization and the knowledge coming from it is irrational, and so 'logic' is bent, often outrageously, to support the chosen point-of-view. And that is where the error begins, it seems to me. An what seems to happen among a group of people who 'think' in those terms is that with time the original view just oxidizes, ossifies, stops growing. The boys of 20 become the boys of 30 ... and then 40 ... and then 50 and beyond. There is a problem here but 'your' certainty, your cocksureness, won't allow you to see it.

Spiritual revelation to be really relevant has to broaden itself as far as it can.

It takes an expanded knowledge-base and a kind of circumspection that comes from a broad knowledge base to see what it is I am describing. It is received, always, with scorn and disdain. Though 'young dogs' you are, you can't teach and old dog new tricks! ;-)
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

Post by Dan Rowden »

Wank, wank, wank. The problem for you, Alex, is that I have never, and I suspect I can safely speak for Kevin and David and perhaps even others here, seen anything remotely like my actual philosophy reflected back at me in a single one of your posts the whole time you've been here. You are, Sir, so far from being relevant it's, it's, well, ineffable, really, just how irrelevant you are.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

Post by Alex Jacob »

Ah, yes: the 'special content' that is essentially 'beyond reason'. For you it is 'enlightenment', for another it is 'salvation'. I don't actually think it has a rational base, which is why it cannot be communicated, and why you apparently just have to 'geddit'!

I have two questions:
  • What essay or video essay do you think best describes your philosophy-religion, and can you link to it? Is that too much to ask? ;-)
  • Again, can you describe how you would organize a child's education. What materials, what order, what focus? Or is this outside of the realm of your concern?
As you know, insofar as I say it, what I reflect back to you about your religion is largely what you cannot and don't want to see about it. I find that it is the 'followers' who often reveal its flaws most starkly.

And note: although there is actual room for conversation about all of this, your-plural efforts will go, as they often do, toward subverting the possibility of simply talking a little about these things.
John/Seeker wrote:You still know everything don't you Alex?
I never said any such thing and don't mean any such thing. But to know who you are requires knowledge of history, and each of us has an archaeology. And if you had a little more knowledge of your own archaeology, you might be able to recognize how it is that you can even formulate a statement such as this one, which contains a whole message about the futility of knowledge and the futility of the mind and has specific roots that can be traced back. But analysis of that sort is just not your bag. It is a stumbling block before wide open 'narcissistic' enjoyment of the revelations of the moment. That is where 'the child' doesn't want to grow up and certainly doesn't want to do any work. He's 'on vacation' and having a good time. The really curious thing---and again the analysis is less-than-appreciated (it is held in contempt)---is what your, John, relationship is to the doctrines of Q-R-S. (I ask the same thing about Dennis). They struggle to instruct you but you are (it seems) of the same material, just misbehaving a little, misconceiving a little. But the origin of your experience is fanatical. And once again, this level of analysis is simply 'intolerable'.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:Wank, wank, wank. The problem for you, Alex, is that I have never, and I suspect I can safely speak for Kevin and David and perhaps even others here, seen anything remotely like my actual philosophy reflected back at me in a single one of your posts the whole time you've been here. You are, Sir, so far from being relevant it's, it's, well, ineffable, really, just how irrelevant you are.
And the irrelevance arises always as dynamic: for Alex-plural that philosophy, the actuality, directness and urgency of it all is irrelevant and seriously incomplete since he-plural, the type, doesn't fit in it. After five years of digesting and debating still asking about cliff notes, changing the topic into educational programs for children and claiming he-plural is actually correctly interpreting and highlighting faults which then "suggestively" are not responded to, without ever doubting that another reason might be that the whole point of a red herring is to not engage them as they are designed as fallacy to derail any proper rule based discussion. What's left as point of interest with the Alexians is this amazing appetite for train wrecks of discussions, as some sad model railroad hobbyist devising accidents and then rebuild the table again and again. And again, to set up the same type of crash.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

Post by Alex Jacob »

Diebert's 'obsession' in a nutshell! Nearly completely inaccurate but that doesn't matter. It is a sufficient rallying cry to set the standard for all consequent response: where the 'train wreck' is actually precipitated. Bravo! Service rendered to the Cause.

As I said:
And once again, this level of analysis is simply 'intolerable'.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

Post by Dan Rowden »

Alex Jacob wrote:Ah, yes: the 'special content' that is essentially 'beyond reason'. For you it is 'enlightenment', for another it is 'salvation'. I don't actually think it has a rational base, which is why it cannot be communicated, and why you apparently just have to 'geddit'!
Enlightenment and "salvation" as religionists experience it are only superficially analogous. i.e. they both represent a state of freedom from a kind of suffering. Oh, and having to "geddit" applies to every piece of understanding there is, you nincompoop! Enlightenment is in some sense a special and more difficult case for the reason that it involves that which is counter-intuitive, that which is non-dual and therefore not within our normal dualistic linguistic and conceptual experience. It can be communicated, but yes, you have to "geddit" as well. So many people don't "get" A=A, yet it's brimming with significance. It's not about "special content" at all, or that people are stupid, it's simply that the form of thinking involved to "geddit" does not form part of the average person's everyday conceptualising. Many people require a conceptual "breakthrough" to properly grok either Theory of Relativity. That doesn't make it special or incommunicable, it just makes it different.
I have two questions:
What? A lousy two? How disrespectful!
What essay or video essay do you think best describes your philosophy-religion, and can you link to it? Is that too much to ask? ;-)
Well, since you like to read, why don't you browse the discussions in Genius News? Or watch some of the videos at my YouTube channel? Please don't tell me you're not aware of this material, because then I'd have to tell you what a prat you are. Try the video I recommended to Seeker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v45Ro4FQHCA

If you can make some sense of that, then we might have a basis for talking about my actual worldview.
Again, can you describe how you would organize a child's education. What materials, what order, what focus? Or is this outside of the realm of your concern?
What age group are we talking about? For children of primary school age about the only thing I would change is to introduce some proto-philosophy that helped them become more adept at thinking for themselves rather than merely learning pre-established facts. Other than that I have no issue with children's education. High school is a different story, but I'm not going to be sidetracked into such a discussion when the CRUX of the matter has yet to be nailed.
As you know, insofar as I say it, what I reflect back to you about your religion is largely what you cannot and don't want to see about it.
Wow, a religion without beliefs. I am so cool it hurts! You cannot reflect any part of it back to me because your "understanding" of it bears no real relationship to its reality. I should know, it's my fucking philosophy.
I find that it is the 'followers' who often reveal its flaws most starkly.
You mean their flaws, don't you? I hope you do because what you just said is breathtakingly silly otherwise.
And note: although there is actual room for conversation about all of this, your-plural efforts will go, as they often do, toward subverting the possibility of simply talking a little about these things.
Says the Lord of the Tangential. You're hilarious, Alex, in a tedious sort of way.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

Post by Russell Parr »

It's quite astounding that someone could take the time to write thousands of posts in criticism of the philosophy of the forum founders and yet still continually demonstrate their shortsighted-ness in understanding the philosophy.

I wasn't even sure those questions were directed to Dan, especially the video one.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

Post by Alex Jacob »

Yes, I'd seen that video and others like it. And I think I understand, too, the basic outline of your philosophy. My main question was Who was sitting in the car and turned on the headlights?!? Was that Kevin? (Joke, just a joke).

Really the main question I would have, and possibly anyone would have, is that if enlightenment results in freedom from delusion, why are they so deluded who preach it? Who sing its virtues? Because that is (obviously) so, it makes me think you are speaking and writing about an idealized state or an imagined state of realization. I know that probably sound like an insult and I honestly don't quite mean it like that. Am I not understanding something? Is it the word 'delusion'? What I have heard from the people who are attached to this philosophy and who speak about it, to be undeluded brings one to a state where one 'does God's will' automatically, so to speak. Cathy who used to post here said that often. Is that also your view?

Is it possible to teach enlightenment, as you define it (know it, otherwise how could you speak authoritatively about it? And would you agree that to speak authoritatively about it when one had not fully 'realized' it would be hypocritical and necessarily misleading, would you agree? Or, is enlightenenment something that can be received and repeated like a formula, without actually understanding/embodying it? (I will assume a 'no' here).

This will I imagine amount to just another stupid Alex Question, but can or do the Enlightened disagree? How do you know if a given person is enlightened? Does it depend on words? My impression has often been that your style of enlightenment is very dependent on words: a wordy, analytical, 'reasoned' approach to enlightenment. But do you know (of) a person whom you know is enlightened who never spoke a word? And how would you know? Through he eyes? Through some sixth sense?

Do you accept for example the 'enlightened status' of Ramana Maharahi? If so, do you accept what was often said about him: that he was able to affect people---transform them or initiate some fairly profound change---just by being in his presence?

I am not fucking with you, Dan. But there is as always a little shade or irony.

And I do very much want to hear your program for the education of youngsters. High School if you wish but I am pretty convinced that a 'good' education must run through all the years of a child's life and especially stressed early. But we would I think disagree about what the focus of that education would be.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

Post by Alex Jacob »

Blurap: I don't think that I do not understand the philosophy in outline. I have read a great deal of Kevin's stuff, also Dan's, certainly David's, and watched the vids a number of times. I write 'against', if you will, the formulations of those who claim enlightenment. What they say, how they act, and what they omit.
Ni ange, ni bête
Locked