The Century of the Self

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Pye »

. . . well, I mean, it's no spirituality at all . . . .
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Pye,
I'm thinking it's not a kissing-ass thing, per se. It's more like a wide streak of iconoclasm in me. Any tendency to respect for respect's sake, or to hold up for the holding up of another . . . . well, let me think how to put this. You've (Dennis) written in the past in reaction to others who you perceived as being 'disrespectful' - to David, to "great thinkers" and the like - that perhaps the respect ought to be there, any 'nobility' recognized for the sake of its own sake. You talked once about of 'falling in love' with these 'great' thinkers, which I brushed forward for the same reasons as now.
I used to read in the fashion of dilettante and got nowhere.

I don't mean 'falling in love' with 'great thinkers'.

I mean 'listening like a lover'.

Back in the day,
I would 'fall in love with a chick',
and what was astonishing was a newly found experience of 'hanging on every word',
a revitalisation,
a breakthru' in communication possibility,
a sense of wonder,
as a matter of course the possibility broke down because it depended on the thoughts and actions of a party external to me.

Anyway, I distinguished 'listening'
and came again to Philosophy newly organised.

Not claiming expertise.
just a recontextualisation that opens it up.

The great thinkers wanted me to cognite a 'way of being'.
I reckon I 'got' it after a fashion,
long way to go.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Pye »

roger that.
glad for the opportunity to wrap some words around it, s'all.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Glad for your courage Pye.
thanks.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by guest_of_logic »

I wrote:
Dennis Mahar wrote:See what I mean?

reacted.
Though, if no one were to "react" to anything anyone else said, none of us would post anything and we'd have a dead forum. Or do you distinguish "non-reactive" posts from "reactive" posts? If so, how?
I see I misread the context, which wasn't, as I'd first thought, reaction as in "having one's buttons pushed" but reaction as to justify a mechanical view of consciousness. As you were.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What was missing then?
Why don't you tell us? :-)

Alex,

In truth, my perspective is not "Whole", as there is much that I don't know (but which I would like to know); I have mentioned only three fairly fixed aspects. In contrast, you represent the Medieval system as "Whole". From the start, then, I'm suspicious of this tethering attempt, and, in fact, I'd suggest that the three fairly fixed aspects I've mentioned could be found in almost any religious or spiritual system. Do you see that? I think you at least see that they can be found in modern Christianity as much as in Medieval Christianity, because you write: "Most true-believer Christians hold to such a view or to some facsimile of it".

The detail you've offered so far of the Medieval system is: "God was above, the Church mediated God, man below dedicated to his labors, his tithing, and there was a clear sense of Evil and Good, and a general belief-understanding of where 'sin' led".

I think I'm most wary here of universalising a single system; whilst I think the example of Christ is a shining one, there are people who either are not, were not, or will not be exposed to his message, nor to his Church. It seems to me then that this is neither a necessary nor a singular system, not to mention that, personally, I am not so sure of the things you outline above, or at least of those things that are implied by them; in particular, the whole system of, and interrelationship between, sin, hell, virtue, faith and heaven, and the ultimate nature of God.

You also mention past scientific thinkers as though they somehow disqualify my views, but really (in my view) there is no inherent contradiction between spiritual forces (both divine and diabolical) and modern science; any supposed contradictions arise (in my view) out of ideology, not science. Most likely, I do not hold any of the Medieval views that are unscientific by modern standards, such as geocentrism, and I think you should recognise that the validity of geocentrism or creationism or the like need not affect the validity of the spiritual metaphysic I've canvassed.

As for "where will you locate the demons? In Copernicus? Galileo? Spinoza? Kant? Darwin?", I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that scientific thinking itself is the problem, so much as the notion that science has superseded spirituality (as I defined it earlier), and that we can and ought to covet to our hearts' unlimited content the consumer goods that science and technology have afforded us, and to "do as we please". I think it is those notions which are "un"inspired.

You write, "Well, as you may imagine, I do not divide the world into Demonic and a Divine camp", and yet you do have a belief in divinity of some sort. I'm not sure why, then, you would find it so hard to imagine opposing forces.
Laird: Pye already knows that I respect her intellect, and my comments were not intended to detract from that.

Alex: Be that as it may: click here.
I'm not sure what you mean to suggest by that. As much as I don't want to doubt your good intentions, it almost seems like an attempt to "wage war" with one of us (I'm not sure which).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest_of_logic wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Perhaps a way to look at this is the biblical notion of house cleaning after an "unclean spirit" left. It will return with seven others if it finds it back cleaned and tidy. The man is now worse off indeed (based a parable in Matthew 12). This is the typical problem with selflessness or liberation in my view. What was missing then?
Why don't you tell us? :-)
The holy ghost, what else? But lets face it, normally this conversation is about the first attempts at cleaning house and purification by the incense of reason. But the point of any exorcism is not the drama just as the point of "abstinence" wouldn't be punishment even when in many cases it would boil down to it as drama will always cry and demand the stage.

Perhaps I should say it like this: any spirituality which doesn't ignite with some fundamental and deep realization will almost never go anywhere since it will fall down as a form of decadence, of destruction, self-hate and "will to nothingness" operating as main drive. This of course is exactly the main critique repeatedly written about any philosophy addressing ultimate reality. And it's hard to clearly draw the lines in the sand to distinguish between the one and the other process. After all, demons are still being cast out, foaming is still at the mouth and tongues still speaking as "legion". What matters here is the process of fulfillment, of being inhabited by another type of spirit, which just means movement or breath essentially. Not getting stuck in any stance which was so well described in David's piece mastering perspective. Perspectives can be skillfully navigated through but any language talking about this process becomes surprisingly similar and provides yet another challenge: not getting stuck in the mainly linguistic perspective of being free from perspectives.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Alex Jacob »

Laird wrote:In truth, my perspective is not "Whole", as there is much that I don't know (but which I would like to know); I have mentioned only three fairly fixed aspects. In contrast, you represent the Medieval system as "Whole". From the start, then, I'm suspicious of this tethering attempt, and, in fact, I'd suggest that the three fairly fixed aspects I've mentioned could be found in almost any religious or spiritual system. Do you see that? I think you at least see that they can be found in modern Christianity as much as in Medieval Christianity, because you write: "Most true-believer Christians hold to such a view or to some facsimile of it".
I don't think it has really to do with what a person 'knows' and this is not what links one to a Medieval world-view. If you do a Google search with 'Medieval demons' and look under 'images' and then another search with only 'demons' you will see that the same core is functioning there only it has a new veneer overlaid. I do apologize that by referring to images and also to the unconscious that I am invoking Depth Psychology (Jungianism) which complicates conversation and is not really where I want to go with this. And while it is true that almost any spiritual or religious system may have similar aspects, I think that Medieval Christianity comes with a particular flavor that is unique. The imagery says a great deal.

And when you ask 'Can you see that?' the answer I think is 'yes', and then I would be forced to further trace the lines of Western thinking as it turned in on itself with that penetrating Athenan eye and basically dismantled the entire metaphysic and mythos upon which all the archaic religious systems had been constructed. And what that means is something particularly ravaging for the local individual: that individual lives in a world that is like an uprooted forest. But not just one uprooting but an uprooting of the uprooted forest, and then again and again and again. Invoking the names of those thinkers who set the ground for an attack is to describe an arc of penetrating insight. What interests me greatly is that the waves and ripples from this destruction continue to expand. And there are some factions of persons who are still, largely, located within what are essentially Medieval world-views or symbol systems.
I think I'm most wary here of universalising a single system; whilst I think the example of Christ is a shining one, there are people who either are not, were not, or will not be exposed to his message, nor to his Church. It seems to me then that this is neither a necessary nor a singular system, not to mention that, personally, I am not so sure of the things you outline above, or at least of those things that are implied by them; in particular, the whole system of, and interrelationship between, sin, hell, virtue, faith and heaven, and the ultimate nature of God.
And with penetrating Biblical scholarship even the platform holding up 'Jesus Christ' is brought into doubt. Who or what is being referred to? Some literal person? A God-man? When one starts poking around behind and inside of the symbols, the whole picture changes. And all these tendencies of intense penetration are so much a part of us, our traditions, and our trajectory, have arisen generally speaking in those specific thinkers who overturned an entire WorldView.

I also have the feeling that even those 'opposed' to the overall System, even the heretics, are still in fact functioning within the System. The system of view was indeed universal: there was simply no other. Well, 'paganism' I suppose was an alternative but it was not able to hold up against the onslaught of such an organized and compelling Roman-Catholic system.

My personal view is that 'sin, hell, virtue, faith and heaven' are still profoundly operative ideas. They are parts of a Whole that, post-explosion, are isolated from the Whole and, in their own strange ways, take on an independent life, and certainly in America!
You also mention past scientific thinkers as though they somehow disqualify my views, but really (in my view) there is no inherent contradiction between spiritual forces (both divine and diabolical) and modern science; any supposed contradictions arise (in my view) out of ideology, not science. Most likely, I do not hold any of the Medieval views that are unscientific by modern standards, such as geocentrism, and I think you should recognise that the validity of geocentrism or creationism or the like need not affect the validity of the spiritual metaphysic I've canvassed.
The reason they were mentioned is that it is through their investigations and penetrations that the whole ground under our feet was excavated. This continued at an alarming pace until in substantial ways 'the world as we know it' is undermined and we don't know where we stand.

The only 'contradiction' is that 'modern science' has no way available to it to speak about either the divine or the demonic! And that is a huge issue! This issue rings---is ringing---through our present; through you and me, through all these conversations and confrontations on this forum! You most certainly hold a view that is completely unscientific and, according to those standards, indefensible: that of the existence of demons, and either demons or angels, or God! And here you enter into a 'conflict' with modern psychology and Freud (and Jung although Jung could easily be described, to coin Dan's term 'a religious nutter')(heh heh) that is on-going. There is a world-movement that has a strong interest in decimating the position of the 'religious nutters': driving it into the ground and driving them away or in any case underground. But the buried view structure is still there, functioning. Or in any case that is the psychological view.
You write, "Well, as you may imagine, I do not divide the world into Demonic and a Divine camp", and yet you do have a belief in divinity of some sort. I'm not sure why, then, you would find it so hard to imagine opposing forces.
As I have said a few times, if push came to shove, my notion of God is 'Brahmanic'. But it is very hard and also to some extent pointless to speak about that because it quickly turns into the revelation of a kind of mysticism which is only supported by personal and subjective experience. I do speak about 'hermeticism' as a way of bridging a gap between overt religion and spirituality (in the sense normally understood) and, well, any other possible view-structure, not the least being our Modern, Scientific View. And I am certainly drawn to Jung's ideas about Mercurius as a 'presiding spirit', but I do not have any satisfactory language to support any part of that. It riffs off of archaic views, it can move in and out of them, but isn't fixed in any of them, and certainly not in the 'conclusions' of Modern Science and its inevitabilities.
________________________

As to the vid of Cherry Pie. What can I say? Sweet subject, sour sense of humor?
Ni ange, ni bête
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Laird,
I see I misread the context, which wasn't, as I'd first thought, reaction as in "having one's buttons pushed" but reaction as to justify a mechanical view of consciousness. As you were.
Consciousness identifies, differentiates, reacts.

What if we said,
A Call and Response.

Being in-the-world or 'the situation' is called-to.
'Called to response'

You are that response.

When I was 'pushing your buttons', Laird, last week about alcoholic, whinging etc.. I thought your response was pretty good as a response.
As though there was no 'reactivity' present.
Or a commitment to not add fuel to the fire.
or stiffening resolutely in the face of
or being there composedly whilst a silly terrier snapped at the heels

The really big button you've got in relation to QRS is 'Woman', a 'sore emotional spot'.
You can't 'hear' Dan 'til that's cleared up.
Until what QRS has differentiated in that regard is understood and your 'reactivity' on it dissolved.


I think you've managed to assess the 'situation' or being-in-the-world from a spiritual perspective somewhat Laird.
Broken thru' a mesh of self-orientation to a grander picture.
Called to Spirit as a possibility.

(assessment)
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Unidian »

I'll get on board with the idea of Dan being one of the best writers around here, for sure. He really is very good - even the scripts he writes for the video format are top-notch. Of course, it should go without saying that this doesn't mean I agree with everything he writes, although I do agree with a good deal of it, and even the rest is stylistically and technically well-done.

Of course, I could just be trying to kiss his ass in an effort to restore some kind of friendship with him - which is something I might actually try if I thought it had any chance of working. But this is Dan we're talking about - I'd be wasting my efforts. The way to get on Dan's good side is and always been simply to say things that make at least a certain amount of sense.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Dan Rowden »

Well, that certainly helps. Sending my a slab wouldn't hurt none either :)
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Unidian »

A slab. Hmm... going to have to consult the Aussie slang book on that one...

Oh... well, that shouldn't be a problem. There's even a handy website for it. Too bad I'm about as broke as always. And it looks like their selection might not be the best... Corona?

https://sendaslab.com.au/
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Dan Rowden »

Oh no, foreign muck! Hush your mouth.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Laird, I forgot to mention, I have a bow and I'm going to shoot Bambi dead, how unethical is that.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Laird, I forgot to mention, I have a bow and I'm going to shoot Bambi dead, how unethical is that.

When I was a kid the cultural implant was Woman as Bambi.
Men were the provider, protector, kept an eye on the little lady like a supervisor, instructed her, chastised her blah blah blah. while she 'ditzed' around in pretty frocks working on the latest recipe for blueberry shortcake.

In the 70's, women, capable of thinking courageously,aimed a double barrelled shotgun at Bambi and pulled the trigger.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

I'm pretty much incapable of talking to you Dennis, that's how I know, I'm surprised you accepted "just cause, why not" as a reason for 'teaching'/bluntly telling people about their issues. You are a better person than I am, I wouldn't put up with the inevitable defences, or be able to accept how much of it would be wasted, trying to help even one is enough for me, took me 2 years of confrontation for myself, I can imagine most can't even begin, let alone survive it and change.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Dennis Mahar »

every day you get up and try to figure out all over again how to live,

correct?
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Not exactly sure I would put it like that, think kid playing or on holidays, I'm mostly headed nowhere which people call doing nothing, but as we know, everyone does nothing.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The problem with screaming 'it's an illusion' from the rooftops is that you'll wind up needing enemies to remain cheerful.

sure, it's empty.
you forgot empty is empty.

the jokes on you,
you make 'illusion solid.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Alex Jacob »

Whoa, deep!
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Tomas »

Alex Jacob wrote:Whoa, deep!
Much like the recent thread Dennis started. Going nowhere, bottom dweller (feeder).
Don't run to your death
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You're not supposed to have 'emptiness' in 2 hands.
You're supposed to have emptiness in one hand and dependent origination in the other and bring them together.

seeker, Dan directed you to his video:

Ultimate Reality is This!

Pye directs us to What, What-is-it.

This!
instantly looks like relationship.

What-is-it is where concepts are generated.

This and What.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Tomas, funny you say that, there is actually no lower form of being than you, my sisters dog Mimi who is too dumb not to shit on the carpet no doubt deserves more respect than the guy following around the " bottom feeder“, keep staying at my heels little pup.

And Dennis, I don't speak much and I tell the people who don't know on gf sometimes, even a brushed off sentence can stick, which is also your method. You are simply confused because I am accustomed to sitting in odd rags, I prefer the sun over Alex or Alexander the great
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Tomas »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Tomas, funny you say that, there is actually no lower form of being than you, my sisters dog Mimi who is too dumb not to shit on the carpet no doubt deserves more respect than the guy following around the " bottom feeder“, keep staying at my heels little pup.
Still sleeping on your brother's sofa? Fuck, all of 19 and you've given up.

You are still a boy, certainly not a man.

I enjoy reading Dennis, it's you who don't geddit.
Don't run to your death
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Lol, I'm a child, you are an egotistical child pretending to be more. It is a bed in a room and I make more than enough. Is that where your self worth comes from? Possessions? I would say a successful person is one who can be happy with nothing. You think selfishly working to gain things is some kind of contribution to be proud of?

You enjoy following little boys around to taunt them Tomas, be a man and give it up don't talk to me if this is your thing.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Century of the Self

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Tomas,

when you push his buttons he fires up like a grizzly bear.
somehow its not a dream/illusion any more.

he's comfortable giving the advice he can't manage himself.
Locked