The Century of the Self

[Diebert van Rhijn]

He's done well in the financial field of life s

Many sociopaths are also doing well financially. But making money has only little relation to making value or even truth. You as former political speech writer should know ;)

[Alex Jacob]

I've come see Alex as more of a Jester than anything on this forum, clowning around with interesting literary styles, singing an endless amount of songs (youtube links), and supplies smiles and winks for everyone. But when he ventures into the real matters in which he has no business getting into, he fails miserably in following the logic. It often doesn't take more than the first few sentences of his essays-of-posts before the contradictions and lack of understanding arise. He cannot remove the clown makeup, so to speak. It is utterly beyond his abilities.

You'd have to speak in some depth of what you refer to with 'real matters in which he has no business getting into'. And to show where the failures in 'following the logic' are. If you took the time to do that it would, at least, make things more interesting. And it would reveal your own understandings, whatever they may be.

And Jesters have their place! Sometimes they are the only ones allowed to tell the truth. Did you know that? The jesters serve a special function. Even perhaps within Eastern cultures.

• "Jesters do oft prove prophets."
  
  "Truth’s a dog must to kennel; he must be whipp’d out."

_____________________________________________

Money in my view is only useful up to a point. But poverty is rarely useful, IMO.

[Nick]

Alex is too caught up in life, a life which takes place on a stage of alienation, suppression, and exploitation with a myriad of deranged and mystical characters; broken men and women destined to play out their roles, unconsciously seeking revelation. He seems to have an unusual awareness of its fundamentally irrational nature which allows him to change character as he pleases, but is still unable to take a step back from it in order to see things clearly.

I think his fascination with GF stems from the fact that it has been designed in a way so one must rid their self of character, and stand naked before reality. He is determined to find a costume lying around here some where that he can try on for size, but he has yet to realize, or more likely will never realize that there is no closet, no costumes, and no roles to be played; only emptiness.

[Russell Parr]

Diebert, great points, thanks for that.

Tomas,

[...]our age of sixty.

By "our" do you mean you and Alex?

Alex,

You'd have to speak in some depth of what you refer to with 'real matters in which he has no business getting into'.

I mean whenever you talk about enlightenment, a useless term by your measure, nothing of use comes out of it.. precisely because you regard it to be useless. Instead you just chunk the ideal in the waste basket and go off on a tangent regarding the dialogue here on the basis of whatever whimsical feeling you have at the moment. It's not like you don't know this, you often admit to not knowing the idealistic motivation behind those of us sharing inquiries about enlightenment.

It's quite simple, Alex. You just don't know what enlightenment is.

And to show where the failures in 'following the logic' are.

Been down that road. Besides, it's been pointed out to you countless times, in countless ways, by others that are much more eloquent than myself. Let's just say I am in agreement with them, as far as I can tell.

[...]make things more interesting.

Oh don't worry, I had no intention of amusing you. Just providing a bit of narrative.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Nick spoke it, people are still convinced they need something, anyone with ambition doesn't yet know, empty of person, a nobody can't know what he wants, enlightenment is letting go of self and delusions, there is no other option but to accept that there is nothing more than day to day life, I personally think it is very related to happiness and bliss, despite what others might say, life is incredible when you aren't caught up in fears/wants. If you want fulfillment , empty yourself. Close to a quote.

[Alex Jacob]

He was talking in respect to his wife, Bluerap.

I think his fascination with GF stems from the fact that it has been designed in a way so one must rid their self of character, and stand naked before reality. He is determined to find a costume lying around here some where that he can try on for size, but he has yet to realize, or more likely will never realize that there is no closet, no costumes, and no roles to be played; only emptiness.

It is nice to try to come up with compact and concise labels. Sometimes they will fit but sometimes they don't. We take shots in the dark. You are right in a few senses, certainly. Since 'ridding ourself of self' is not and cannot be a goal I can ever accept, since it is pathological. You can work with self, you can diminish 'bad' aspects of self, and you can also even become naked. 'Standing naked' in front of reality, or God, or Creation, however one understands it, most certainly has its place. But there is a counter-movement to that, in my view. It is directly tied to it in fact. Service to people, service if you will 'to history', temporality. My impression is that 'you' turn your spirituality into a personal dissolving away from your human self. I say that is a mistake. But perhaps I am misunderstanding. When I have encountered 'sages', and there have been a few, through in unlikely places, they have shown me the two sides: a fearless side to face 'reality' as you say, and another one that turns back to humankind with real humanness. 'You' desire to poison your human side, your human heart. And then to shrivel away and 'die'. And that dying is not really 'spirituality' but half-aliveness. 'Emptiness', as I understand the doctrine and the way it is used, is a tool to escape from certain things.

If you want fulfillment, empty yourself.

The same idea and activity is expressed in different traditions. Stop focussing on yourself exclusively, start showing concern for others.

[Russell Parr]

He was talking in respect to his wife, Bluerap.

Ah, thanks. How old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

[Alex Jacob]

I've been 35-36 for just over 50 years now. ;-) I would place you between as young as 23 and maybe 27?

[Russell Parr]

27, good guess. I figured you were in late 30s-40s

[Alex Jacob]

Excuse the question phrased in this way, but when I refer, with that Alexian deviousness, to 'boys' and 'boyishness', what does it make you think or feel?

What I am really getting at is: how open are you to the possibility of your present perspectives radically changing? It is not a very fair question because I don't really know what exactly are your perspectives (you don't write much or about that).

[Russell Parr]

Excuse the question phrased in this way, but when I refer, with that Alexian deviousness, to 'boys' and 'boyishness', what does it make you think or feel?

Maybe a little angst early on, before I caught wind of the underlying nature of your expressions. Nowadays not much of anything.. any statement based on irrelevant merits aren't really worth fretting over.

What I am really getting at is: how open are you to the possibility of your present perspectives radically changing? It is not a very fair question because I don't really know what exactly are your perspectives (you don't write much or about that).

I think it's a fair question. It's not hard to tell that I agree with what 'QRS' is promoting.

I'm always open to change. As far as perspectives go, I hope and aim for any change to be a reasonable one, always increasing in accuracy and wisdom.

[Cahoot]

Money in my view is only useful up to a point. But poverty is rarely useful, IMO.

To be poor and unknown does allow one the opportunity to experience, without resentment, an indifferent world that gives only to get, which can be useful to understanding.

"Choosers can't be beggars."
- Ken Kesey

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Alex, I know the idea is expressed in different ways/cultures, it was an abbreviated quote after all.

[Dan Rowden]

More importantly Alex's interpretation of the "quote" is utterly wrong. It has nothing to do with not being selfish and thinking more of others. How the hell can thinking of others be less deluded and selfish than thinking of oneself?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I was just discussing this with Dennis, deluded people are looking after something missing, thinking of others/themselves, it is only those who still feel they need something who are chasing. Here is a real quote, very much wisdom.

"Less and less do you need to control things, until finally you arrive at non action“

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Johny, the quote you're raping a bit as usual since it's all about "unlearning", "diminishing" or at the very least about stop "forcing" things in the Tao The Ching 48, which you ripped it from.

And that while the Suzuki version is rather splendid: "He who seeks Reason will daily diminish. He will diminish and continue to diminish until he arrives at non-assertion. With non-assertion there is nothing that he cannot achieve."

This is all about the degree of responsiveness or responsibility one can take on. When the forcing of self-important and attached beliefs is surrendered, there's finally room for everything else to happen.

[Alex Jacob]

If you want fulfillment , empty yourself.

I had no idea where the quote came from. I took it at face value, in a common-sense sort of way. On any road traveled there is always a first step. And people HAVE found (i.e. those contemptible, all-too-human persons from which 'you' are so obviously distinguished!) that by taking the focus off themselves: off of their self-pity, their attempting to fulfill their unending 'needs' and desires, and shifting the focus to the needs of other people, that they feel at least 'more fulfilled'. This is pretty basic stuff.

But it is obvious that I am speaking from a different 'value-platform'. True, it is linked as are all things I write to my core ignorance, but what else is expected?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In the mean while, what often happens in life outside books is that people run away from their own emptiness and fill it with the needs or matters of others instead. The whole dilemma is now externalized but the drama will still continue, perhaps all as some variety of the Dutch disease. In my opinion the only important factor on the largest or smallest scale, inner and outer, is natural resource, a well, a spring, a mounting springing up by some freak force of nature. This will define everything else including all imaginary "positions" one might take on demand or supply, need and help.

[Alex Jacob]

But it is obvious that I am speaking from a different 'value-platform'. True, it is linked as are all things I write to my core ignorance, but what else is expected?

While it IS true that a person could transfer their obsession with avoiding themselves to the 'help' of others, it is just a statement of simple fact that when people turn their attention and their energies to helping other people in what ways they can, and there are many, it often produces all sorts of positive effects: in the helper, the helped and in a general sense 'in society'. But clearly, I have taken a stand in defining a way of relating to and acting in Life, and I set it up in contradistinction to the 'narcissim' of the GF approach. To force the issue, any issue, into polarizations is not usually helpful, but here it is required.

In my opinion the only important factor on the largest or smallest scale, inner and outer, is natural resource, a well, a spring, a mounting springing up by some freak force of nature. This will define everything else including all imaginary "positions" one might take on demand or supply, need and help.

Hmmm. Curiously evocative imagery! This returns 'us'---me at least---to the Chinese notion of The Well: those wellsprings of life inside of us with which we nourish ourselves, like plants are nourished. And just as it proposes in the Wilhelm edition (the unwise and the deluded refer to such things and only illustrate their deluded condition, insert sad face here) it speaks about various means to access this 'living water'. But if the rope is too short, or if the bucket to hold the water is cracked, or if too the Well is filled with mud and it unserviceable: that represents a real misfortune. The Water that we draw must be a water that can really nourish and lead to flourishing of life. It is a water that functions on many many different levels: from child education to moral and ethical education and up into those lofty heights where (even!) our Local Sages (*genuflections*) have their home!

Finding one's 'fullness' then becomes a whole group of questions, an investigation of a whole group of possibilities. And so much hinges on how 'fullness' is defined and who is doing the valuation.

In some, but not in all senses, I would explain aspects of the GF philosophy as corresponding to the following imagery:

• One does not drink the mud of the well.
  
  No animals come to an old well.
  
  If a man wanders around in swampy lowlands, his life is submerged in mud. Such a man loses all significance for mankind. He who throws himself away is no longer sought out by others. In the end no one troubles about him any more.
  
  At the well hole one shoots fishes.
  
  The jug is broken and leaks.

All of this I will happily explain for those who need a little hermeneutical assistance!

But this sums up, in my view, the core errors in the GF System:

• There is no skin on his thighs,
  And walking comes hard.
  If a man were to let himself be led like a sheep,
  Remorse would disappear.
  But if these words are heard
  They will not be believed.
  
  Here a man is suffering from inner restlessness and cannot abide in his place. He would like to push forward under any circumstances, but encounters insuperable obstacles. Thus his situation entails an inner conflict. This is due to the obstinacy with which he seeks to enforce his will. If he would desist from this obstinacy, everything would go well. But this advice, like so much other good counsel, will be ignored. For obstinacy makes a man unable to hear, for all that he has ears.

[Dennis Mahar]

The 'object appearing' in your mind:

QRS.

sure gets you riled.

like a cat on a hot tin roof

seduced.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As opposed to "natural resource", so much of so-called "breast feeding philosophy" would keep revolving around some mystical wishing well which would power all of the inner and outer life in some similar fashion as clockwork. But as one could invoke the word real misfortune, so we have also real fortunes. But when the forcing begins one can see already dreams of some simultaneous, predictable and controllable functionality of a preferred "solution" drifting by.

[Alex Jacob]

Could I get that in translation?

[Dennis Mahar]

Diebert's talking about 'winning formula' as machinery.

and suggesting spontaneity I guess as a response.