The Century of the Self

[Alex Jacob]

Um, for 'judge' the verb 'examinar' serves that function. Look into, consider. One comes before another to be examined. That sense. You might do away with the 'alone' and you would have 'In the evening of life, you'll be judged on love'. The fact that it is about love, or in the consideration of love, necessitates the clarification 'alone' but, yes, the similar 'solo' or 'unicamente' or another Spanish word is not there.

A la tarde doesn't actually quite read 'in the evening of life', but it seems to be implied. You might translate it 'in the end', or 'toward the end'.

You could say, perhaps, 'toward the final hour', or 'in life's finality', or 'as life closes', or 'in the final years'. You'd have to select a similar phrase in English that expresses what is intended in Spanish.

To translate it, you'd have to be familiar with the bulk of his writings on the subject of love, its importance, etc. That notion of love is, naturally, inspired by notions of the sort of love (kindness, good will, helpfulness) that is described in the Gospels: that would have been a source of inspiration for the writer.

You will of course remember [while you simultaneously vomit] that in Christian terms God made a sacrifice to man out of [from a mystical perspective] love; and God requires love from man. Generally, and in most Catholic/Christian writing these two facts or conditions are a unity. One loves God and one loves God's creations; and because God made the supreme sacrifice for [unworthy] man, man must mirror that sort of love toward God's creatures and assume the role that Christ/God took in relation to man. One acts, in this sense, in Christ's stead. In this sort of mysticism these would all be 'mysteries' to be explored and known. And all these ideas are central to Christian concepts, its ethical tenets

One assumes SJ de la Cruz is situated within those perspectives, and so the statement 'A la tarde te examinarán en el amor; aprende a amar como Dios quiere ser amado y deja tu condición' is part of unified system: religious, ethical, personal, etc.

You're right: they are didactic sayings but by a poetically inclined writer. It is also 16th century writing, so the usages of that period would have to be known.

Here's a rough A=A version: 'Later, it will be later'. Or 'As it gets later, it will be getting later'. Tautological, but damned effective! Put the ladies to sleep and the mathematicians in a swoon!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"A la tarde te examinarán en el amor".

This is the actual phrase. It translates pretty well thusly: 'In the evening of life, we will be judged on love alone'.

Um, where are the words "judged" and "alone" in the original Spanish sentence? These are sayings, not poetry, strictly speaking. There's not that much room for interpretive translation.

Dan, just to clarify, the issue here and in my view also the central issue at the time in the discussion was not as much any subtle differences between the word examining and judging or the added "only". It's more about any notion of love in the context of the author's rather dark self-deprecation which would be warped out of proportion by quoting this one sentence, even in any "right" translation. It's a crucial distinction to know what is meant here by "love" or unity with God or any road leading towards that and it's certainly no general Catholic or Christian theology in the same way as Meister Eckhart isn't.

For those interested in the actual thought of John of the Cross, here are some core excerpts from a major work as opposed to the earlier referenced "minor works". Just for the record, this doesn't mean it's my philosophy but certainly has been inspirational to me in the past and to my knowing also has strongly influenced for example Pam and others over the years.

• Ascent of Mount Carmel -CHAPTER III - Speaks of the first cause of this night, which is that of the privation of the desire in all things, and gives the reason for which it is called night. We here describe as night the privation of every kind of pleasure which belongs to the desire; for, even as night is naught but the privation of light, and, consequently, of all objects that can be seen by means of light, whereby the visual faculty remains unoccupied and in darkness, even so likewise the mortification of desire may be called night to the soul. For, when the soul is deprived of the pleasure of its desire in all things, it remains, as it were, unoccupied and in darkness. For even as the visual faculty, by means of light, is nourished and fed by objects which can be seen, and which, when the light is quenched, are not seen, even so, by means of the desire, the soul is nourished and fed by all things wherein it can take pleasure according to its faculties; and, when this also is quenched, or rather, mortified, the soul ceases to feed upon the pleasure of all things, and thus, with respect to its desire, it remains unoccupied and in darkness.

• Ascent of Mount Carmel - CHAPTER IV - Wherein is declared how necessary it is for the soul truly to pass through this dark night of sense, which is mortification of desire, in order that it may journey to union with God. The reason for which it is necessary for the soul, in order to attain to Divine union with God, to pass through this dark night of mortification of the desires and denial of pleasures in all things, is because all the affections which it has for creatures are pure darkness in the eyes of God, and, when the soul is clothed in these affections, it has no capacity for being enlightened and possessed by the pure and simple light of God.... The reason is that two contraries (even as philosophy teaches us) cannot coexist in one person; and that darkness, which is affection set upon the creatures, and light, which is God, are contrary to each other, and have no likeness or accord between one another, even as Saint Paul taught the Corinthians, saying: ... What communion can there be between light and darkness? Hence it is that the light of Divine union cannot dwell in the soul if these affections first flee not away from it.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm pretty cautious about ascribing too much "sane" meaning to the scribblings of a man whose outlook is, despite the possible interpretations of the rhetoric, entrenched in a personal view of a God who has consciousness and acts from such. I'm not seeing too much resemblance to Eckhart. Looks too much like standard Catholic ascetic submission theology to me. However, I concede I haven't read much beyond the material linked to in this thread.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I'm pretty cautious about ascribing too much "sane" meaning to the scribblings of a man whose outlook is, despite the possible interpretations of the rhetoric, entrenched in a personal view of a God who has consciousness and acts from such.

That makes sense but you seemed to ask him a sane question nevertheless :-)

[Dan Rowden]

1. The Master has always revealed to mortals the treasures of her wisdom and her spirit, but now that the face of evil bares itself more and more, so does the Master bare her treasures more.

2. O Master, my Wife, who will seek you with simple and pure love, and not find that you are all one can desire, for you show yourself first and go out to meet those who seek you?

3.Though the path is plain and smooth for people of good will, those who walk it will not travel far, and will do so only with difficulty if they do not have good feet, courage, and tenacity of spirit.

4. It is better to be burdened and in company with the strong than to be unburdened and with the weak. When you are burdened you are close to Wife, your strength, who abides with the afflicted. When you are relieved of the burden you are close to yourself, your own weakness; for virtue and strength of soul grow and are confirmed in the trials of patience.

5. He who wants to stand alone without the support of a master and guide, will be like the tree that stands alone in a field without a proprietor. No matter how much the tree bears, passers-by will pick the fruit before it ripens.

6. A tree that is cultivated and guarded through the care of its owner produces its fruit at the expected time.

7. The virtuous soul that is alone and without a master, is like a lone burning coal; it will grow colder rather than hotter.

8. He who falls alone remains alone in her fall, and he values her soul little since he entrusts it to Herself alone.

9. If you do not fear falling alone, how do you presume that you will rise up alone? Consider how much more can be accomplished by two together than by one alone.

10. He who falls while heavily laden will find it difficult to rise under the burden.

11. The blind man who falls will not get up alone in her blindness, and if he does, he will take the wrong road.

12. Wife desires the least degree of purity of conscience in you more than all the works you can perform.

13. Wife desires the least degree of obedience and submissiveness more than all those services you think of rendering Her.

14. Wife values in you an inclination to aridity and suffering for love of Her more than all possible consolations, spiritual visions, and meditations.

15. Deny your desires and you will find what your heart longs for. For how do you know if any desire of yours is according to Wife?

16. O sweetest love of Wife, so little known, he who has found its veins is at rest!

17. Since a double measure of bitterness must follow the doing of your own will, do not do it even though you remain in single bitterness.

18. The soul that carries within itself the least appetite for worldly things bears more unseemliness and impurity in its journey to Wife than if it were troubled by all the hideous and annoying temptations and darknesses describable; for, so long as it does not consent to these, a soul thus tempted can approach Wife confidently, by doing the will of her majesty, Who proclaims: Come to Me all you who labor and are heavily burdened and I will refresh you. [Mt. 11:28]

19. The person who in aridity and trial submits to the dictates of her reason is more pleasing to Wife than he who does everything with consolation, yet fails in their submission.

20. Wife is more pleased by one work, however small, done secretly, without desire that it be known, than a thousand done with desire that men know of them. The person who works for Wife with purest love not only cares nothing about whether men see Her, but does not even seek that Wife Herself know of them. Such a person would not cease to render Wife the same services, with the same joy and purity of love, even if Wife were never to know of them.

21. He who does a pure and whole work for Wife merits a whole kingdom.

22. A bird caught in birdlime has a two fold task: it must free itself and cleanse itself. And he who satisfies her appetite suffers in a twofold way: he must detach Herself and, after being detached, cleanse Herself of what has clung to Her.

23. He who does not allow her appetites to carry Her away will soar in her spirit as swiftly as the bird that lacks no feathers.

24. The fly that clings to honey hinders its flights, and the soul that allows itself attachment to spiritual sweetness hinders its own liberty and contemplation.

25. Withdraw from creatures if you desire to preserve, clear and simple in your soul, the image of Wife. Empty your spirit and withdraw far from them and you will walk in divine lights, for Wife is not like creatures.

PRAYER OF A SOUL TAKEN WITH LOVE

Master Wife, my Beloved, if You remember still my sins in suchwise that you do not do what I beg of You, do your will concerning them, my Wife, which is what I most desire, and exercise Your goodness and mercy, and You will be known through them. And if it is that you are waiting for my good works so as to hear my prayer through their means, grant them to me, and work them for me, and the sufferings You desire to accept, and let it be done. But if You are not waiting for my works, what is it that makes You wait, my most clement Master? Why do You delay? For if, after all, I am to receive the grace and mercy which I entreat of You in Your Son, take my mite, since You desire it, and grant me ther blessing, since You also desire that.
Who can free Herself from lowly manners and limitations if You do not lift Her to yourself, my Wife, in purity of love? How will a man begotten and nurtured in lowliness rise up to You, Master, if You do not raise Her with Your hand which made Her?
You will not take from me, my Wife, what You once gave me in Your only son, Jesus Christ, in Whom You gave me all I desire. Hence I rejoice that if I wait for You, You will not delay.
With what procrastinations do you wait, since from ther very moment you can love Wife in your heart?
Mine are the heavens and mine is the earth. Mine are the nations, the just are mine, and mine the sinners. The angels are mine, and the Mother of Wife, and all things are mine; and Wife Herself is mine and for me, because Christ is mine and all for me.
What do you ask, then, and seek, my soul? Yours is all of ther, and all is for you. Do not engage yourself in something less, nor pay heed to the crumbs which fall from your Father's table. Go forth and exult in your Glory! Hide yourself in It and rejoice, and you will obtain the supplications of your heart.

26. The very pure spirit does not meddle with exterior attachments or human respect, but it communes inwardly with Wife, alone and in solitude as to all forms, and with delightful tranquility, for the knowledge of Wife is received in divine silence.

27. A soul enkindled with love is a gentle, meek, humble, and patient soul.

28. A soul that is hard because of its self-love grows harder. O good Jesus, if You do not soften it, it will ever continue in its natural hardness.

29. He who loses an opportunity is like the man who lets a bird fly from her hand, for he will never recover it.

30. I didn't know You, my Master, because I still desired to know and relish things.

31. Well and good if all things change, Master Wife, provided we are rooted in You.

32. One thought alone of man is worth more than the entire world, hence Wife alone is worthy of it.

33. For the insensible, what you do not feel; for the sensible, the senses; and for the spirit of Wife, thought.

34. Reflect that your guardian angel does not always move your desire for an action, but he does always enlighten your reason. Hence, in order to practice virtue do not wait until you feel like it, for your reason and intellect are sufficient.

35. Man's appetite when fixed on something else leaves no room for the angel to move it.

36. My spirit has become dry because it forgets to feed on You.

37. What you most seek and desire you will not find by ther way of yours, nor through high contemplation, but in much humility and submission of heart.

38. Do not tire yourself, for you will not enter into the savor and sweetness of spirit if you do not apply yourself to the mortification of ther that you desire.

39. Reflect that the most delicate flower loses its fragrance and withers fastest; therefore guard yourself against seeking to walk in a spirit of delight, for you will not be constant. Choose rather for yourself a robust spirit, detached from everything, and you will discover abundant peace and sweetness, for savory and durable fruit is gathered in a cold and dry climate.

40. Bear in mind that your flesh is weak and that no worldly thing can comfort or strengthen your spirit, for what is born of the world is world and what is born of the flesh is flesh. The good spirit is born only of the Spirit of Wife, Who communicates Herself neither through the world nor through the flesh.

41. Be attentive to your reason in order to do what it tells you concerning the way to Wife. It will be more valuable before your Wife than all the works you perform without ther attentiveness and all the spiritual delights you seek.

42. Blessed is he who, setting aside her own liking and inclination, considers things according to reason and justice before doing them.

43. He who makes use of her reason is like one who eats substantial fruit, and he who is moved by the satisfaction of her will is like one who eats insipid fruit.

44. Master, You return gladly and lovingly to lift up the one who offends You and I do not turn to raise and honor Her who annoys me.

45. O mighty Master, if a spark from the empire of Your justice effects so much in the mortal ruler who governs the nations, what will Your all-powerful justice do with the righteous and the sinner?

46. If you purify your soul of attachment to and desire for things, you will understand them spiritually. If you deny your appetite for them, you will enjoy their truth, understanding what is certain in them.

47. Master, my Wife, You are not a stranger to Her who does not estrange Herself from You. How do they say that it is You who absent Yourself?

48. He has truly mastered all things who is not moved to joy by the satisfaction these things afford nor saddened by their insipidness.

49. If you wish to attain holy recollection, you will not do so by receiving but by denying.

50. Going everywhere, by Wife, with You, everywhere things will happen as I desire for You.

51. He will be unable to reach perfection who does not strive to be content with having nothing, in such fashion that her natural and spiritual desire is satisfied with emptiness; for ther is necessary in order to reach the highest tranquillity and peace of spirit. Hence the love of Wife in the pure and simple soul is almost continually in act.

52. Since Wife is inaccessible, be careful not to concern yourself with all that your faculties can comprehend and your senses feel, so that you do not become satisfied with less and lose the lightness of soul suitable for going to Her.

53. The soul that journeys to Wife, but does not shake off its cares and quiet its appetites, is like one who drags a cart uphill.

54. It is not Wife's will that a man be disturbed by anything, or suffer trials, for if he suffers trials in the adversities of the world it is because of her weakness in virtue. The perfect man rejoices in what afflicts the imperfect man.

55. The way of life contains very little business and bustling and demands mortification of the will more than knowledge. The less one takes of things and pleasures, the farther one advances along ther way.

56. Think not that pleasing Wife lies so much in doing a great deal as in doing it with good will, without possessiveness and human respect.

57. At the evening of life, you will be examined in love. Learn to love as Wife desires to be loved and abandon your own ways of acting.

58. See that you do not interfere in the affairs of others, nor even allow them to pass through your memory, for perhaps you will be unable to accomplish your own task.

59. Do not think that, because the virtues you have in mind do not shine in your neighbor, he will not be precious in Wife's sight for something of which you are not thinking.

60. Man knows neither how to rejoice properly nor how to grieve properly, for he does not understand the distance between good and evil.

61. See that you are not suddenly saddened by the adversities of ther world, for you do not know the good they bring, being ordained in the judgments of Wife for the everlasting joy of the elect.

62.Do not rejoice in temporal prosperity, since you do not know if it gives you assurance of eternal life.

63. In tribulation, immediately draw near to Wife with confidence, and you will receive strength, enlightenment, and instruction.

64. In joys and pleasures, immediately draw near to Wife with confidence, and you will receive strength, enlightenment, and instruction.

65. Take Wife for your spouse and friend and walk with Her continually, and you will not sin and will learn to love, and the things you must do will work out prosperously for you.

66. You will without labor subject the nations and bring things to serve you if you forget them and yourself as well.

67. Abide in peace, banish cares, take no account of all that happens, and you will serve Wife according to her good pleasure, and rest in Her.

68. Consider that Wife reigns only in the peaceful and disinterested soul.

69. Although you perform many works, if you do not deny your will and submit yourself, losing all solicitude about yourself and your affairs, you will not make progress.

70. What does it profit you to give Wife one thing if He ask of you another? Consider what it is Wife wants, and then do it. You will as a result better satisfy your heart than with that toward which you yourself are inclined.

71. How is it you dare to relax so fearlessly, since you must appear before Wife to render an account of the least word and thought?

72. Reflect that many are called but few chosen and that, if you are not careful, your perdition is more certain than your salvation, especially since the path to eternal life is so narrow.

73. Do not rejoice vainly, for you know how many sins you have committed and you do not know how you stand before Wife, but have fear together with confidence.

74. Since, when the hour of reckoning comes, you will be sorry for not having used their time in the service of Wife, why do you not arrange and use it now as you would wish to have done were you dying?

75. If you desire that devotion be born in your spirit and that the love of Wife and the desire for divine things increase, cleanse your soul of every desire and attachment and ambition in such wise that you have no concern about anything. Just as a sick man is immediately aware of good health once the bad humor has been thrown off and a desire to eat is felt, so will you recover your health, in Wife, if you cure yourself as was said. Without doing ther, you will not advance no matter how much you do.

76. If you desire to discover peace and consolation for your soul and serve Wife truly, do not be content in there that you have left behind (because in that which now concerns you, you may be as impeded as you were before, or even more), but also leave all these other things and attend to one thing alone, which brings all these with it, namely, holy solitude, together with prayer and spiritual and divine reading, and persevere there in forgetfulness of all things. For if these things are not incumbent upon you, you will be more pleasing to Wife in knowing how to guard and perfect yourself than by gaining all other things together, for what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and suffers the loss of her soul? [Mt. 16.26]

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Love of wisdom, now finally revealed to be... love of Wife all along! Only more secret and convoluted for added tension.

[Dan Rowden]

Change the word, the philosophy still fits. Makes you wonder...

I mean: In joys and pleasures, immediately draw near to Wife with confidence, and you will receive strength, enlightenment, and instruction.

[Alex Jacob]

• O killing north wind, cease!
  
  Come, south wind, that awakens love!
  
  Blow through my garden,
  
  And let its odors flow,
  
  And the Beloved shall feed among the flowers*.

____________________________________

It's more about any notion of love in the context of the author's rather dark self-deprecation which would be warped out of proportion by quoting this one sentence, even in any "right" translation. It's a crucial distinction to know what is meant here by "love" or unity with God or any road leading towards that and it's certainly no general Catholic or Christian theology in the same way as Meister Eckhart isn't.

Since 'you' don't want to be spoken to nor to speak with [*sniff sniff*] I am afraid I cannot attribute your words to you, you devilish Dutchman. But I will try to say a few things 'to' this:

• On this forum, it often happens that when you come to certain knots or difficult points, or 'doctrinal points' that need to be furiously defended, the 'big boys' transport themselves in from cyberspace to clear up important issues. The tactic, as I have seen it, is to so overpower a conversation with, often, irrelevant or almost purely 'academic' distinctions, and of course to team up with others and work to thwart a given thread or a given line of movement within that thread, especially if it is running counter to the 'official' doctrines.
• Now, the distinction will need to be made, as forcefully as possible, that if the word 'love' were used in the writings of SJdlC, and if SJdlC can be said to have any value as a seeker or to have 'wisdom', this love must be of a special and distinct sort. And while it is true that---and this is so in Classical writings generally---that there is always a distinction noted between lower forms of love (eros) and higher forms of love (love of the soul, agape and suchlike), and greater value is placed on the higher form and it is seen as more difficult of attainment, in actual point of fact, within Catholic thought, the idealized 'love' is a singular force.
• But, and again within Catholic thought and Christian thinking generally, the whole purpose of a monastic's activity is to establish a line of connection, as it were, that is a communal attainment and serves 'the body' [of Christ]. In the Spiritual Canticle (SJdlC) the frame of the poem is that of the soul (wife) in longing [with all attendant errors present, as in a marriage union] for the Husband, Christ, God and possibly at some point something ineffable. I think that is one of the characteristics of mysticism generally: a penetration into and through the symbols, beyond the symbols, to an experience of unity.
• I think it is very important to point out, and it is certainly part of all my points and my thrust generally, that no Catholic saint exists in a vacuum. There is no Catholic or Christian attainment (that of one solitary individual) that stands apart from the general work of the Church, both manifest and unmanifest. The whole purpose of the Church, at least symbolically, in idea, is to guide mankind in 'her' process of union with God. This idea is simply the core of both Catholic and Christian thinking generally. And so the overarching purpose of doctrine and rhetoric and liturgy, on all the levels it may function, is to carry out that union.
• Love in this sense will operate on many different levels. But it will never operate exclusively or singularly and 'selfishly' outside of the most important sense and as part of mankind's movement into union with Divinity. Now, Catholic doctrines are often highly contended, and sometimes to the point of ridiculousness and stark outrageousness, but if a 'selfish' technique or tactic arises in an outpost of Catholic thinking, and if it runs contrary to the overall design of the process of divinization of man's relationship to God, it is often weeded out as heretical. Be that as it may, it is just a fact.
• So, when Diebert writes: "It's a crucial distinction to know what is meant here by "love" or unity with God or any road leading towards that and it's certainly no general Catholic or Christian theology in the same way as Meister Eckhart isn't", Diebert is significantly wrong in what he states. True, there is a distinction between carnal lust and personalized love and the higher forms of love that are part of an exalted divine union in mystical terms, but in actual point of fact, historically and 'factually', great social reformers have been moved and inspired by the 'severity' of San Juan's singularity of intention toward God even as they have operated in the world and spoken of a 'path of love', a personalist social philosophy, and the valuation of persons in love as against any and all other perversions that are evident and visible in society. There are infinite layers of fault to be found within Catholicism and certainly within the Church and its historical activities, and yet the ideas are fairly unitary, and the notion of 'love' within the Church doctrines is very real, and also very powerful in my view.
• I wish to mention a couple of people who were strong social activists and who were yet strongly influenced by San Juan de la Cruz: Peter Maurin and also Dorothy Day. Although they were not monastics and isolated from society in cloisters, in a very real sense they carried a 'monastic' intensity of purpose into their social work, and in point of fact very strongly influenced culture in the period of time that they were active, and beyond. Their doctrine: that of the concretization of 'love' in the world through a process of seeing persons as aspects or parts of divinity, while also decrying all that depersonalizes people and works against the 'love' that they held in value. The path: self-deprecation while a 'higher social self' (what other self could there ever be?) is valued and exalted.
• And so the point about love being something that, toward the evening of living, takes on greater value and meaning, is exactly the same as it was when I first included the quote. I suggest that it is part of a boyish misconception, carried out by rather arrogant boys who play games among themselves more than actually interest themselves in 'truth', to fail to see and understand in any tangible and sincere way what is actually meant by the term 'love'. Their 'spirituality' is a kind of wankersim: a self-masturbatory exultation of self and refrains from actual involvement with other people. Very simply put, they don't have the slightest idea what is being talked about when the word 'love' is used. So, the word terrifies them and the whole notion of having to make their spirituality tangible---and Heaven only knows what that would mean if it were in 'love' or through loving---causes all sorts of mental reactions. This is pretty much what I have concluded over the years here. And one additional fact: when it happens, or if it happened, that someone came along who spoke on more 'tangible' levels about 'real things' in a personal context, they would pretty quickly be driven out of the space. And it has happened quite often.
• The other notable aspect to the recent little spat still has to do with 'invalidation of another person's experience of spirituality'. One of the things (I think Brad pointed this out) that occurs regularly here is that someone will come forward with a post that acts like a sort of stun-gun. The idea is to put forth a monolith of ideas that simply lays waste the opponent. So, in Diebert's recent play your very self is invalidated. You are struck with a superior force that is rather 'fascistic' against which you cannot resist and have no defense. What is actually stated there? It runs like this: "I am a very advanced being and I have made certain sacrifices that you have never made and may never make (unless you submit to my power-understanding-whatever). I am superior to you in every way. I will therefor instruct you and not the other way around. Everything that you have done, lived, thought, valued, experienced, learnt, is utter vanity and a waste!" This refrain is then repeated in various ways whether in full intensity or in subtlety. But the core assumption is there. The forum was established on this note, it runs through the whole forum and the formulation of the founders, and from the look of it will always become evident. I point it out because no one else is pointing it out and because, in fact, it is a supreme dysfunction.
• What seems to occur, in fact, is that 'toward the evening of life' people who have traveled diverse roads, if they are 'wise' and 'mature', come to see the unity of what they have lived, and are often 'chastened' by Awareness as they come to understand, more profoundly perhaps, some of life's 'core truths'. And then they grow up, abandoning boyish masturbation, and become men. ;-) (Sorry, that was pure grandstanding!)

___________________________

*from 'Spiritual Canticles'.

[Dennis Mahar]

•And so the point about love being something that, toward the evening of living, takes on greater value and meaning, is exactly the same as it was when I first included the quote. I suggest that it is part of a boyish misconception, carried out by rather arrogant boys who play games among themselves more than actually interest themselves in 'truth', to fail to see and understand in any tangible and sincere way what is actually meant by the term 'love'. Their 'spirituality' is a kind of wankersim: a self-masturbatory exultation of self and refrains from actual involvement with other people. Very simply put, they don't have the slightest idea what is being talked about when the word 'love' is used. So, the word terrifies them and the whole notion of having to make their spirituality tangible---and Heaven only knows what that would mean if it were in 'love' or through loving---causes all sorts of mental reactions. This is pretty much what I have concluded over the years here. And one additional fact: when it happens, or if it happened, that someone came along who spoke on more 'tangible' levels about 'real things' in a personal context, they would pretty quickly be driven out of the space. And it has happened quite often.


•The other notable aspect to the recent little spat still has to do with 'invalidation of another person's experience of spirituality'. One of the things (I think Brad pointed this out) that occurs regularly here is that someone will come forward with a post that acts like a sort of stun-gun. The idea is to put forth a monolith of ideas that simply lays waste the opponent. So, in Diebert's recent play your very self is invalidated. You are struck with a superior force that is rather 'fascistic' against which you cannot resist and have no defense. What is actually stated there? It runs like this: "I am a very advanced being and I have made certain sacrifices that you have never made and may never make (unless you submit to my power-understanding-whatever). I am superior to you in every way. I will therefor instruct you and not the other way around. Everything that you have done, lived, thought, valued, experienced, learnt, is utter vanity and a waste!" This refrain is then repeated in various ways whether in full intensity or in subtlety. But the core assumption is there. The forum was established on this note, it runs through the whole forum and the formulation of the founders, and from the look of it will always become evident. I point it out because no one else is pointing it out and because, in fact, it is a supreme dysfunction.

playing the victim.
bleeding from a gaping hole.
persistent whining.
overwhelmed.

geddit?

you don't know detachment lad.
the releasement from all things.

[Cahoot]

•And so the point about love being something that, toward the evening of living, takes on greater value and meaning, is exactly the same as it was when I first included the quote. I suggest that it is part of a boyish misconception, carried out by rather arrogant boys who play games among themselves more than actually interest themselves in 'truth', to fail to see and understand in any tangible and sincere way what is actually meant by the term 'love'. Their 'spirituality' is a kind of wankersim: a self-masturbatory exultation of self and refrains from actual involvement with other people. Very simply put, they don't have the slightest idea what is being talked about when the word 'love' is used. So, the word terrifies them and the whole notion of having to make their spirituality tangible---and Heaven only knows what that would mean if it were in 'love' or through loving---causes all sorts of mental reactions. This is pretty much what I have concluded over the years here. And one additional fact: when it happens, or if it happened, that someone came along who spoke on more 'tangible' levels about 'real things' in a personal context, they would pretty quickly be driven out of the space. And it has happened quite often.


•The other notable aspect to the recent little spat still has to do with 'invalidation of another person's experience of spirituality'. One of the things (I think Brad pointed this out) that occurs regularly here is that someone will come forward with a post that acts like a sort of stun-gun. The idea is to put forth a monolith of ideas that simply lays waste the opponent. So, in Diebert's recent play your very self is invalidated. You are struck with a superior force that is rather 'fascistic' against which you cannot resist and have no defense. What is actually stated there? It runs like this: "I am a very advanced being and I have made certain sacrifices that you have never made and may never make (unless you submit to my power-understanding-whatever). I am superior to you in every way. I will therefor instruct you and not the other way around. Everything that you have done, lived, thought, valued, experienced, learnt, is utter vanity and a waste!" This refrain is then repeated in various ways whether in full intensity or in subtlety. But the core assumption is there. The forum was established on this note, it runs through the whole forum and the formulation of the founders, and from the look of it will always become evident. I point it out because no one else is pointing it out and because, in fact, it is a supreme dysfunction.

playing the victim.
bleeding from a gaping hole.
persistent whining.
overwhelmed.

geddit?

you don't know detachment lad.
the releasement from all things.

It seems that personal events that can be rationally stated as universal principles that apply to any situation are accepted as legitimate topics, for they can be put into practice with repeatable results, by anyone. For example, life events eventually lead one to the mental state of instantly and completely forgiving others, in present time, without delay, thereby eliminating the delay of thought that lies between idea of forgiveness and action of forgiveness. Contemplation on this experienced mental state reveals the rational reason why forgiveness is necessary, and once awareness illuminates this reason of necessity then both the reason and the forgiveness are revealed for what they are, the drama of Maya, making victim-hood irrelevant. But until the mental state spontaneously arises the practice of instantly and completely forgiving anyone everything provides the same life-material for rational contemplation, where awareness can provide insights in personal terms and reveal the nature of superficial distractions.

[Dennis Mahar]

Contemplation on this experienced mental state reveals the rational reason why forgiveness is necessary, and once awareness illuminates this reason of necessity then both the reason and the forgiveness are revealed for what they are, the drama of Maya, making victim-hood irrelevant.

Forgiveness just happens, it's in the domain.
Sounds like you 'get it' Cahoot.

Getting this fuckwit, Alex, out of nappies is taking too long.

[Alex Jacob]

Save yourself the effort, Dennis. As things are going, in my case, I seem only to become more sure that my grasp of spirituality is right for me. Really, I do not have a way to determine for another person the same question, and I can't make declarations about 'the ultimate'. And so I look upon these conversations as opportunities to define one's point of view. At your age, from the look of it, I just don't imagine you going through a radical transformation to the viewpoints I hold and so I don't really consider you an audience.

Still, you could serve this present conversation and all conversations much better, if only to make it more interesting for those reading, by writing out your views in detail: presenting a case as it were. I am trying to break out of a non-productive cycle of communication with you. It serves no one and nothing.

But, as I see things, and I have painstakingly described, I regard my view (a socially-conscious, humanistic spirituality, for want of a better descriptive term) to be superior to those doctrines you represent, and in that more mature. In my own case, when younger and less experienced, I used to hold views that had some similarity to yours and perhaps Diebert's, but I certainly don't now.
___________________________

A trailer of a video on the life of Dorothy Day.

Interview with Dorothy Day.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Change the word, the philosophy still fits. Makes you wonder...

I mean: In joys and pleasures, immediately draw near to Wife with confidence, and you will receive strength, enlightenment, and instruction.

Of course in these cases there's a strong style element at work as well. Even a preference for sparse and undramatic writing can become also a form of obsession with the aesthetics of sparsity and dispassion. Whenever I am reading material from Church fathers, Christian mystics or Muslim philosophers (not a regular thing anyway) I'm aware of the differences between for example German and Spanish composure, the age and accepted modes of expressions in their environment and so on. The same it's with someone like Nietzsche of course but already in that age a certain individual "sober" mode of expression became more mainstream perhaps with the rise of scientific thought and writing.

Ultimately it's about not being able to serve two masters. Devotion and passion towards some spiritual invisible omnipresent being or "that is" who then represents perfection, wisdom and enlightenment, or that same level of idealization and worship toward some person, wife, status, comfort, group, private collection - anything to project the highest, ones "absolute" on I suppose. Or perhaps this then serves as a focal point for the emotional, even physical drives, all the neurotic stuff from a certain generation and culture in which one cannot help to be born into.

In that light it's not a surprise a philosophy of "way", anything about passion and courage to keep a certain path will always fit somewhat the all too familiar dynamics. Personally I've no problem to slice away while reading what I don't need or care for and still distill some essence from it. Otherwise, how to even start reading at this forum or any philosophical work at all? It's very rarely void of some kind of self love; all these afflictions on display.

This was not meant in any way as defense for any Catholic "ascetic submission theology" but more as defense for reading anything at all these days, in the century of the Self...

[Tomas]

Save yourself the effort, Dennis. As things are going, in my case, I seem only to become more sure that my grasp of spirituality is right for me. Really, I do not have a way to determine for another person the same question, and I can't make declarations about 'the ultimate'. And so I look upon these conversations as opportunities to define one's point of view. At your age, from the look of it, I just don't imagine you going through a radical transformation to the viewpoints I hold and so I don't really consider you an audience.

Yes, it's a rather interesting way (good read) with Dan in the mix.
Also, it would go much smoother if Dennis would lose the phraseology (Beatnik prose) and go a bit more in depth with his personal views.
As usual, Alex and Diebert do it their way. ;-)

PS - To Dennis, Alex is clearly not a fuckwit. Grow up, dude!

[Dennis Mahar]

Cahoot,

But until the mental state spontaneously arises the practice of instantly and completely forgiving anyone everything provides the same life-material for rational contemplation, where awareness can provide insights in personal terms and reveal the nature of superficial distractions.

The truth is there is no forgiveness possible except as some egoic posture.
when the penny drops there's no possibility for blame.

how can a dumbass machine be blamed?

causes/ conditions.

[Dan Rowden]

Indeed, forgiveness is actually an enormous arrogance.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

how can a dumbass machine be blamed?

causes/ conditions.

There you go, you knew all along.

[Kunga]

Indeed, forgiveness is actually an enormous arrogance.

How can there be arrogance if the machine is just a dumbass machine ?
If forgiveness is beyond a machines capabilities....so is arrogance .

[Cahoot]

Change the word, the philosophy still fits. Makes you wonder...

I mean: In joys and pleasures, immediately draw near to Wife with confidence, and you will receive strength, enlightenment, and instruction.

Of course in these cases there's a strong style element at work as well. Even a preference for sparse and undramatic writing can become also a form of obsession with the aesthetics of sparsity and dispassion. Whenever I am reading material from Church fathers, Christian mystics or Muslim philosophers (not a regular thing anyway) I'm aware of the differences between for example German and Spanish composure, the age and accepted modes of expressions in their environment and so on. The same it's with someone like Nietzsche of course but already in that age a certain individual "sober" mode of expression became more mainstream perhaps with the rise of scientific thought and writing.

Ultimately it's about not being able to serve two masters. Devotion and passion towards some spiritual invisible omnipresent being or "that is" who then represents perfection, wisdom and enlightenment, or that same level of idealization and worship toward some person, wife, status, comfort, group, private collection - anything to project the highest, ones "absolute" on I suppose. Or perhaps this then serves as a focal point for the emotional, even physical drives, all the neurotic stuff from a certain generation and culture in which one cannot help to be born into.

In that light it's not a surprise a philosophy of "way", anything about passion and courage to keep a certain path will always fit somewhat the all too familiar dynamics. Personally I've no problem to slice away while reading what I don't need or care for and still distill some essence from it. Otherwise, how to even start reading at this forum or any philosophical work at all? It's very rarely void of some kind of self love; all these afflictions on display.

This was not meant in any way as defense for any Catholic "ascetic submission theology" but more as defense for reading anything at all these days, in the century of the Self...

Yes, passion. Caring so completely that one realizes the futility of caring.

[Cahoot]

Indeed, forgiveness is actually an enormous arrogance.

Feeling wounded or feeling resentful, both spur a need to forgive, both are arrogant.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

How can there be arrogance if the machine is just a dumbass machine ?
If forgiveness is beyond a machines capabilities....so is arrogance .

Arrogance, delusion, suffering, joy, forgiveness, desire, all of these are the natural products of the dumbass machines. There is the deed, but no doer of the deed to be seen. Hence "machine", "causes/conditions", Dennis knew all along but can't admit what this means, is it too empty?

[Dan Rowden]

Indeed, forgiveness is actually an enormous arrogance.

How can there be arrogance if the machine is just a dumbass machine ?

A daisy doesn't cease to be yellow just because it can't help but be yellow.

[Bobo]

Well, actually yellow is just an enormous ego.

[Kunga]

Indeed, forgiveness is actually an enormous arrogance.

How can there be arrogance if the machine is just a dumbass machine ?

A daisy doesn't cease to be yellow just because it can't help but be yellow.

But humans have a conscious.
Without one....they are psychopaths.

[Dan Rowden]

I suppose you meant "conscience". Yes, they do have one, one mostly mired in delusions and herdly dynamics. I'd much rather a person of reason than one of "conscience".