Genius Types

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: Genius Types

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Talkin' about something else.
forget it.

the dreaming.
the magnum opus.
in the moment.
fully alive
fair dinkum.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dennis Mahar wrote: the dreaming.
the magnum opus.
in the moment.
fully alive
fair dinkum.
You got the engine but where's you car? The road? Just revving it forever?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Imagine that!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Imagine that!
But imagination lies elsewhere, correct?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Dennis Mahar »

'To confer significance upon' fixes it like pinning a butterfly in a display case.
Holds it.
Binds it.
Yes?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dennis Mahar wrote:'To confer significance upon' fixes it like pinning a butterfly in a display case. Holds it. Binds it. Yes?
That's how a past is born and births. Bound in symbols.

Imagination lies elsewhere, in signs, in possibility, in vision.

Between those pushed boundaries a space is present. Breathing room.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Dennis Mahar »

That's how a past is born and births. Bound in symbols.

Imagination lies elsewhere, in signs, in possibility, in vision.

Between those pushed boundaries a space is present. Breathing room.
nice one!
constructing the magnum opus to live in to.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
That's how a past is born and births. Bound in symbols.

Imagination lies elsewhere, in signs, in possibility, in vision.

Between those pushed boundaries a space is present. Breathing room.
Nice one! Constructing the magnum opus to live in to.
We can stimulate each other to create more breathing room. But boundaries are constructed by pushing them: pushing symbols, reading signs. Binding yet unbinding, settling yet unsettling. And then we don't even get stuck in the present, like happens so much nowadays. This is where we should push.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »


Otherwise we just end up with rather short people with their short breath (Randy Newman). Or run out of breath!
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Talk me thru' Bodhichitta please.

the set up.

as impregnable fortress to play out of.
looking good?

the typical buddhist throws out the cliche 'kindness' that looks like a saccharine sugariness.
in the grip of that.
2 days without food sorts that out.

'of a kind' is more pertinent.
a crafted response,
steely edge.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: We can stimulate each other to create more breathing room. But boundaries are constructed by pushing them: pushing symbols, reading signs. Binding yet unbinding, settling yet unsettling. And then we don't even get stuck in the present, like happens so much nowadays. This is where we should push.
Creating boundaries of unbinding, breathing room, yes, for only here can we exist while we end the suffering of our existence. It is for this reason that I do not believe anyone (existing) on this forum is detached. I will go so far as to say that those who do believe they are detached are deluded, and that because of their delusion have closed themselves off to actually becoming detached. Therefore, how we who know of emptiness are becoming detached is the honest and stimulating question of wisdom enlightenment.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Creating boundaries of unbinding, breathing room, yes, for only here can we exist while we end the suffering of our existence.
Leave it at that.
The rest of it looks bitter.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Creating boundaries of unbinding, breathing room, yes, for only here can we exist while we end the suffering of our existence.
Leave it at that.
The rest of it looks bitter.
Bitter is one possibility of causation of a boundary of unbinding, but not only is it a shallow one (born of ego), it is one that adds to, not subtracts from the suffering of our existence.

The other possibility is to go deep into the suffering that is existence, deep into its root of name and form and allow the wisdom fruit of compassion to bloom in the expanding light of the deep dive. To allow to grow the fruit of wisdom of suffering that produces that which subtracts from suffering, the compassion virtues of patience, lovingkindness and mercy.
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Genius Types

Post by jufa »

Regardless of all the psychological, philosophy, scientific, and religious logic presented here, no one can say, or even claim, life is not the source of their physicality and conscious awareness. The issue being dealt with here is three-fold. That of the existence of an unknown source which is the inertia for the activity of sentient living in the physical. Whether there is free will of choice to choose how to live physically independent of the patterned principle incomprehensible to the human mind. And whether believing or thinking an individuals thought interpretation, of pushing or pulling inevitable laws, can and does cause a different in the functioning application of the sentient world by eliminating repetitive conscious psychological repetitious inference, that material mass (brick or bouquet), is a true representative for reality from a mind which cannot define reality as the synchronized full thought of mankind?

To deal with philosophical, scientific, imaginary assumptive ideas and discoveries are dealing with results with no ending. Effect is always the easy route to take by man's intellectual conscious senses. However, because there is nothing but 'hearsay evidence, as how to move through the mind to get beyond the mind, dealing with assumptions is an ever ending human mandate, for effect is always the plate of food to eat from because all human intellect is a forays of that which has been foraged, nothing else, for there are no treasures other than I think, or I believe offered. This is why no guru, no one of a high intellect, no suppose man of the cloth, scientist, mathematician, quantum physicist, no one believing in, building, and living of the human intellect exclusively can awaken to a new dimension of life.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
Last edited by jufa on Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jufa wrote:Regardless of all the psychological, philosophy, scientific, and religious logic presented here, no one can say, or even claim, life is not the source of their physicality and conscious awareness.
It's strange Jufa, but it might be completely outside the question if "life" is a source of something or not. What is life, what is love?

We can know there are sources - causality as principle.
Physicality is something to experience as consciousness is something to realize.

But life is something left to be defined.
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Genius Types

Post by jufa »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jufa wrote:Regardless of all the psychological, philosophy, scientific, and religious logic presented here, no one can say, or even claim, life is not the source of their physicality and conscious awareness.
It's strange Jufa, but it might be completely outside the question if "life" is a source of something or not. What is life, what is love?

We can know there are sources - causality as principle.
Physicality is something to experience as consciousness is something to realize.

But life is something left to be defined.
Defining life is not the gist of my post Diebert. But since you you ask for definition, you must first define how do you know "there are sources - causality as principle" when you have presented only your word with no logic or evidence for your assumption?

Moreover, you do know conversation of definition must be the definition of the conversation don't you? Therefore before you can question one about the effective object: ["sources - causality as principle"] before you define the object you are speaking about without any logical evidence, you must present your definition of life beyond meaningless words: "sources - causality as principle." What life are you asking question of, since by you own admission there are "sources"?


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jufa wrote:Defining life is not the gist of my post Diebert. But since you you ask for definition, you must first define how do you know "there are sources - causality as principle" when you have presented only your word with no logic or evidence for your assumption?
Causality as postulate only needs a word or a thought. No proof. This is the starting point every examination will return to. You try it, again and again until doubt itself will get tired. But don't give up too soon!
What life are you asking question of, since by you own admission there are "sources"?
Perhaps you should define it, since you raised the issue of something called "life" being definitely "the source of physicality and conscious awareness". That's a claim in itself. All I did is offering doubt to it. But it's not my task to explain you -- I can only explain myself.
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Genius Types

Post by jufa »

Diebert, you can slip and slip all you want, but this is your pundit, not mine. And you no one ask you to prove anything, and by you making such a ridiculous statement: "Causality as postulate only needs a word or a thought. No proof," only tighten the self placed noose around your neck concerning my position of only your words of assumption.

And your: "Perhaps you should define it, since you raised the issue of something called "life" being definitely "the source of physicality and conscious awareness," asking of me to define your Talking Head is just your way of you presenting presenting snippets [horse before the cart] which ignore the context of:
The issue being dealt with here is three-fold. That of the existence of an unknown source which is the inertia for the activity of sentient living in the physical. Whether there is free will of choice to choose how to live physically independent of the patterned principle incomprehensible to the human mind. And whether believing or thinking an individuals thought interpretation, of pushing or pulling inevitable laws, can and does cause a different in the functioning application of the sentient world by eliminating repetitive conscious psychological repetitious inference, that material mass (brick or bouquet), is a true representative for reality from a mind which cannot define reality as the synchronized full thought of mankind?


This subject matter does not deal with what you are attempting to glamorize. The immediate quote is the issue here, and the first question, which you also ignored. But more than that, the issue you are attempting to get across is moot, for it has already been answered, which you also overlooked in an attempt to glamorize you intelligence. Said answer to you asking for definition is of that which is not of the original contents of my post comes from my original post stating:
the existence of an unknown source which is the inertia for the activity of sentient living in the physical.
If you are not going to deal with the principle essence of my original post dealing with the existence of an unknown source with logic, which would give you a platform to deal with the definitive effect, or result of your "sources" of the unknown, the buck stops here with me. You want to continue this conversation, deal with my Talking Head. I no longer give you power to disrupt my presentation -in your words to proceed "outside the question." Take note of my signature.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Pam Seeback »

Logic can only take us to the point of understanding the dependent origination of name and form and consciousness: rationality is dependent on irrationality for its existence and vice versa, therefore, neither named activity of consciousness can be righteously assigned absolute status.

Since the absolute produces both logic and love and neither production can claim ownership of the absolute, we as conscious beings of both can use/enjoy both.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Genius Types

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jufa wrote:Diebert, you can slip and slip all you want, but this is your pundit, not mine.... tighten the self placed noose around your neck ...
Looks bitter! Perhaps a glimpse of what is driving some of your philosophy at the bottom?
And you no one ask you to prove anything
Don't lie Jufa, you wrote: you must first define how do you know "there are sources - causality as principle".
and by you making such a ridiculous statement: "Causality as postulate only needs a word or a thought. No proof," only tighten the self placed noose around your neck concerning my position of only your words of assumption.
Every system of thought or mathematics has its postulates or axioms. Of course one can disagree on which they are or how to word them when using informal languages. But "causality" seems pretty much uncontested to me.
If you are not going to deal with the principle essence of my original post dealing with the existence of an unknown source with logic, which would give you a platform to deal with the definitive effect, or result of your "sources" of the unknown, the buck stops here with me. You want to continue this conversation, deal with my Talking Head. I no longer give you power to disrupt my presentation -in your words to proceed "outside the question." Take note of my signature.
It doesn't matter. Your position has been demonstrated so many times to be flawed at the core. Also your method of argumentation has been shown to be aggressive, immature and quite confused overall. At times even needlessly mean spirited and overly defensive, not to mention your strange difficulty to write normal sentences as if your thought process does not keep up somehow. Try using simpler structures. Pace your self.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Genius Types

Post by Kunga »

“Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.” ~ Apple Inc.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Genius Types

Post by Cahoot »

Kunga wrote:“Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.” ~ Apple Inc.
That advertisement is not directed to those the words describe.
Locked