Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
Nothing sticks.Dennis Mahar wrote:What's interesting is innate generic images such as mother, father, god, friend, self etc
'All is empty' a conceptualised generic image (all).
brought to bear on existence.
.
By "sticks" do you mean that nothing is reflected upon?TheImmanent wrote:Nothing sticks.Dennis Mahar wrote:What's interesting is innate generic images such as mother, father, god, friend, self etc
'All is empty' a conceptualised generic image (all).
brought to bear on existence.
.
They're not innate. If anything, they're developmental. This is why Lacan, for example, isolates the mirror stage as a significant psychological moment. Seeing its own image in a mirror, the child makes the first self/other distinction in image (visual and phonological) form. Lacan, for instance, goes even so far as to say that the signifier brings the signified into being*, and not the other way around. What is your position, the reason you find this so interesting?Dennis Mahar wrote:What's interesting is innate generic images such as mother, father, god, friend, self etc
'All is empty' a conceptualised generic image (all).
brought to bear on existence.
.
Infinite things are reflected upon. Nothing sticks in the sense that nothing is a thing-in-itself. The ego-experience is the view of things as separate things-in-themselves, thus a misconception. A privation of essence.movingalways wrote:By "sticks" do you mean that nothing is reflected upon?TheImmanent wrote:Nothing sticks.Dennis Mahar wrote:What's interesting is innate generic images such as mother, father, god, friend, self etc
'All is empty' a conceptualised generic image (all).
brought to bear on existence.
.
Is spirit not always at-one-with its finite things?Dennis: All is empty' a conceptualised generic image (all).
brought to bear on existence.
Now we're getting somewhere! Reflection on things = conceptualizing. Conscious reflection on things/reasoning cause and effect = wisdom.TheImmanent wrote:Infinite things are reflected upon. Nothing sticks in the sense that nothing is a thing-in-itself. The ego-experience is the view of things as separate things-in-themselves, thus a misconception. A privation of essence.movingalways wrote:By "sticks" do you mean that nothing is reflected upon?TheImmanent wrote:Nothing sticks.Dennis Mahar wrote:What's interesting is innate generic images such as mother, father, god, friend, self etc
'All is empty' a conceptualised generic image (all).
brought to bear on existence.
.
Spirit is always at-one-with its finite things. Its finite things are not always at-one-with spirit in their own view. The ego-experience is the view of separation from the infinite spirit — that is, the expression of a misconception.movingalways wrote: Is spirit not always at-one-with its finite things?
Thomas the Tank Engine!And for Nietzsche, of course, they will be overcome!
Cute, for a two-year-old.Dennis Mahar wrote:Thomas the Tank Engine!And for Nietzsche, of course, they will be overcome!
ultra positive.
Now it seems to me, if you will hear my answer and its perhaps extravagant supposition, that the subtlety and strength of consciousness are always in proportion to the capacity for communication of a man (or an animal), the capacity for communication in its turn being in proportion to the necessity for communication: the latter not to be understood as if precisely the individual himself who is master in the art of communicating and making known his necessities would at the same time have to be most dependent upon others for his necessities. It seems to me, however, to be so in relation to whole races and successions of generations: where necessity and need have long compelled men to communicate with their fellows and understand one another rapidly and subtly, a surplus of the power and art of communication is at last acquired as if it were a fortune which had gradually accumulated, and now waited for an heir to squander it prodigally (the so-called artists are these heirs, in like manner the orators, preachers, and authors: all of them men who come at the end of a long succession, "late-born" always, in the best sense of the word, and as has been said, squanderers by their very nature).
What's interesting is innate generic images such as mother, father, god, friend, self etc
'All is empty' a conceptualised generic image (all).
brought to bear on existence.
.
...:They're not innate. If anything, they're developmental. This is why Lacan, for example, isolates the mirror stage as a significant psychological moment. Seeing its own image in a mirror, the child makes the first self/other distinction in image (visual and phonological) form. Lacan, for instance, goes even so far as to say that the signifier brings the signified into being*, and not the other way around. What is your position, the reason you find this so interesting?
These things are not "brought to bear on" existence, but are what constitute the abstract aspect of human existence. You can no more annihilate them than you can annihilate speaking and abstraction. In buddhist speak, it's only when you comprehend their nature that you no longer cling to them: that is the only way to the "cessation of suffering".
*EDIT: What is meant by this is strictly not a referent (for an objective form), but that these pure signifiers signify nothing. That is Lacan's structure of the "unconscious".
And for Nietzsche, of course, they will be overcome!
A preacher does not engage in discussion, particularly one who preaches absolute meaninglessness. Even his questions are sermons."And for Nietzsche, of course, they will be overcome!"
Thomas the Tank Engine!
ultra positive.
I will not answer any of your questions, latent and otherwise, until you actually answer directly and coherently every question I have asked you. You're in deficit, Preacher Man!tell me, are we consciousness-embedded?