Metaphysic, Intuition, Intelligence

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Metaphysic, Intuition, Intelligence

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Years ago, my sixth grade teacher told me an amusing anecdote. He was himself a rather intense fellow with a styled beard and waxed, curled moustaches. Quite an authoritarian and with a terrible temper. A potter in his spare time. He was often visited by a young boy who lived next door and on one occasion the boy noticed a chessboard and challenged Mr T to a game. They tossed, the kid got white, and with his first move he picked up his white queen and 'took' the black king, exclaiming 'checkmate!' Clearly understood a basic truth of the Universe ...
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Metaphysic, Intuition, Intelligence

Post by jupiviv »

Alex wrote:The interesting thing about your 'style' is that there is no argument (or perspective, or idea) that you cannot defeat. You simply act as if you have defeated it, and pretend you have.
You haven't made any arguments, Alex or whoever you really are. All you've got is bombast and cheap dramatics. But if you genuinely believe that what you do will lead you anywhere remotely good or coherent, then I won't discourage you. There is an immense power in belief, even if it leads to desolation and disappointment. I'm reminded of Nietzsche simultaneously praising and maligning Wagner's music:

Gigantic forces lie concealed in it: it drives one beyond its own domain.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Metaphysic, Intuition, Intelligence

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

jupiviv: While you will see it as a Wall of Text I prefer to control the term and see it as a Chalcidicum of Text!

Have fun if you possibly can ...

Someone who used to post here, who left, and then came back and then engaged me (when I was still registered before) in PM conversations, shared his perspective of this 'space': the GF 'world' after having left it. This fellow entered in originally as a player, a participant, a follower, an agreer you could say (to some of the general doctrines which are part-and-parcel of it), but came back again in opposition. To what? Can 'the forum' be spoken of, be generalised as, an Individual? Can there be extracted and laid out a general line or general trend of philosophy? Of 'praxis'? My answer is both yes and no. One could, but cautiously. But what I do think is that the 'spirit' of the place (that means the definitions established in this space), do affect, control, and 'dictate' communication in this space. The space becomes, in the way a group of person amalgamates into a general Person, a sort of personality, a force-field such that if you come into the space and interact with it, you are 'asked' to adapt to it. I suppose that one could spend more time investigating this area of 'dynamic' and I suppose too there are more things that can be said about it. But saying it has never been popular here. In fact 'the space' is opposed to that level of critique. It just 'doesn't want to go there'.*

Why is this relevant? Let me use you as an example. I see you as a representative of this space. I see you as a True Believer insofar as when you speak you employ a set terminology---I have described them as tautological formulae---which refer to grand things, and capitalised things: Truth, Absolute, Wisdom, Enlightenment. These huge nouns are used very suspiciously, at least in my view. But now let me add 'the other side of the coin'. The nouns shift from the grandiose references to attacks, like this:
  • ...tiresome dilettante; lack [of] intellectual substance; torrents of frothing logorrhoea; glib and fatuous; your [incapability] of thinking for yourself; pseudo-intellectual and the carefree dilettante ... irascible intellectual wannabe; ramblings, role playing game, not serious discussion; pomposity; buffoonery; devoid of Man's faculty of discernment; 1st year philosophy student trying to impress ...
The point in bringing this up is to refer to a certain kind of a personality, in a certain sort of environment, employing a certain form of a rap which deals on high things or high topics, which established itself in a dynamic of either/or, black & white, winner/loser, wise/stupid, intelligent/dumb, tuned-in and tuned-out. I have said it so many different times (with little effect on those who use and benefit from this binary structure and tactics of antagonism) that this looks in some ways like the dynamics that are common in cult-environment. Why say specifically 'cult-environment'? The reason is that the cult is generally speaking a group of persons who tends to concentrate power in or toward a person with a 'spiritual rap', and this means one who says: I have keys of Wisdom, I have keys of Power, I have keys of Salvation; I have keys of Enlightenment. These folks sense something about these important topics, and they establish themselves as 'brokers', they elect others who support their power, and thus embolden them with 'power', and the whole thing snow-balls and, as we all know, more often than not gets ugly.

The only reference I am going to make here is to your tactics and your words. I allude to the fact that this dynamic was established by the Founders. They allowed it to happen because it served their purposes. You are one who has 'resonated' with that message, and who uses it. You have internalised, apparently, certain beliefs, views and understandings about your own self that gives you the right to 1) pull out of your ass some very grandiose terminology and to wear if not guru's clothes then at least a couple of strings of 'special beads' that would enable you to say, with no irony, 'I have been shooting wisdom peals toward your face for the duration of the conversation' and other such phrases, while you then---unreasoningly, without justification, and simply becayse you have a will to do so and thus you WILL do so, make an effort to demolish a person's position.

Why is this aspect of 'demolition' relevant? A wise person said to me that one of the common features of 'argumentation' at GF is an 'argument' (which is as I say really only a concentration of will) to totally blast the adversary out of the water. To render what they say, and indeed what they are, as devoid of any integrity, relevance (to a general conversation), and to demonstrate that they are fundamentally deluded. The word 'deluded'---used by you and central to your rap, is a key word. It stems out of Buddhist terminology and so refers to structures of the mind, to structures really of all thinking, and thus if it is handled by a destructive person, or a power-hungry person, it turns into a fundamental attack on personhood. On the notion or the fact of persons. In its most extreme use it is literally an attack on the self. I spent a good deal of time and energy writing 'walls of words' (heh heh) on the topic of Zen's employment of techniques that share similarity with later Maoist techniques of brainwashing and mind-control. The lesson about this came to me in the context of Genius Forum and watching Quinn operate. He has so internalised some of these techniques (they are used subtly of course and he is not a 'destructive personality' and I am not trying to paint him that way: to understand what I am getting at requires discernment and the handling of subtleties). But the dynamic was established. And you, in my humble opinion, are a descent representative of it.

Yet you say:
I don't want to force my conception on anyone because it won't work. They will understand it by themselves or not at all.
Now, what does this mean, and what is to be brought to bear against it? Or as 'alternative', as 'antidote'? Though I can honestly understand why you, jupiviv, would and do reject everything that I have to say and all that I have brought forward in this thread (I mean it is that extreme! There is nothing here that you consider relevant or necessary or that is valued). We touched on the word 'human' and the cognates humanitarian and humanist, and as it turns out, at least as I see things, the idea, the topic, the discipline, the area, the fact, and the possibility of the human is what has to be brought forward or brought back around. (So, I substitute 'chalcidicium' for 'wall' and this means: a human structure, and a structure that is part-and-parcel of 'my', if not your, tradition. But it ain't Zen or neo-Buddhism that much is clear). Do you see how this functions? Essentially, your war is against a part of yourself---the 'all too human'. I admit that Nietzsche is a very very interesting person, and also that his quotes are strong and their messages are succinct and direct. I can even admit to being a 'Nietzschean' (or to having been influenced by him) to some degree. But Nietzsche is both poison and medicine. I will leave that there for now.

It is true that I did not come back into this space with an 'argument' in the sense of a Mission or a group of decisive phrases, nor a Program, nor even a reading list. I came back, and I am generally involved with, a whole group of different thoughts and possibilities. One is Metaphysic which is for me means non-material modes of understanding. But this does not mean severance from the material or from the body, nor from Man. The other notion or 'possibility' has to do with Intuition. Modes of knowing, or things-known, that come from areas or sources beyond limited mind, or certain barriers that are established in a rigid, authoritarian personality, such as yours (?) I mean what is available to and what comes from 'above' a rationally structured mentality. I very strongly believe, and believe I have grasped intuitionally, that what I am referring to is real. Finally, the other element is Intelligence.

You say: You have no argument!

And what I say is that, at least in some main sense, I do not desire to argue. What I desire to do is to indicate areas that can be considered as possibilities for investigation. I would much rather make allusions---and thus successfully communicate my ideas, the things I value---than to blast someone to pieces with 'argument' ... and then shoot wisdom pearls toward or into them. ;-)

Okay. No part of what I have said here has any meaning for you. It is just another Wall of Words. It is pure, concentrated ignorance borne out of a deluded mind. I hang my head in shame ...

At the very least I am not suggesting this time around that you pay for it or subscribe to my bi-monthly newsletter!

All the references in this thread from Guenon to the Frankfurt School to Etienne Gilson and Plato are relevant pieces to the discourse that I seek to develop. As I have said in other places: I prefer the Questions. The Questions have more value, meaning, and relevance than a spurious or partial answer (and a half-baked one is obviously no good). Therefore, the ground that I choose to occupy is, in numerous sense, an open ground, a ground where dramatic and impetuous decisions have not been made. A ground of possibility and also a ground of experiment. I do not have answers, I have questions, and I am quite comfortable in that domain.
_____________________________________

*I have to say that some, Diebert for example, nearly completely oppose my sense or my assertion that GF has a 'core philosophical spirit' that can be spoken of as I do. Ever since I have known him he has opposed this assertion and still does. To speak as I do is in a way to 'operate a generalism' and generalisms are dangerous insofar as they produce inaccurate conclusions.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Metaphysic, Intuition, Intelligence

Post by jupiviv »

Alex wrote:The point in bringing this up is to refer to a certain kind of a personality, in a certain sort of environment, employing a certain form of a rap which deals on high things or high topics, which established itself in a dynamic of either/or, black & white, winner/loser, wise/stupid, intelligent/dumb, tuned-in and tuned-out. I have said it so many different times (with little effect on those who use and benefit from this binary structure and tactics of antagonism) that this looks in some ways like the dynamics that are common in cult-environment. Why say specifically 'cult-environment'? The reason is that the cult is generally speaking a group of persons who tends to concentrate power in or toward a person with a 'spiritual rap', and this means one who says: I have keys of Wisdom, I have keys of Power, I have keys of Salvation; I have keys of Enlightenment. These folks sense something about these important topics, and they establish themselves as 'brokers', they elect others who support their power, and thus embolden them with 'power', and the whole thing snow-balls and, as we all know, more often than not gets ugly.
OK, so according to your perspective of this forum, Diebert and I are members of the cult upon which the forum is centered. And both of us happen to active at the moment. Let's see whether any of the things you say are true in relation to us:

1.) a group of persons who tends to concentrate power in or toward a person with a 'spiritual rap', and this means one who says: I have keys of Wisdom, I have keys of Power, I have keys of Salvation; I have keys of Enlightenment. These folks sense something about these important topics, and they establish themselves as 'brokers', they elect others who support their power, and thus embolden them with 'power', and the whole thing snow-balls and, as we all know, more often than not gets ugly.

Do Diebert and I agree on who happens to have the keys of Wisdom? I for one certainly don't concentrate spiritual power towards anyone. From what I've read of Diebert's posts, neither does he. I do consider certain people, like Kevin Solway, to be wiser than certain other people, like you; but this is not empowerment of any kind since I don't depend on Kevin make any judgments or decisions for me.

2.) The only reference I am going to make here is to your tactics and your words. I allude to the fact that this dynamic was established by the Founders. They allowed it to happen because it served their purposes. You are one who has 'resonated' with that message, and who uses it. You have internalised, apparently, certain beliefs, views and understandings about your own self that gives you the right to 1) pull out of your ass some very grandiose terminology and to wear if not guru's clothes then at least a couple of strings of 'special beads' that would enable you to say, with no irony, 'I have been shooting wisdom peals toward your face for the duration of the conversation' and other such phrases, while you then---unreasoningly, without justification, and simply becayse you have a will to do so and thus you WILL do so, make an effort to demolish a person's position.

Yes, besides the "shooting pearls" bit (a reference to a cartoon), I was in fact being completely serious. I've been more or less spot on in my analysis of your personality and motivations (as exhibited) as well as my opposition to your various "arguments". And *you* have some nerve accusing me of being authoritative when you have said:
When I use the word 'non-communicable' it is connected to other definitions that have to be included. For example, the inner meaning, that is to me, of certain of my experiences which are the basis of my *understanding* of myself, and my existence here, are non-communicable to many and possibly most others. When I refer to non-communicability I am referring to knowledge and knowing of that order.
To which I have responded:
A person may not want to communicate certain things like experiences, but they are still communicable. Other people can intentionally or accidentally find out those same things without said person's consent or knowledge, and communicate them to others if they want. You are creating a distinction that doesn't even exist to support your position, and justifying by calling it a "definition that has to be included". This buffoonery might impress a dunce, who would perhaps think, "well, it is after all a 'definition that has to be included', so it must make some kind of sense!" But it doesn't fool anyone who actually bothers to comprehend it.
You believe there is a kind of knowledge which is only accessible to a special group of people (including you), and which cannot be communicated to those who lie outside that special group (presumably because it is beyond their comprehension). And you provide no criterion which might qualify one for the obtainment of such knowledge other than a bunch of nonsense about "inner meaning", a between-the-lines excerpt from some material by Plato and a fragment of a Blake poem.

I, on the other hand, called your distinction invalid, since your appraisal of the communicability of "inner meaning" is not logical. Thus, anyone (even if precluded from understanding it in your opinion) capable of logical thought and comprehending language or speech can (even without your consent) peruse this inner meaning and make valid judgments about it.

Your criterion for understanding a meaning that you evidently consider to be supreme is --> arbitrary relative to you. My criterion for understanding the meaning I or anyone else considers to be supreme is --> an ability to think logically. The former is decided by you, while the latter can be decided by every rational individual for himself without my involvement in the least. So, isn't it you who is wearing the vestment?

3.) Why is this aspect of 'demolition' relevant? A wise person said to me that one of the common features of 'argumentation' at GF is an 'argument' (which is as I say really only a concentration of will) to totally blast the adversary out of the water. To render what they say, and indeed what they are, as devoid of any integrity, relevance (to a general conversation), and to demonstrate that they are fundamentally deluded. The word 'deluded'---used by you and central to your rap, is a key word. It stems out of Buddhist terminology and so refers to structures of the mind, to structures really of all thinking, and thus if it is handled by a destructive person, or a power-hungry person, it turns into a fundamental attack on personhood. On the notion or the fact of persons. In its most extreme use it is literally an attack on the self. I spent a good deal of time and energy writing 'walls of words' (heh heh) on the topic of Zen's employment of techniques that share similarity with later Maoist techniques of brainwashing and mind-control. The lesson about this came to me in the context of Genius Forum and watching Quinn operate. He has so internalised some of these techniques (they are used subtly of course and he is not a 'destructive personality' and I am not trying to paint him that way: to understand what I am getting at requires discernment and the handling of subtleties). But the dynamic was established. And you, in my humble opinion, are a descent representative of it.

Speaking of irony...

In any case, it wouldn't be too hard to find plenty of instances where members of your imaginary cult have agreed to disagree, bowed out of a futile or inefficacious conversation or even conceded a point.
Now, what does this mean, and what is to be brought to bear against it? Or as 'alternative', as 'antidote'? Though I can honestly understand why you, jupiviv, would and do reject everything that I have to say and all that I have brought forward in this thread (I mean it is that extreme! There is nothing here that you consider relevant or necessary or that is valued). We touched on the word 'human' and the cognates humanitarian and humanist, and as it turns out, at least as I see things, the idea, the topic, the discipline, the area, the fact, and the possibility of the human is what has to be brought forward or brought back around. Do you see how this functions? Essentially, your war is against a part of yourself---the 'all too human'. I admit that Nietzsche is a very very interesting person, and also that his quotes are strong and their messages are succinct and direct. I can even admit to being a 'Nietzschean' (or to having been influenced by him) to some degree. But Nietzsche is both poison and medicine. I will leave that there for now.
If what you reveal of yourself is genuine, then I really don't know what to say. Actually I do, but I don't want to. I hope you find a place where your considerable and exotic talents are appreciated. I recommend: http://voxday.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Metaphysic, Intuition, Intelligence

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Thanks jupiviv. Again, you put some time into it and that is appreciated. My impression from a rather quick read is that you understood little of what I wrote, but isn't that to be expected? You didn't imagine a different result, did you? Thanks for the recommendation to form a Blog. I will take it under consideration.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

::: INTERMISSION :::

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

We hope you enjoyed the first part of the Show, folks.

Get up, stretch, do the dishes. Oh and here is a humorous and slightly ironic commentary on recent events. A great deal of what is needed to understand an 'inner dynamic' in operation will be revealed. Enjoy!

And then we'll be back soon with more Metaphysic, Intuition, and Intelligence ...

And more helpful hints of what is needed to get through a troublesome & oft confusing incarnation ...
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Metaphysic, Intuition, Intelligence

Post by jupiviv »

Alex wrote:My impression from a rather quick read is that you understood little of what I wrote
Lol...pride is indeed the key to a man's secrets.
Locked