Christians and me, Part II:

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: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Seeker wrote:I'm curious to know what some practical beneficial advice would be.
You have to glean that out of the general contribution made. Like a [true] zennish fuck I avoid and derail all direct questions.

But I would certainly suggest that, in my view, Evola is on to something, which is why I submitted it.
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

I'm not surprised that all you could do was drop a name.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Leyla Shen »

A Meaningful Lesson in the Grammatical Occult proudly brought to you by the man looking for his own history who can't even find his own voice: the distinguished G von Bjornstrapon MD

Titled: PROFOUND ESOTERCISIM AND INVERTED COMMAS
Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Jupi wins - a truly honest win - about 30,000 GF Merit Points and personalised instruction from some enlightened master or other for his 'Dieberclete' coinage. But with this:
Your output on this thread embodies self-pretence, so Alex is right in this instance (albeit like a broken clock). Both Alex and you are completely oblivious of *context*.
He is 'back in the game' of oneupmanship, one of the most addictive games going. I see things a bit differently: I think a person comes into perspectives and inhabits them for some period of time and even when - not saying this is so in your case - they reveal themselves as 'dead-ends', one still has gained vast experience 'handling ideas'. I'd suggest that you and Jupi are in some senses in the same boat: Quite simply not enough experience in 'life' to be able to make 'absolute statements'. You must remember that Jupi's mother is still lovingly folding his tighty-whities and placing them in the drawer (or his mother's proxy). He has a good deal of theoretical knowledge, and speculative knowledge, and oodles of a certain sort of 'will', yet I'd suggest that 'wisdom' is still out of his range.
Terms, concepts and even entire philosophies mean different things in different contexts. The concept that absolute truth can be known, for example, is *entirely* different in the context of Mr. Wright's Catholicism than that of a mathematics professor. The concept that wisdom shouldn't be too good for the quotidian domain means different things in the original context of the Tathagata and that of, say, Osho.
This is in many ways a deviation from the 'monotheory of our Revered Founders. Except that it could be said that it is the very *domain itself*, the earth-space, and Existence as a sort of capsule of experience, that allows for large (and 'absolute') truths to 'exist'. So, when hs uses the word 'means' (mean different things to different people) he is throwing decision-power back on the individual and his local-context. But it seems to still leave open the question/fact of 'absolutes'. My view is that 'we can get closer and closer to reality' but we cannot ever lay absolute claim to knowledge or understanding of it. So, I suppose my view shares commonality with Jupi (Yet I fold my own underpants and don't even ask Mrs. Bjornstrand to do it).
But since both of you are stuck in a single context, or at least a group of related contexts, anyone who isn't operating within the same will always seem stupid to you.
I think he has delberately 'swerved' on you (a forced swerve of your meanings). It is not so much 'context' that determines your rigidity-of-view (if I may say it so), but rather a necessary dogmatism of an elaborated, but theoretical, position. Except that I doubt you'd say it like that since, for you, your metaphysical description (dream) is 'the way things eally are'. [Ed. the way things "eally" are? - Lol]

Myself, I am deliberately Euro-Centric except that - recently perhaps - I am now infinitely more open to the idea that we must allow for non-monological definitions (of reality and really of all things). We have to subvery therefor the great levelling trends which tend to mould everyone in the same perception-orientation. We have to allow for the strangeness of all the different levels of metaphysical being (those mind-creations, those metaphysical dreams, and from one level of view those hallucinations) to 'have being'. We have to break with the motion of the idea that a uniform viewpoint is desired.

So, when I speak of 'our traditions' I can only speak to those birds of that feather. (Yet oddly Jupi is thoroughly 'out of his context' since all his 'categories' seem to be European. Jupi? What's up with that?
Your context - online Buddhism as philosophy; online debate as affectation of wisdom. His context - nerdy guardian-librarian of the Western Canon who gets the girl in the end.
Jupi: Rsing Master of the Nip. A pup with sharp teeth! I love it.

A small clarification: While you can ridicule 'the library' it is not wise to fail to understand that what I mean is, really, 'context'. I mean 'that which has made us, us'. I mean (to cite Hiedegger again) our historicity that is producing us as well as all 'possibilities' of choice. It is true that a literal library is a delight to me, but I mean something that is far more than the library, since what I can only mean is self and being (in context).
Even though some may believe this thread has been derailed many times over, I think it still serves its original purpose for those capable of discerning it. It was never about Christianity or a poncy Catholic sci-fi author, but about the fact that deluded people oppose reason even when they respect it (because it sometimes helps them vindicate their delusions). Only faith in reason can silence the clamour of delusions, because it is humbly, beautifully, nobly silent before the God that reason reveals.
This sweats if it does not drip a little Romantic, does it not? It infuses some rhetorical jello into the mould of intended meaning and it manages to work, somehow. But I think - to be honest - we'd have to linger over the word 'reason'. Is this logic-reason or another, rarer, animal? Because 'true reasoning' is always (I'd suggest) an authentic expression of the sap and soil and scent of 'genuine relationship to context'. You can't make 'authentic' and thus 'reasoned' statements if you are divorced from your 'context'. It is our context that, like a plant in the soil, allows for 'all this'.
"Kierkegaard"]Out there with the lily and the bird there is silence. But what does this silence express? It expresses respect for God, that it is he who rules and he alone to whom wisdom and understanding are due. And just because this silence is veneration for God, is worship, as it can be in nature, this silence is so solemn. And because this silence is solemn in this way, one is aware of God in nature—what wonder, then, when everything is silent out of respect for him! Even if he does not speak, the fact that everything is silent out of respect for him affects one as if he spoke.
Whole other ways of knowing, seeing, being, relating, and carrying on are implied in this.

So utterly contrary to the general mood (or the 'historical mood') of our Beloved GF. N'est-ce pas?
You know there's an alternative to the overuse of inverted commas, right?
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Leyla Shen »

For "those" of us "obviously" not "in" on the "mind blowing" "secret", it's called "filling in" the "black holes" in your own thinking.
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by jupiviv »

@Leia, this could be a good idea for a game - XEALot Scrabble. Form a coherent sentence with scare quoted phrases found in Xeal's posts. I believe there is an ABD mod for embedding games in phpBB3. I'll liaise with Dieberclete and Navi Soy Lewk about this - we're going places baby!
Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:I'd suggest that you and Jupi are in some senses in the same boat: Quite simply not enough experience in 'life' to be able to make 'absolute statements'.
No amount of 'life' can give you experience. How old are you anyway? I'm 24.
Terms, concepts and even entire philosophies mean different things in different contexts. The concept that absolute truth can be known, for example, is *entirely* different in the context of Mr. Wright's Catholicism than that of a mathematics professor. The concept that wisdom shouldn't be too good for the quotidian domain means different things in the original context of the Tathagata and that of, say, Osho.
This is in many ways a deviation from the 'monotheory of our Revered Founders.
And with that observation you demonstrate, yet again, your incomprehension of context.
Locked