Christians and me, Part II:

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

What does it mean to see 'through and not with the eye', Leyla? What does he mean?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

you've already stated that you "understand life/consciousness/awareness as being 'eternal'." Did I not say this exact thing?

You ignored this. I'm also interested in you how you came to that conclusion?

If anything, I'm looking at the history of philosophy, such as Plato or the Buddha, and beginning any discussion surrounding philosophy from the very roots.

What I meant was that, such philosophers were essentially concerned with the idea of 'conquering oneself' and spoke of the possibility of greater insight in regards to the self and the nature of reality. My point is that, the method of achieving this insight is not simply through hearing an idea, but through independent contemplation, the drive for which comes from the love of wisdom.

And as the Buddha made clear in the description of his 'eight-fold path', or as Aristotle made clear, "The ultimate value of life depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation". It is awareness and contemplation in regards to these fundamental concerns -such as investigation into the nature of consciousness, reality, and thought- which I am claiming must necessarily and logically precede investigation into other avenues, such as cultural concerns, if one truly endeavors to engage in philosophy. In this sense, there is a logical 'order' of knowledge. No point in making mortar if you don't have any bricks. The one who is ignorant in regard to these fundamental concerns is not capable of discerning truth- or logically determining what is valuable- further down the line. This is why I talk about metaphysical 'foundations' first, (such as investigation in regard to consciousness, knowledge, thought, belief, the senses, emotion, prejudice, and so on) and why I'm interested in your answer to the question above.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Mr. Seeker, I think I understand fairly well your focus. And though I bring forward a critique (obviously I began this as one relational to the forum Founders) that is sensible, grounded, valid and valuable, it is a rule of mine that each man needs his 'metaphysical dream'. If you destroy a man's metaphysical dream you destroy, in this sense, his conceptual pathway to higher ideas and ideals. This is an idea that is explained and supported in Traditonalist schools.

Yet if we are going to be really and truly accurate, and if we are going to speak of, say, Plato, I do not think your encapsulation functions. You'd need to fill it out considerably. Plato and that entire school was interested in defining a 'Republic', which is an inner organisation of men as well as an outer organisation. 'Conquering oneself' - the notion of rulership by a higher element of a lower chaos - was certainly one of the main ideals, but I think that you'd need to expand your base-definition considerably. Now, what the Buddha and the Buddhist school, both then and through history, and in different regions, proposed for civilisational organisation and social organisation is outside of my scope. But it is incomparable with that of the Hellenic world. (Or perhaps you have a different idea). But I do not think that the Buddhist school wrote about, or thought in terms of, a platonic 'Republic'. Yet there is a great deal of that sort of material in the Indian Vedas so perhaps I am wrong.

Again, I am not so sure as you are that it is possible to gain some radically independent insight into 'the world' (the cosmos) as you assume can be availed through 'contemplation'. In any case, all of our ideas and the possibility of having an idea and expressing it, depend on language and language's mysteries. I fully agree that remarkable experiences and insights can occur - do occur - through contemplative activities, yet I believe they are relational and in a sense 'dependent on' (arising from) awareness already established. Is a radical break or a reinitiation possible? Or advisable? Can't say.

In any case, it makes no sense to abandon or to minimize the importance of idea-resources. Your 'accusation' of me is that I am in your estimation too involved in second-hand material and that I *should* undertake your practices. I am uncertain what to think of that. But I will repeat that one of the purposes of Zen proselytisation is to produce an 'ideological renewal'. I have seen this function in this forum-space for a long time, and it is suspect.

My position is likely much more that of a Hellenic classicist therefor. I think you are really rather wrong in attempting to syncretise Aristotelean concerns and focus with Buddhist concerns and focus. But I know that some here have different views. Diebert has distributed articles about a zennish relationship to early Greek ideas; and that Nietzsche spoke of the 'chinesification' of Europe.

I do not have an answer for you (about immortality and 'sat'). So many different influences have conspired to form that notion. But I will say that I don't really pay much attention to it since, effectively, it has little bearing on day-to-day activities.

However to be quite frank I have very little clear sense of what is appropriate 'spiritual' activity. 'Contemplation' I feel I undertake, though it certainly more tied to thinking and intellectual activity. I am aware of mental pracitices: meditation of various sorts, non-thinking, even prayer. But if you asked me what practice is most efficacious for a living being in the world right now, I would be a little stumped. But this does not mean that I do not have preferred practice(s) or things that help me to establish or maintain equilibrium. I could I suppose entertain the notion of investigating the very platform of thinking and being (consciousness) as you recommend, but if your overall praxis is what comes from it (though I have little idea what you value in real life or even what you do), I don't think it is for me. It certainly seems to be something for some though. Well, all that is so but I have also had a series of pretty radical - interesting at the least - 'spiritual' experiences and would not diminish the importance of seeking them.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

'Contemplation' I feel I undertake, though it certainly more tied to thinking and intellectual activity.

I could I suppose entertain the notion of investigating the very platform of thinking and being (consciousness) as you recommend,

Then spend a fair amount of time independently 'investigating the very platform of thinking and being', instead of simply assuming it isn't for you. Get some 'hours clocked', ask those fundamental 'questions', over and over if need be. There's a lot to see, a lot to discover. I suggest you undertake this practice alone without distraction and without any familiar texts or common metaphysical worldviews in mind, so as to avoid prejudice.

Perhaps it is some of the conclusions of these insights, as communicated through language, which you find off-putting, maybe without fully understanding them. Such as the forum founders proposed disassociation from 'the world', which is something I would also disagree with. Yet I can understand the insight/reasoning that leads to this point. Perhaps you simply have no reason to think there is much more to be 'discovered' in regard to investigating your own mind, or you don't see any additional benefit in doing so, but I would say there are almost ineffable benefits, including insurmountable real life benefits. Nothing else should be prioritized over this 'educational' activity in importance. That you do not have the same regard for it demonstrates to me that you're yet to "see" as far as you can, but obviously you won't agree. To elaborate further, I'll provide a few general examples of these fundamental "questions": Regarding free will and whether you are in control of your thoughts/self. Regarding life and death. Regarding the nature of reality or "the cosmos". Regarding fear, loss, emotion, relationship, suffering. Regarding your potential and realizing it. Regarding bondage, duty, and freedom. Regarding what you should logically do in your life. Regarding causality, emptiness, impermanence, meaning, discrimination, virtue, ignorance, prevalent delusions, and so on.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I could have predicted your response. "Do what I do and you will 'see' what I see, and you will experience the 'ideological transformation' as I have". The only area that you can consider - in my writing which speaks to larger questions - is the limited area of your own activity.

I have seen this same structure of argument and argumentation occur time and time again. It is the result, of course, of dealing with fanatics.

The 'conclusions of these insights' taken overall is simply a restatement of the verbal loop. The initial assertion is the final assertion.

Our difference has a deeper foundation than you will allow yourself to understand. I do not deny 'contemplation', I suggest caution in involving oneself in what you do with your contemplation. I suggest caution in allowing oneself to come under the influence of your ideological program and to 'lingering' over the basic tenets and looking into them with an insight which, I imagine, you suppose you are not in need of.

Time and time again I have noticed this same - and basically it is a fanatical religious position - tactic: great claims about 'advantages' but nothing at all concrete offered. A great deal of assuming value and benefit while simultaneously denying the result of great sacrifices to achieve 'tangible knowledge'. Great claims about 'knowledge' though, even a special and fundamental knowledge about 'the cosmos' as well as 'bondage, duty and freedom'. And then 'regarding causality, emptiness, impermanence, meaning, discrimination, virtue, ignorance, prevalent delusions, and so on'.

I think it is more than just not being convinced by the core claims (they are really and essentially and exactly the srot of claims made by the zennists which Becker critiques) but in suggesting a conversation where 'value' is put on the table and discussed. For example - though I do not intend this as an insult - your discourse, in its way, is of a similar stripe as that psychobabble between Diebert and Leyla. A private conversation between insiders with shared agreements. Is it 100% 'invalid'? No. Is there absolutely no sense at all in it? No. Similalry, the 'contemplation' that you seem to privelage is less a thing-in-itself that one can actually look at, but a group of assertions and claims that you have made a priori. Thus you are describing a 'metaphysic' and your relationship to it is your preferred 'metaphysical dream'.

So, it is not that I deny some possible benefit from contemplating thought in a zennish manner (say as in Vipassana: 'seeing things as they really are') but rather that I question the result sought which I have suggested could be described as 'ideological renovation'. Would there be no 'gain' at all from a Vipassana retreat? Of course there would be gain. But would I and should anyone wish to ally oneself with an overall ideological school of thinking that, if Becker is right, is destructive to 'our own' hard-won attainments and the methods of attainment? The question has far more nuance than you are able to understand becuase, of course, you operate in this conversation like a zealot.

I'd suggest that life itself - even the 'life' which for you would necessarily be 'delusion' and 'error', and a relationship to life and divinity (the notion of relationship with an intelligence and a knowing beyond one's own self) can and does provide insight and understanding into what are, and what are not, relevant lines and paths to traverse. I hope that you capture what I am saying. You say 'You have to go deeper and I will show you the way to this depth', but I respond by saying: I do not see evidence of this depth in you: in what you say, in what you recommend (except as these glossary claims which anyone can make). Your discourse, overall, does not support the claim.

I have been suggesting that your method, overall, is anti-rational and anti-intellectual. It leads to the jettisoning of and the discouragement of valuable ways and means of knowing which must be preserved. In this, 'you' are part of larger trends which lead to a valuation of unreason and, as a result, the destruction of links and relationships to very important things, things that can be known and described tangibly.

[Leyla Shen]

I see your point. You need say no more.

Lol. Yeah, sure you do.

~

The one true metaphysic is the ethno-cultural metaphysic. Why? "Because praxis.”

The essence of the practical Jew is money.

Money buys you the necessary time to study the history of your people and your roots so that you can find out who you really are.

There is no truer wisdom and metaphysic than the praxis of the bourgeoisie!

[Leyla Shen]

• How would, I say, mine eyes be blessed made
  By looking on thee in the living day,
  When in dead night thy fair imperfect shade
  Through heavy sleep on sightless eyes doth stay!

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker: When I use the words 'default position' I'm referring to the absolute and undeniable truth of "consciousness". The truth that there is thought/sensation/feeling and that these are transient is not up for debate and it is not dependent upon any metaphysical dream, though it is communicated through them I suppose. Perhaps if you cared more to distinguish between what is absolute/undeniable, and what is simply a personal dream, you'd have a clearer insight and would completely eschew ideas such as "descending".

The primary metaphysical chewing exercise seems to hinge on the need to distinguish between the laws of existence and their manifestations as consciousness, not only in the domain of logical insight, but also in the domain of identity (I-realization/experience). Logically, the laws of existence do not change. Gravity is gravity, hate is hate, love is love, etc., A = A. Also logically, because they are not separate, the manifestations of the unchanging laws of existence as consciousness must also be unchanging, the apple always falls downward, hate produces a different mental and emotional experience than love, etc. Where the confusion can set in is that these things of conscious apprehension may appear to be changing, a certain thought or feeling is here in one moment and not the next, the apple was once on the tree, one stops hating for the sake of loving, etc., but this sense of change is but a "trick" of perception that needs to be "seen through" as being false. The law is the law, seen or unseen and the Word is of the law.

[Pam Seeback]

How the understanding of A = A fits into interpretations of interpretations (Alex :-) is that is doesn't. This is why it is only at the level of unfiltered interpretation that one experiences the reality of themselves. This is why when one tries to live according to cultural-societal "templates" they experience confusion, separation and alienation.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Well, Leyla, I think it more revealing to posit that the essence of the Jew is practicality, but I think you would be better off gaining greater insight into a more essentialist antisemitic stance. (Or an 'anti-Jewish' stance as that is the term you seem to like more).

One major essence of the Jew in history - I would say that it is the more salient feature - is Will, and Will empowered by Idea. By focusing in on Will, and then making an analysis of the 'Jewish historical project' - or projects - one can then make other analysis of what that Will is directed to. It is indeed possible to place focus on gaining wealth but this can only be done if one has a developed will. And when one has a developed historical will, and when will is established as a racial or tribal chacteristic: then you really have something to sink your teeth into (in a manner of speaking of course).

The trait that is most disturbing - but secretly admired if not envied - for Gentiles about Jews is less the capacity to focus on wealth and gain it, but rather to focus an historical will that functions through time, and to have established a universal outcome and to stick to its realization.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Logically, the laws of existence do not change. Gravity is gravity, hate is hate, love is love, etc., A = A. Also logically, because they are not separate, the manifestations of the unchanging laws of existence as consciousness must also be unchanging, the apple always falls downward, hate produces a different mental and emotional experience than love, etc. Where the confusion can set in is that these things of conscious apprehension may appear to be changing, a certain thought or feeling is here in one moment and not the next, the apple was once on the tree, one stops hating for the sake of loving, etc., but this sense of change is but a "trick" of perception that needs to be "seen through" as being false. The law is the law, seen or unseen and the Word is of the law.

The law of identity, used by Quinn and many of this school, is a mistaken use. I think that a whole area of error is located in this. It is a tantalising - and I might also say 'seductive' - mental projection. It most definitely functions insofar as it operates within a pre-established 'agreement' about terms and limits, and thus is very useful in logic. However, there are other predicates that are possible even for argumentation. I seem to remember reading a Jainist treatise which described seven different predicates. For example, if I stand with one foot inside the house and one out I could successfully argue that I am not in the house nor am I outside the house.

It is logically attractive to say that 'reality is reality' and that 'it is what it is and can't be anything else' and that 'we must discover and describe what it is and discern it from what it is not'. Then: 'I have special insight into what it 'is' (and what it is not) and I can reveal this or instruct you to 'see' what I see'. It does not take a rocket scientist, or a Vipassana instructor, to see where this goes. I suggest that anyone with a lick of sense must see the problematical in such declarations.

Thus Nabokov's statement: "You can get nearer and nearer, so to speak, to reality; but you can never get near enough because reality is an infinite succession of steps, levels of perception, false bottoms, and hence unquenchable, unattainable" takes on greater poignancy, and one can then confront another 'truth': something about the lack of a capacity to make absolute conclusions and possibly to 'know absolutely'.

So yes, for Alex this usage of A = A is questioned.

You propose there is a template that is not cultural-societal, and you propose that you know this. But that is the nature of epistemes (sciences): they are systems in which one functions.

I would say that it is true that cultural-societal 'templates' are always incomplete. That is a fair statement. But one seeks templates anyway. And is this not what you are attempting?

[Pam Seeback]

I'll put A = A into Christian terms. Genesis 1 is the template of A = A. Examine the language, "God said", "God called", "God made", "God saw", "it was good", "and it was so." A = A. Not a shadow of doubt or opinion anywhere to be found. In other words, God (or Spirit of existence) doesn't think about things, he says them and they are so. It is to this perfection of Word that a Son of God attains. It is how Jesus spoke, declarative statements about his identity as the speaker of truth, the Word, he had no need to consult with manuals or the opinions of others on how to life his life. What did he say about the things of the world (culture, politics, etc.)? That they belong to Caesar, not to God.

The perfect template of the Father of Genesis 1, A = A extends into the domain of justice and love in the sense world which is why for the man who lives of A = A has no need for culture or politics that express and determine collective moral templates of good and evil. Instead he lives of his wisdom conscience. Who is the ignorant dude who has not wisdom of A = A? That would be Mr. Lord God of Genesis 2 who "walked in the garden" and couldn't find his kids, the tyrant of "thou shalt not" and banishment that hung around being the jealous king of the world until the beginning of the New Testament when Jesus came as the truth teller of the true originator (cause) of form, that of the Father of "I am" and "it is so."

As for your feet/house example, one foot is inside the house and one foot is outside the house, A = A, what is there to argue about?

[Leyla Shen]

To the Pantomime of Many Faces but the Same Character:

Well, Leyla, I think it more revealing to posit that the essence of the Jew is practicality, but I think you would be better off gaining greater insight into a more essentialist antisemitic stance. (Or an 'anti-Jewish' stance as that is the term you seem to like more).

And again, why wouldn’t you, since that would mean you can carry on parading the personal and particular subjective as though it were a universal truth:

One major essence of the Jew in history - I would say that it is the more salient feature - is Will, and Will empowered by Idea. By focusing in on Will, and then making an analysis of the 'Jewish historical project' - or projects - one can then make other analysis of what that Will is directed to. It is indeed possible to place focus on gaining wealth but this can only be done if one has a developed will. And when one has a developed historical will, and when will is established as a racial or tribal chacteristic: then you really have something to sink your teeth into (in a manner of speaking of course).

Well, if you're asking me, I would accurately express it like this:

• One major essence of the Jew in history - I would say that it is the more salient feature - is having more Jewish babies, and having more Jewish babies empowered by Idea. By focusing in on having more Jewish babies, and then making an analysis of the 'Jewish historical project' - or projects - one can then make other analysis of what that having more Jewish babies is directed to. It is indeed possible to place focus on gaining wealth but this can only be done if one has a developed having more Jewish babies. And when one has a developed historical having more Jewish babies, and when having more Jewish babies is established as a racial or tribal chacteristic: then you really have something to sink your teeth into (in a manner of speaking of course).

The trait that is most disturbing - but secretly admired if not envied - for Gentiles about Jews is less the capacity to focus on wealth and gain it, but rather to focus an historical will that functions through time, and to have established a universal outcome and to stick to its realization.

(You wish.)

One of my favourite quotes from Marx:

• He who can buy bravery is brave, though he be a coward. As money is not exchanged for any one specific quality, for any one specific thing, or for any particular human essential power, but for the entire objective world of man and nature, from the standpoint of its possessor it therefore serves to exchange every quality for every other, even contradictory, quality and object: it is the fraternisation of impossibilities. It makes contradictions embrace.

Modern Israel, "rebuilt" with money from its historic defeat, anyone?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I could have predicted your response. "Do what I do and you will 'see' what I see,

That's basically how it works for almost every area of education. The thing is that, you can 'test' it, you can do it yourself, and you have no reason not to, you've got plenty of time.

Time and time again I have noticed this same - and basically it is a fanatical religious position - tactic: great claims about 'advantages' but nothing at all concrete offered.

What would you expect, a halo? Wisdom and righteousness are literally about rightness. It is really just a high regard for logic and understanding, which provides incredible 'advantages' in every area of life, in more ways than you can yet "see". I understand that at least one of the forum founders proposed the necessity of relative poverty, or disassociation from the world, but they're different people, and they obviously contradict themselves ceaselessly. I remember reading as one of them suggested that we should live in city's so as to never forget how terrible the world is. You stereotype and generalize way too often.

A great deal of assuming value and benefit while simultaneously denying the result of great sacrifices to achieve 'tangible knowledge'.

No one is denying 'tangible knowledge'.

So, it is not that I deny some possible benefit from contemplating thought in a zennish manner (say as in Vipassana: 'seeing things as they really are') but rather that I question the result sought which I have suggested could be described as 'ideological renovation'. Would there be no 'gain' at all from a Vipassana retreat? Of course there would be gain.

I'd suspect there would be little gain from going to a Vipassana retreat, except to feed your ego and waste your money.

I'd suggest that life itself - even the 'life' which for you would necessarily be 'delusion' and 'error', and a relationship to life and divinity (the notion of relationship with an intelligence and a knowing beyond one's own self) can and does provide insight and understanding into what are, and what are not, relevant lines and paths to traverse.

I hope you're not talking about divinity and an intelligence beyond one's own self as any literal being, though I'd guess you were only referencing 'unknown' knowledge beyond one's self, which begs the question as to why you used the word divinity?

You say 'You have to go deeper and I will show you the way to this depth', but I respond by saying: I do not see evidence of this depth in you: in what you say, in what you recommend (except as these glossary claims which anyone can make). Your discourse, overall, does not support the claim.

The point is that you wouldn't know, you refuse to attempt it, because you already have a strong predisposition toward it.

A quote comes to mind:

14.4
The inner condition
of one who is devoid of doubt
yet moves among creatures of illusion
can only be known by those like him.
-Ashtavakra

You continuously speak about the value of other's ideas, of history and culture, yet you do not demonstrate that you know of your own value.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Logically, the laws of existence do not change.

Only if they're actually "laws of existence" and not just conjecture.

Gravity is gravity, hate is hate, love is love, etc.

In regard to specifics such as these, we are speaking more about definitions. Hate could easily be mistaken for anger, or anger for stress, there aren't definite boundaries here, so I wouldn't call these absolutes, for all you know "hate" may disappear never to reappear again.

the apple always falls downward

If it's falling yes, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an apple flying upward.

Where the confusion can set in is that these things of conscious apprehension may appear to be changing, a certain thought or feeling is here in one moment and not the next, the apple was once on the tree, one stops hating for the sake of loving, etc., but this sense of change is but a "trick" of perception that needs to be "seen through" as being false.

"Laws" are qualities, such as impermanence. A quality may be permanent, yet everything of existence/consciousness is still constantly changing, it isn't a "Trick". There can be endless consistency of such qualities of transience, they don't contradict each other, it's only in definition when one might become confused saying something like: impermanence is a permanent quality of all appearances. (Including the sentence or concept).

The law is the law, seen or unseen and the Word is of the law.

I agree, as long as it's actually a "law", and not just conjecture. Though 'the Word' may cover more than just the law, but often concerns itself with the temporary. The 'rightness' of logic of course is law, but the conclusions of logic and the logic itself may change in some aspects based on the conditions of the temporary.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Well, I finally have scanned this thread again and my God, how many times my name was dropped, and especially that "Diebert & Leyla" , "Leyla & Diebert" (how many times?) - sounds like calling out for attention from some neglectful, post-modern, new-age, hippy, dope-head parents. But that's just an aside.

Overall the theme of Gustav, King of Sweden, appears to be, summarized Alex style (meaning I ignored probably all what's deemed "important") that all those existentially suffering and seeking prophets, philosophers, artist, martyrs and poets through the ages should really have focussed on "projecting masculine will" and have found some wife and kid to care for while dabbling in property as to secure themselves some walled in promised land to hide and complain about the world falling apart: barbarianism at the gate! The war on "terror" now can begin... Note that this might be very well an interesting metaphor of modernity and its fate.

The machinery of motive needs propulsion: the enemy at the gate, a world going under, a victim, the ultimate power cycling, the projections and of course subversion of any natural self-reflection, the suppression of conscience (the "real" enemy). Against the dreadful destruction of truth, which would dismantle the project all too easily, more and more structures have to be build, preferably on a forum (land) where the very truth about origin, nature and self-reflection is the most present, if one knows where to look or to dig. There have been a handful of such "settlers" at the forum, people who were in all aspects completely alien to the nature of the place, hanging on with great stubbornness, carving out some presence by reposting the oddest red herrings. Forgive me for all the metaphorical language, it's not meant as political comment since in the world (as we know it through the news reel of the real) is a very ambiguous place where no clear lines exist. We're talking about the smaller, finer grained existential level here.

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker: In regard to specifics such as these, we are speaking more about definitions. Hate could easily be mistaken for anger, or anger for stress, there aren't definite boundaries here, so I wouldn't call these absolutes, for all you know "hate" may disappear never to reappear again.

To the one who knows themselves and does not dance the dance of avoidance and maybe (relativism), hate is hate, anger is anger. As for mistaking hate for anger in another, this is precisely why to apply A = A (I know the truth of) to another's worldview is the epitome of ignorance. I see this done frequently, Bob trying to guess the truth of Sue's intent when he has no clue. This is self-righteous reasoning, the gourmand buffet of social media.

Absolutes exist, however, it does not mean they have to appear. Just as there are absolutes that are yet to appear, those we know not of (yet).

movingalways wrote:
the apple always falls downward

If it's falling yes, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an apple flying upward.

In this world as we know it to be, apples fall downward. If there is another world wherein apples fall upward, well, then that would be its absolute.

movingalways wrote:
Where the confusion can set in is that these things of conscious apprehension may appear to be changing, a certain thought or feeling is here in one moment and not the next, the apple was once on the tree, one stops hating for the sake of loving, etc., but this sense of change is but a "trick" of perception that needs to be "seen through" as being false.

"Laws" are qualities, such as impermanence. A quality may be permanent, yet everything of existence/consciousness is still constantly changing, it isn't a "Trick". There can be endless consistency of such qualities of transience, they don't contradict each other, it's only in definition when one might become confused saying something like: impermanence is a permanent quality of all appearances. (Including the sentence or concept).

Laws are not qualities, qualities require comparison. You cannot compare a law with a law, a law stands alone, it is what it is. The entire world of good and evil relativism hinges on the deluded concept of "the truth of" qualities.

movingalways wrote:
The law is the law, seen or unseen and the Word is of the law.

I agree, as long as it's actually a "law", and not just conjecture.

See what happens when you agree, avoiding the absolute? You leave the relativism of disagreement hanging.

Though 'the Word' may cover more than just the law, but often concerns itself with the temporary. The 'rightness' of logic of course is law, but the conclusions of logic and the logic itself may change in some aspects based on the conditions of the temporary.

Your phone or computer or tablet (the Word) is either present in your consciousness or it is not, A = A. Why compound/confound your mind with smoke and mirror ideas that only serve to cause contradiction such as temporary, permanent, impermanent, 'rightness'?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

The machinery of motive needs propulsion: the enemy at the gate, a world going under, a victim, the ultimate power cycling, the projections and of course subversion of any natural self-reflection, the suppression of conscience (the "real" enemy). Against the dreadful destruction of truth, which would dismantle the project all too easily, more and more structures have to be build, preferably on a forum (land) where the very truth about origin, nature and self-reflection is the most present, if one knows where to look or to dig. There have been a handful of such "settlers" at the forum, people who were in all aspects completely alien to the nature of the place, hanging on with great stubbornness, carving out some presence by reposting the oddest red herrings. Forgive me for all the metaphorical language, it's not meant as political comment since in the world (as we know it through the news reel of the real) is a very ambiguous place where no clear lines exist. We're talking about the smaller, finer grained existential level here.

This is I think an essentialist reduction into postmodern terms, isn't it? I think a 'study' of your views illustrates a strict postmodernism - a reaction to nihilism - than it does to neo-Buddhism. I admit to not ever quite being able to place you. I could not imagine you as a postmodernist and yet, lo and behold, it would appear this is your 'existential strategy'. If that is true, you function within postmodernist loops and are thus outside of the question of the possibility of locating 'substantial truths'.

And though I would say, with Nabokov, that we can get closer and closer to reality but cannot 'attain' it, I would say that for you this much is not even possible: you remain detached, non-committed, in Baudrillardesque irony. I am not so sure this should be seen as a valuable attainment. Is it strength and insight that places you here, or is it weakness and failure to commit?

Is the 'natural evolution' of Western nihilsm the neo-Buddhist shift? Could it be that that manoeuvre is the only one left? But what is it, I mean really? It is the longing for cessation is it not? There MUST be a way out of the impossible and viscious circle of life and being, and so Mahar's mantra becomes necessary: It's empty and meaningless.

This is an ideological position. And as I say it would appear to be the desired ideological outcome of the zennish manoeuvre overall. I question that strategy.

What I find interesting in your *impass* is that in it and with it you'd only be able to loop constantly between desire for something and then noticing that any desire is 'seduction'. It would seem to become a neurotic loop that would undermine your own existence. Existing.

But is this manoeuvre really the 'best' one? I will admit that it is a safe one insofar as you'd have a perfect excuse to avoid commitments of any sort.

In a sense though you are right: To come face to face with nihilism, to come up against such a wall, will inevitably thwart movement forward. One's only available alternative is then to recoil back on oneself, into oneself, and to channel the will in a loop of realisation and meditation on one's mired condition. That is a frustrating position - agonizing really - and that agony and frustration feed the loop.

Something like that?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

That's basically how it works for almost every area of education. The thing is that, you can 'test' it, you can do it yourself, and you have no reason not to, you've got plenty of time.

I am relatively sure that you cannot fully understand what is the basis of my critique. This sort of impass between people, on this and thousands of other fora, is classic. I have made my case and I don't think there is too much more to add.

I would like to know more of your theories about education though. That might be a way to see your ideas in motion. You mentioned a few posts back that, given the possibility, you would start with children. What would you recommend?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I am relatively sure that you cannot fully understand what is the basis of my critique.

Another dismissal, I understood you fine. You have free time, and you basically admitted you haven't engaged in the sort of contemplation that has been referred to, so what's the excuse? My point is that your "critique" will change if you do.

Also, I don't have any theories regarding how to go about education, mostly if I were asked I would only be able to critique the current education system for being incredibly and utterly crap, at least here in Australia, and I didn't even go to a public school. I can only imagine how terrible public schools are in the US. So my first "theory" about education systems for children, as far as I've seen them, would firstly be to actually create some.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This is I think an essentialist reduction into postmodern terms, isn't it?

Not really, but to verify that you need to understand what "postmodern terms" are and what they aren't. It's like that old thing again: when you employ metaphors, they are "flying over people's' head" and when it's someone else, it's obscurantism and post-modern or some other flavour of reductionism. Never will it cross your mind that you might just not understand. Mind you, that might be a limitation in my expression and even a willed feature of some of my lingo. But certainly no reduction, that's something I'd rather contribute to your handbagging of spiritual experience and understanding as some private or loony affair. It all starts with deeper self-reflection which you cannot allow to happen at this stage. A common feature of the modern (wo)man.

I think a 'study' of your views illustrates a strict postmodernism - a reaction to nihilism - than it does to neo-Buddhism. I admit to not ever quite being able to place you. I could not imagine you as a postmodernist and yet, lo and behold, it would appear this is your 'existential strategy'. If that is true, you function within postmodernist loops and are thus outside of the question of the possibility of locating 'substantial truths'.

But you have not demonstrated that you understood what postmodernism is - otherwise you wouldn't even try to "disqualify" someone like that in these discussions. Although someone like Quinn did that a lot as well. Like father, like son? Quinn's interpretation of the term was extremely reduced. Which brings me to my deeper critique and that is the shadow of your own reductionism which you are denying. You are, in many ways, a Chinese thinker (like the Nietzsche quote), trying to make everything small, containable, and portable. But you do that under the flag of expansion, with multiplication and mass production: hence the quotes, many scanned pages (xerox mind), name dropping, repetition, absurd representations of other people's intricate views or meditations and so on. This is serious criticism: your mind produces but creates nothing of late. Just stuck in the groove but you keep reassuring your self (and you even write it!) that you're content with the quality. You keep saying that but it's a phenomenon which surfaces on each and every forum where you invite critique: your mind has severe limitations in how you handle your own material as I've put considerable effort in demonstrating to you at many occasions, although there have been many times I could go a long way along with your reasoning too. And the reason has been given to you by dozens of people: you're not able to see the emotional blinders at work tricking you in the same mistake again and again as these blinders do not allow you to self-reflect seriously on the big elephants, only the fern seeds.

That's why Seeker's mediation advice has turned out to be such a great splitting point. The whole idea behind it remains alien to you. You got your hat full of visions and dreams -- residue, but you cannot review your self, thoughts, or emotions in a more dispassionate way. Which is the start of meditation. It cannot work because of your own highly charged inner life which cannot imagine any less charged disposition. For you it reads "death"! And in some ways that is true.

Is the 'natural evolution' of Western nihilism the neo-Buddhist shift? Could it be that that manoeuvre is the only one left? But what is it, I mean really? It is the longing for cessation is it not? There MUST be a way out of the impossible and viscious circle of life and being, and so Mahar's mantra becomes necessary: It's empty and meaningless.

Again looking for a way to solve the puzzle, to save human kind. It's the only frame you appear to have for your analysis. And read carefully now: this is not about any rejection of the idea that there's a problem with Western nihilism or modernity. It doesn't mean one should not think about a future or some collective way forward. But you will probably read it that way. Can you even conceive of a way not including forming some position against decline and neither invalidating the idea of a decline?

What I find interesting in your *impass* is that in it and with it you'd only be able to loop constantly between desire for something and then noticing that any desire is 'seduction'. It would seem to become a neurotic loop that would undermine your own existence.

Desire has not much to do with seduction as I have used the term. Desires, like religion are still a matter of production (since I can invoke desires in others). But I do suspect the original Buddhist notion of desire (Taṇhā ) might be closer to Baudrillard's idea on seduction but for this a basic understanding of Buddhism is required which will include some meditation on it to see how it works in your self. In Buddhism desire points to clinging and holding on to. This relates to Baudrillard's seduction in the following way: we are tempted to cling to the very things we have erroneously thought to exist (have self-existence). This would be "the seduction of appearances" or even that of the object. Actually to me Baudrillard is mostly a retelling of Buddhism using the convoluted language of a Marxist, psycho-analytical critical theory. The reason he does that is, to my understanding, because of the fact that each story functions best in the language of its own age. Quoting Buddha will by definition be a sort of reduction as too many translations will remove the subtle context. Although it's still usable because of the power (illusion) which authority possesses to some.

In a sense though you are right: To come face to face with nihilism, to come up against such a wall, will inevitably thwart movement forward. One's only available alternative is then to recoil back on oneself, into oneself, and to channel the will in a loop of realisation and meditation on one's mired condition. That is a frustrating position - agonizing really - and that agony and frustration feed the loop.

Facing emptiness, the destruction of all we held so dear, will invoke many strategies. Yours however is a common, modern one: to build even more word bridges, collect dead writings, analyse and re-analyse repeatedly, like some bad reruns on cable TV. As a weaponization against the danger of the nothing, which is a perception linked with emotion, like death. The more saving power, the more danger (per Heidegger, Mahar's hero).

Something like that?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Also, I don't have any theories regarding how to go about education, mostly if I were asked I would only be able to critique the current education system for being incredibly and utterly crap, at least here in Australia, and I didn't even go to a public school. I can only imagine how terrible public schools are in the US. So my first "theory" about education systems for children, as far as I've seen them, would firstly be to actually create some.

But this is exactly what I was referring to. Can you describe how an educational system would be structured? It is just a way to open up our conversation through a practical turn.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

This would be "the seduction of appearances" or even that of the object. Actually to me Baudrillard is mostly a retelling of Buddhism using the convoluted language of a Marxist, psycho-analytical critical theory. The reason he does that is, to my understanding, because of the fact that each story functions best in the language of its own age. Quoting Buddha will by definition be a sort of reduction as too many translations will remove the subtle context. Although it's still usable because of the power (illusion) which authority possesses to some.

I think that Quinn's anti-postmodernism could be simply defined: To be a 'postmodern' is to have arrived at a state of mind and understanding where spirtuality, and one that is structured around a grasp of 'ultimate reality' is not conceptually possible. Quinn & Co. are forced to take a stand against that position because, rather obviously, but certainly in his case, he has opted for a religious solution. I think this is a fair statement though he could not ever use the word 'religious' since he sees his position, his vantage, as the seeing and understanding of 'reality', and thus the Taoist/Buddhist manoeuvre is quite simply 'living in reality' with no intermediaries (no metaphysical dream).

My overall impression is that Seeker defines his spirtual praxis in the same or a quite similar way. In my present view, it is crucial to understand how we are forced to predicate reality, and then we come up with an answer and a solution. And this answer/solution then appears as the most natural thing.

My interest - and it certainly has been influenced by time spent on GF being exposed to a hard and fast set of predicates - has evolved to become an interest in metaphysical systems generally and I have spent some time looking into the vast shift, and the recent shift, between the late Medieval 'primitive' view of reality - a world that surrounds us as spirits surround and penetrate a haunted house - and our modern view which is, naturally, a scientific model and an entire upset in thought and activity that derives from that. Obviously, there has taken place a revolution in how 'reality' is viewed and described. What therefor is the 'postmodern' is not and cannot really be some complex and special thing only known to a 'prepared insider', and I'd suggest that you have come under that view, and that this has rendered you labyrinthian. So, it is useful as an illustration to point (like one of the ghosts in A Christmas Tale if you wish) to your bizarre 'conversation' with Marxist Mama Leyla carried out in a Lacanesque psychobabble. It will seem that I am needling you, and this is always a bit of fun, but the real point here is to begin to cut through the mists of BS that are tossed up 'round these parts. This is my announced intention: to poke and stab and drag out. Why? Well, to attempt the only thing that we can ever attempt: to define a position of 'truth' (getting close to reality) in which we can live and carry on.

I would certainly suggest that Quinn & Co., you, Leyla and all of us have very much come under the sway of Marxian emotional intellectualism. I find it very useful that you brought it up. The intoxication by Marxian 'moods' is also, I think, a continuation of Jacobin 'mood' and, at least in my present view, modernism has everything to do with the French Revolution - a recent event - and the destruction of and reestablishment of all manner of different sets of order. And so spirituality - yours, mine, and everyone's - cannot escape this fateful matrix. These are 'red herrings' for you of course because - what alternative is there? - you seem to desire to put on blinders. You put aside thus-and-such as irrelevant (red herrings) while privelaging another thus-and-such. In you, in the labyrinth, these shift back and forth. Well, that is 'just an aside' yet it has some importance to understanding positions.

Baudrillard is, morover, a product of a corrupt French school of thinking, a shattered wall, a tattered cloth. To understand French corruption is a complex task. And to understand how French corruption, 'revolutionary religion', and various gobbledeegook forms of mental chit-chat and self-talk have invaded ideas - our ideas - is another difficult task. My theory? You are enraptured in some ways by this nonsense, yet embellish it psychodramatically and in your forum personality. I do not think - this is my personal position - that you have enough understanding to say who and what Baudrillard is. In this you deal in surface (ironies as I said).

So now, perhaps you will toss me down some tid-bits: What is postmodernism?

But you have not demonstrated that you understood what postmodernism is - otherwise you wouldn't even try to "disqualify" someone like that in these discussions. Although someone like Quinn did that a lot as well. Like father, like son? Quinn's interpretation of the term was extremely reduced. Which brings me to my deeper critique and that is the shadow of your own reductionism which you are denying. You are, in many ways, a Chinese thinker (like the Nietzsche quote), trying to make everything small, containable, and portable. But you do that under the flag of expansion, with multiplication and mass production: hence the quotes, many scanned pages (xerox mind), name dropping, repetition, absurd representations of other people's intricate views or meditations and so on. This is serious criticism: your mind produces but creates nothing of late. Just stuck in the groove but you keep reassuring your self (and you even write it!) that you're content with the quality. You keep saying that but it's a phenomenon which surfaces on each and every forum where you invite critique: your mind has severe limitations in how you handle your own material as I've put considerable effort in demonstrating to you at many occasions, although there have been many times I could go a long way along with your reasoning too. And the reason has been given to you by dozens of people: you're not able to see the emotional blinders at work tricking you in the same mistake again and again as these blinders do not allow you to self-reflect seriously on the big elephants, only the fern seeds.

I appreciate the attempt to encapsulate (chinesify let's say), but I would take issue with a good deal of it. But we have to redefine what is the topic of the conversation, and the reason why we converse and why conversation takes place (in the best instances): We have to sort through all the twisted and in-turned arrows of direction, intention, will, proposition, and everything like this which is one of the by-products of the splat against the postmodernist wall (or late modernism if you wish). The PURPOSE is to filter out, sift out, select out what it is - conceptually - that we require in order to live. Unless this is a pheasant hunting sport, or a fun children's project of colouring Easter eggs, we have to remind ourselves of the task at hand.

Now, you naturally fail to understand that this is what 'interests me'. You encapsulate it (as above) in a way that casts it in the most unfavorable light. But the problem is deeper, too. In your own way you are 'anti-intellectual' and 'antirationalist'! But here's the terrible trick that is foisted on the unaware and the dupable: This whole project is set up and described as 'rationalist' and 'logical'. Yet! as it turns out the general praxis leads to a destruction of those activities and methods. You say 'This is serious criticism' and you name the poisons that have infected me ... but I am not (naturally) inclined to buy it or to accept your definitions. Your definitions are part-and-parcel of your anti-intellectual and anti-rational platform. You have great intellectual and rational capital at your disposal, but these techniques, overall, will squander it. I do indeed recognise a paradox here, or a conflict: you, Diebert, are mentally and intellectually adept. But is it that you are 'tired' of all of it? Have you come to the end of the rope? And if that is so: What exactly is your preferred manoeuvre? That is, what are you up to?

And what is my mind to produce, Diebert? What is it that our minds should 'produce'? In answer to your cynicism then - there is an implicit cynicism in an unstated question you are (not) asking which I will answer: I am considering and reconsidering everything and all things are on the table. In my case there is simply so much that I have to understand before I can make definitive 'statements'. I have resolved myself to this; it is my fate.

I am aware that you understand that you can speak of 'severe limitations' of mind, and that you see yourself (similar to Seeker) as a Teacher who is bringing awareness and order to the material, and no one could deny your insights at least on some levels. Yet you are not convincing, and the oft-used manoeuvre of referring to 'emotional tricks' and (wo)man's issues, is a tired rehearsal.

So, the question becomes: Why should I or anyone 'self-reflect' according to your methods? Your methods have to do with a certain 'ideological conversion' but I for one certainly don't desire to be converted to that ideology.

I hope that you see in what my resistance is founded. Now, it just has to be said again: these larger ideological patterns (coerciveness) are working on us from many different angles, and 'yours' (that of neo-Buddhism and also, substantially, postmodernism) have to be answered creatively, ideologically, actively.

Again looking for a way to solve the puzzle, to save human kind. It's the only frame you appear to have for your analysis. And read carefully now: this is not about any rejection of the idea that there's a problem with Western nihilism or modernity. It doesn't mean one should not think about a future or some collective way forward. But you will probably read it that way. Can you even conceive of a way not including forming some position against decline and neither invalidating the idea of a decline?

Actually, the notion of 'saving humankind' is possibly an idea - an assumed metaphysic - that has to be examined. The whole idea of what is 'salvation' is up for grabs. I am inclined - today - to focus on the local and self-defined versions.

To counter-propose to 'Western nihilism and modernity' require knowledge of it. I would suggest that - I refer to my conversation with Seeker - that we cannot jump over this and attach ourself to some self-observing mind-analysis exclusively. I do not say that 'contemplative' practices like this are 'bad', what I say is that they are filled with a particular will, and that will is one I question and it should be questioned.

I live is a smaller universe of concerns than you imagine. I live in a world (Latin America) where decline is real, pervasive and deadly. This offers me an advantage in some sense: a pre-Christian pagan reality (my theory is that Latin America qua Latin America is pre-Christian and pagan as civilised forms have only penetrated so far) and people who are rudderless and cannot find their way. I come, naturally, from the other direction: One of the most advanced societies and having myself had access to one of the best educations.

QRS-tianity, and what continues to be played here, is a reaction to nihilism and also part-and-parcel of it. One could say that QRS-tianity is nihilistic in many ways. It is the institutionalisation of nihilism if I can put it that way. It is a giving-in in some senses more than a getting-out. The 'solution' offered is an invitation to escape into greater levels of nihilism. I realise this is a blanket and too-general statement and it requires nuanced explication. But the general statement has quite a bit of relevance.

[jupiviv]

Not really, but to verify that you need to understand what "postmodern terms" are and what they aren't.

Wouldn't that attempt to understand itself be fallacious in the context of postmodernism? I can summarise postmodernism in one sentence: "bestowing value/truth upon anything that replaces things that have been traditionally held absolutely valuable/true, as a means of bestowing absolute value/truth upon the sum total of the replacements."

In Goldstein's terms, it is Middle trying to usurp the High on behalf of the Low in order to attain Highness. Of course, it didn't transpire quite like that, because Orwell was after all a socialist and therefore stunted by the delusions which he labelled his "socialism". What really happened was - the Middle discovering how to protect themselves from the wrath of the Low and teaching this lesson to the High through friction.

The choices the American people face today (as well as the world with said choices attired in appropriate vibrant, multicultural costume):

a) Rape and exploitation by or enabled by "not rich, just comfortable" liberals who are as entrenched as the people they decry as such.

b) Rape and exploitation by or enabled by Donald "daddy gave me lots of money and now I have even more" Trump with Lady Liberty in the role of buttplug.

La France remains a shining beacon in human history, being the only place that guillotined ALL the bastards rather than just the despots and rich guys.

That's why Seeker's mediation advice has turned out to be such a great splitting point.

Which would have been the blind leading the blind, so it's for the best really.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Which would have been the blind leading the blind, so it's for the best really.

More ad hominem, no reasoning included, not a very intelligent guy, are you Jup?