Christians and me, Part II:

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Psst Pam, he isn't Catholic like he isn't a Jew or Christian or conservative even. Alex just fits on some stuff once in a year which then appears as something he's attached to. But he's more attached to the conversation and the shopping around than anything else. His dream is to belong! He knows the curse of Cain, the one we all feel. His mission is to discover a way back to the "family", to some origination. Most try to fly away from the things he's trying to piece together. At times it's fascinating.

That is such an underhanded comment, Diebert. You surprise me at times. It is nonsense though, through and through.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

You dismiss the possibility of a valid language to express the extinguishing of the desire for life based on your premise that life gives us life assuming that you and I have the same definition of "life." I suggest we do not. Life to me is sentience, desire, the appearance, attachment and although is a part of the totality of God, is not THE totality of God. A totality of which I (and you) are not separate, God's totality = the Son's totality. Which means I do not view suffering the illogic of sentience/desire as being a curse or a gift, rather, as being but one of an infinite possible worlds of God.

I have to confess that this description is outside of my domain. I sort of get what you are getting at though. I can validate whatever choice you make for yourself, even if you desired - literally - to extinguish yourself from life. I mentioned that some schools of yoga are based on a metaphysical understanding that it is possible to reverse incarnation. It is not beyond my capacity to understand. I get the sense that you are speaking of a Christian/Buddhist idea-hybrid. I have no issue with it, as far as it goes. But my dialectic/conversation takes place at a different level. I think you already noted this.

But if the conversation is inspired by the outline 'Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment', I do have some things to say about it, though they are not necessarily what you, and some others, desire to hear. If you don't want me to invalidate your tenets I suggest that you pull away from engaging me. If you come to a space like this though, you do so because you are prepared to be challenged or to defend your thesis.

Up until today I was not aware you are Catholic which does help me understand your attachment to the religious model rather than the spiritual one. If truly you are ensconced in the religious model that negates the spiritual model to the point of denying it is capable of meaningful language, how do you expect to have a meaningful conversation with a Son of this model? The only reason I replied to you this time was your statement that you don't think people of the spiritual view realize what it is at stake. My response to you about knowing what is at stake regarding ending life as we know it (the appearance) was not meant to be one of destruction and annihilation but instead one of intuition AND logic of "the Son moving on" "within" God or Existence.

I am not Catholic. My gf's boy goes to a Catholic academy because it offers the best education in this environment. And in that environment he thrives.

But my interest in Christianity is synonymous with an interest in Europe and Europe's traditions. To understand Europe, and to understand ourselves as products of Mediterranean culture, requires an understanding of the Judaic, Christian, and Greek history of ideas. To say that I am 'attached to a religious model' is inaccurate as it pertains to my own inner sense of spirituality. And this spirituality, in my trajectory of experience, had very little to do with any established church. Yet, I discovered that my core concerns - I cannot say why this is or how it came about - have apparently more in common with 'our traditions' than they do with Buddhist imports. You must understand too that I have reasons for 'taking issue' with some of the platform and tenets which I notice in these foreign traditions, and these I can enunciate. Additionally, I referred to a work done by Becker on this topic, in the sense that were you s=to say you had a cold I might refer you to a doctor with a specialty in that area. Becker is quite good at what he does and in many ways - not all - I agree with his analysis.

But I do suggest that you have made a mistake of sorts by declaring that 'spirituality' is separate or distinct from culture, cultural trends, the definitions that culture offers, and the metaphysical definitions that underlie the whole project. A 'spiritual model' exists insofar as you declare it to exist, or perhaps as a feature of your own understanding. I can go that far. But if one is to speak as a philosopher, a philosopher investigating religion, it is just not possible to make the claim you do. 'Spirituality' is, to put it generally, a product of cultural metaphysics. To imagine that you CAN exist or function outside of this is not impossible - you can - but it is not recommended. Or, it has consequential effects. I have critiqued the QRStian platform because I note that it incorporates infective material and for a group of valid reasons, all carefully articulated.

You have abstracted your own private understanding from a Tradition which has its own metaphysical predicates, and you have also syncretised it for your own purposes with a radically different one. You can do this. But if you are going to assert it as some 'absolute truth' you can also expect for it to be challenged.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

There you go again, making up what you want someone else to have claimed and making a "case" that way. You have no idea how many times you do that, don't you? Confusing your own ideas of what people might think with what is actually being told.

My point being: religion in whatever form, even discussions around it, will result in the typical perpetuation of the feminine. As if every discussion is bound to be given homeopathic lethal doses, as Dan remarked halfway that he needed another stroke to fit in. Every discussion of more than one page will suffer the same fate though, a never-ending exposition of the point and the fate of religion.

This is what I was responding to, and if I have made a mistake of interpretation it is a fair one, not an underhanded one.

"Religion in whatever form, even discussions around it, will result in the typical perpetuation of the feminine" is pretty unambiguous!

[Leyla Shen]

Psst Pam, he isn't Catholic like he isn't a Jew or Christian or conservative even. Alex just fits on some stuff once in a year which then appears as something he's attached to. But he's more attached to the conversation and the shopping around than anything else. His dream is to belong! He knows the curse of Cain, the one we all feel. His mission is to discover a way back to the "family", to some origination. Most try to fly away from the things he's trying to piece together. At times it's fascinating.

Well, there are a number of possibilities. For example, who else but a practical Jew would be committed to a metaphysical Christian culture?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

This is an interesting, if predictable, line of 'argument'. Translated, it means:

"A self-interested Jew will 'support' Christian concepts or ethics, even if he does not believe them, to employ those concepts as a tool of deception and dominion."

I note that Jupi used the term 'ejewcation', and then just a few posts back Diebert employed 'Yaakov' for special purposes.

Once the mob mentality gets swung into motion there is no longer either argument or conversation. So, I will now back out of this thread and leave you-all to your devices. You seem at least superficially happier without the unnecessary 'excitement'.
_____________________________

There is, I think, a place for a conversation about Jewish influence, Zionism, and quite frankly all the tenets and structure of the antisemitic position. I will say, a little sheepishly I should add, that there is a cogency to the antisemitism as explicated in unreal detail by Houston Chamberlain who I just recently read.

But a defence of Christianity, as I have said, is really so much more than a defence of the specifics of the religion. 'Christianity' as I use the term, and as it is used by an accomplished philosophical and historical school, is the entire philosophic lineage that defines the Occident. Judea and Greece certainly, but neo-Platonism, 'Alexandria', Rome and so much more else of intimate concern and relevance. When Eliot speaks of the collapse of Christianity, though I suspect that he has links to the faith per se, he is referring to something far larger.

You, Leyla, don't have enough information to understand what is being referred to. And because of this limited understanding you will (and 'you-plural' will) (and we are all a part of that plurality I should say) allow very fine things to crumble. Without understanding, without caring. And though Diebert certainly understands what I am saying, he too has allowed for a sort of resolve or acceptance to creep in to his viewpoint. Can't really say this is 'good' or 'bad'. There is more to be gained just in noting it.

I am happy to have had the opportunity to continue developing my ideas in this last run. I don't at all feel compelled to offer excuse and certainly not apology. Myself, I just make the maximum advantage of an opportunity presented.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The Buddha provided a fine story for folk like you who avoid the reality of being faced with ultimatums and absolutes. There is no 'you can't be certain' in this scenario: You get shot with an arrow in the leg, you either continue to suffer, or you remove it. Can I not say exactly what you should do in this situation? Is logic not clear and undeniable here? As it was in regards to the absolute truth that there is what we refer to as 'thought', though we may not be able to exactly define it, we all know it to be undeniably true. A point which you have avoided three or four times. From such basic truth one can move forward.

Why should I or anyone else believe you?

See above.

and in fact I notice that with this group of choices you are making, and confusing with declarations about 'absolute reality and truth',

I've made it very clear that much of wisdom is not absolute truth, but is temporary or even conventional wisdom. Absolute truth is what leads one to understand what one 'should do' within the context of the temporary, such as the human condition.

I took some risks, invested a bit of money at an opportune moment, it paid off. The free-time I have I devote (basically) to reading. The rest to my relationship (girlfriend/wife finishing a law degree, kid 7 attending Catholic academy).

Swap the reading time for solitary contemplation of the basics of knowledge, thought, belief, self, reality, without distraction for just one week. I'd bet your whole world view will change if you really did so. I'm going to avoid commenting on the kid thing.

[Leyla Shen]

Yes, of course, lineages—and “philosophical” ones, no less; thoroughly as they are divorced from a commensurate worldly life. How predictable is this practical Jew, co-opting the term "semite" to mean Jew for the sake of turning it against semites of all sorts in the name of Judaism!

What coherent and wonderfully metaphysical “philosophical lineage” worth preserving; worth a worldly death for a metaphysical resurrection so one and all can suffer its spasms and throes all over again?

~

Luckily, I am not a millionaire who has nothing to do in life but read. My philosophy is very much alive and not dead because of it. You will have to get better at being more succinct in making such points if you think the way to living and creation is, rather than being spontaneous, a forever looking back to the future....

I do wish to acknowledge to your credit, however, the more considered than usual approach (forced from beneath the usual theatrics) toward the general reader apparent in your involvement in this thread. That commitment to expose one’s own thinking – in you, do I call it courage or prudence? – is definitely a value I share with this forum/its founders.

[Pam Seeback]

Gustav: But if you are going to assert it as some 'absolute truth' you can also expect for it to be challenged.

How can I assert it (being finished with the appearance) as some absolute truth when I have always stated that God causes the appearance? I am realizing that in the past, I have used the term "absolute" incorrectly. I stand corrected.

[jupiviv]

But since I know more about his position, its 'underpinning' as I call it, I know more of what he is, in fact, trying to say, and I speak to that and also against that. This is up-front and not devious.

OK, the "underpinning" - what Seeker specifically means by the terms "wisdom" or "freedom" and how he relates them to other things - may be problematic, and I hold that opinion myself. But in the present context it doesn't matter, because his point/argument is still needs to be addressed directly which you haven't done. It's not imprudent to assume that people use words in different ways than you do, but that's not the same as *imagining* they mean something specific by them and then using it as the premise for your response to them.

By the way, did you see how I *explained* what I meant by the word "underpinning"? That's how you communicate, by telling people how you use words. Putting them in scare quotes confuses their meaning rather than clarifying your usage of them. Please keep that in mind next time.

Developing a religious philosophy, or speaking in terms of religious philosophy, is required and is not evidence of my 'controlling nature'.

There you go, introducing a term without any explanation or background save that to be excavated by the reader from your Cyclopean post history. What is religious philosophy and why is it required?

But each of us, still, holds and manages a perspective and in this sense (your sense) we all 'control'.

We all 'control' what? The perspective? Explain.

I don´t merely say he´s wrong

I suggest he may be wrong and I describe how that may be.

The second statement is a roundabout version of the first. Describing how someone is wrong without first establishing that they *are* wrong, and in the specific way described, is a roundabout way of telling them "your wrong".

The root of the word is 'delight' and so a dilettante is one who delights in or it delighted by an art.

It may not be the art itself that delights, but rather the gratification (inward or outward) and admiration (real or imagined, public or private) gained from practicing or patronising it. What does Mrs. Bjornstrand think about the "metaphysical dream of the world"?

Yet if the truth were told, and if you don't mind me saying so, I do not see your overall philosophical work as really being so hot. Are you sure that you are qualified to critique?

I prefer to rely upon my arguments. I suggested you pursue a real ejewmacation instead of posting here because you seem to favour an academic-humanistic approach (constantly referring to other work, using conditional statements where controversy is possible, camouflaging personal attacks with verbiage and argumentum ad populum/verecundiam) to discussing truth (rather than the more logically stringent and direct approach prevalent here) and yet get it wrong every time because you lack the training and field experience to pull it off.

Oh, and by the way, this is how race baiting is done:

I had to google 'ejewmacation'. That's a can of worms, no? I am not closed to hearing more of what you mean. What are you proposing?

Your statements - nearly all of them in fact - are knotty and complex and you packed with barbs and double-meanings. I only say this because to speak to you - this has often been the case - is to speak to someone who seems impelled by a certain anger and hostility. It looks from my angle to be a protection of sorts. I certainly baited you with the Little Brown Hindu comment but it was, of course, all in fun.

Well, there are a number of possibilities. For example, who else but a practical Jew would be committed to a metaphysical Christian culture?

I note that Jupi used the term 'ejewcation', and then just a few posts back Diebert employed 'Yaakov' for special purposes.

Once the mob mentality gets swung into motion there is no longer either argument or conversation. So, I will now back out of this thread and leave you-all to your devices. You seem at least superficially happier without the unnecessary 'excitement'.
_____________________________

There is, I think, a place for a conversation about Jewish influence, Zionism, and quite frankly all the tenets and structure of the antisemitic position. I will say, a little sheepishly I should add, that there is a cogency to the antisemitism as explicated in unreal detail by Houston Chamberlain who I just recently read.

Yes, of course, lineages—and “philosophical” ones, no less; thoroughly as they are divorced from a commensurate worldly life. How predictable is this practical Jew, co-opting the term "semite" to mean Jew for the sake of turning it against semites of all sorts in the name of Judaism!

What coherent and wonderfully metaphysical “philosophical lineage” worth preserving; worth a worldly death for a metaphysical resurrection so one and all can suffer its spasms and throes all over again?

LOL, as they say.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There you go again, making up what you want someone else to have claimed and making a "case" that way. You have no idea how many times you do that, don't you? Confusing your own ideas of what people might think with what is actually being told.

My point being: religion in whatever form, even discussions around it, will result in the typical perpetuation of the feminine. As if every discussion is bound to be given homeopathic lethal doses, as Dan remarked halfway that he needed another stroke to fit in. Every discussion of more than one page will suffer the same fate though, a never-ending exposition of the point and the fate of religion.

This is what I was responding to, and if I have made a mistake of interpretation it is a fair one, not an underhanded one.

"Religion in whatever form, even discussions around it, will result in the typical perpetuation of the feminine" is pretty unambiguous!

If you don't understand the difference between a claim like "religion is feminine" and "religion will result in perpetuation of the feminine" then you are discussing above your weight class. Especially when the topic was "masculinity is production", where we somewhat agreed on. Clearly the religious would be in this case another production. More interesting would be the question if the growing 'danger' of seduction is a cause or effect of the whole circus. Related to the idea of the 'secret' as engine.

As for "mob mentality" - I'd suggest "victim mentality" - that of the typical online bully. Since all you ever seem to have done is forcing the issues, stepping over and ignoring any indicator that you might have erred fundamentally in your thinking and ethics, justifying it all with some relative "success" in life, enabling you to flee everything reminding you of failure while from the safety of your remote study room you're free to project all your issues onto the online communities and the world at large. The problem is now the culture, the modernity, the alienation, every challenger as representation of that. You dream up a "body" to return to which when picked apart looks a lot like a personal collection of sentiment, hunches and deep seeded emotional memories. In some ways a "mother", a family of justifiers you have recreated by some hyper-masculine act, to hold on to.

If only you'd not behave like such a crusader after posting two of three times on a topic. Your need to explore and expose others and self is in itself a good quality which this forum always has encouraged and responded to. But that response, when images and words are not only deeply reflected on but also reflected back, that seems like too much mirroring for you. One you can't stand but will always return to. The mirror calls her seductive siren song -- she will undo while you just want to reveal more...

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

It was in my view a productive run. There are a couple of points that I feel strongly enough about to respond to though. Only so that I can say that I countered some mistatements and inaccuracies. I will certainly read any additional comments.
_____________________________

You seem to me Jupi someone who is capable of strength in argumentation, at least you seem to understand the structural components of argument, but you remind me of a potentially strong engine running on little substance. There is something top-heavy in you generally. You have in numerous recent posts taken a posture of disinvalidating points made (or 'suggested', my term) by implying lack of academic preparedness or lack of seriousness. In the context of this forum, and given the focus of the forum, this line of argument is absurd, obviously. (As Diebert teaches, enlightenment is 'non-intellectual'.)

There is little to say to this - little necessary - except that I have carefully written out my ideas in many posts and that I am very happy with them. You have made a group of suggestions about how I should structure or better structure my argument, but in reviewing them I do not feel I need to pay attention to your advice. It is clear - very clear - what I am arguing for and against and I have maintained that focus throughout. You on the other hand have remained in this 'argument', or have kept popping up, but have had nothing to say about any of it. Your OP here, and nothing changed, was simply a waste of electrons (in my humble view). Again, you are 'strong' in a sense in argument, but you have nothing to argue by and large.

The question of race and all of it is very interesting to me. I will say though that there is a substantive difference between Leyla's recent thrust and 'race baiting'. Race baiting is in many ways a form of fun or annoyance. To refer to honky crackers or milktoast, or boop-coons or towelheads (I am not sure what the British terms for 'little brown hindus' are) is at least by some a way to show up the ridiculousness of the terms. They mean very little because no ideas are brought in.

Yet, within the structure of Leyla's semi-cogent statements there is an attack brought to bear against 'will' and also 'idea'; the fearful activity of Jews. It is a very different level of attack. (Being brown and Hindu means nothing). The classical term is antisemitism but I'd agree with Leyla that one needs to refine the term to anti-jewishness or anti-judaism (or something to that effect) and to have a contrasting term like philo-judaic but then also a neutral term. I think that one should have the right not to like Jews or 'Jewish projects' but I also have the sense that very few can define an anti-Jewish platform. I am only attempting to be fair and realistic. If one really and truly were to get down to brass tacks the question of Jews, Jewish influence, Jewish power, Jewish presence - all of it - could be gotten out in the open and conversed. I sort of have been planning to have that conversation. I read Foundations of the Nineteenth Century by Chamberlain - the book that catalogues anti-jewish sentiment (except in many ways he also admires aspects of Jewish culture, ethics, etc. especially Sephardic Jewish culture). His critique is at such a depth though, and again there is no critique even remotely similar occurring in any fora that I am aware of. Even Red Ice Radio and other venues deal with it superficially though they are getting out in the open their resistance to a 'globalisation project' which they describe as 'Zionist', an interesting point to consider, or also to undermine.

I know that one of Diebert's favourite lines of attack (it is more a line of ridicule) is to imagine that I perceive myself as a 'victim', and this would fit in nicely if predictably to the recent mentions of Jewishness (and whatever else it is), and I do not now nor have I ever felt myself a victim of anyone here. I have noticed that when the mob gets riled you tend to circle the wagons and coordinate your attacks, and you bring out conventional armaments of 'argument' to do this. But that is pointing to a group dynamic which is of course different. I have to say that, overall, I don't sense much 'real structure' in the points 'you' argue from, but that is because 1) there is not really substance in those arguments because they are, by definition, anti-substantial, and 2) broadly, 'you' are exclusively interested in a specific sort of 'spiritual path' and have little real interest in culture and history. Encountering this, which I consider a flaw, I have chosen to develop as much as I can the cultural and historical aspects. Yet I have not lost sight of 'spirituality' in an interior sense.

My 'most deadly adversary' here has been and still is Diebert!

As for "mob mentality" - I'd suggest "victim mentality" - that of the typical online bully. Since all you ever seem to have done is forcing the issues, stepping over and ignoring any indicator that you might have erred fundamentally in your thinking and ethics, justifying it all with some relative "success" in life, enabling you to flee everything reminding you of failure while from the safety of your remote study room project all possibilities that you might have been wrong on the online communities and the world at large. It's the culture, the modernity, the alienation. You dream up a "body" to return to which when picked apart is a personal collection of sentiment, hunches and deep seeded emotional memories. In some ways a "mother", a family of justifiers you have recreated by some hyper-masculine act, to hold on to.

If only you'd not behave like such a crusader after posting two of three times on a topic. Your need to explore and expose others and self is in itself a good quality which this forum always has encouraged and responded to. But that response, when images and words are not only deeply reflected on but also reflected back, that seems like too much mirroring for you. One you can't stand but will always return to. The mirror calls her seductive siren song -- she will undo while you just want to reveal more...

A characterisation is by definition not something to be modified (though it could be improved!) A characterisation is a send-up which is designed to brand in a particular way. It is, of course, ad hominem but I have not and still don't have a problem with ad hominem. It has always seemed to me that, in reality, what we are called on to judge is exactly the man. It is the man and his psychology (the soul) which we have to make statements about. In essence that is what we are talking about. In a rather humorous sense (I say this as an aside) Christianity is the ultimate ad hominem argument!

• 1) Stepping over and ignoring any indicator that you might have erred fundamentally.

This is a false claim, it is a claim that you hope is true. If you can make it stick, it works. But if not it is empty. The opposite is more true. By engaging with and coming under the influence of this forum as a container of certain trends or thrusts in ideation I have been forced to articulate why, in specific areas, 'it' is wrong or mistaken.

• 2) That of the typical online bully.

This is more of a victim's view. Bully? Who? You? This is a false statement as well insofar as you could not be speaking of yourself as bully's victim and you must be speaking - protectively - of others who have been bullied. You must mean something different since, by and large, all I have written are careful prose-pieces expounding my ideas. There have been other methods and usages too but nothing inconstant with anyone else. An online bully, eh? Well I never!

• 3) Your thinking and ethics.

Here I would suggest that you read Becker. He notices how the structure of the Zen method is precisely an attack on thinking, on rational thinking, and against a structure of ideation won at great cost. It is true that 'you' have not stopped me from 'thinking', nor thinking defensively and offensively, yet I have never asked you not to think as you do, nor anyone else. In an ultimate sense I have no real idea what you are fundamentally grounded in Diebert. In all this time you have not ever made it clear. One has to guess with you because you function behind blinds. In your own way you are a little tricky. And that is fine. All I wish to say is that you have not influenced my thinking at a core level, and you have not altered my ethical position. But it is more accurate to say, since my ethics is evolving, as is much else, I have not been influenced to adopt your ethics. Though I do recognise that you are a fundamentally decent person. Not a small attainment. I would not want you to think that any critique I'd make about you is at a personal level. Like numerous here, the ideas which inspire and the activities you desire to engage with (whatever are your personal spiritual projects) leave me cold.

I have attempted, successfully or not I cannot be certain, to link some aspects of 'your' choices with larger and more troubling trends. That is a tough road to hoe I admit. It is too broad, to large an 'accusation' to bring against one person. But I still do not think it invalid. We are all swimmers in a larger ocean.

• 4) 'Relative success in life' 'fleeing what reminds you of failure' 'safety of remote study' 'project all possibilities that you might have been wrong on the online communities and the world at large'

Here we can notice how 'imagination' functions! This is an example of 'metaphysical dream'.

Success is really just continued obligation! Don't be 'successful' if you want to get out from under responsibilities. If you see it like that, you're dreaming.

There is no such thing as 'fleeing'. Fleeing, if it is carried out to flee, is simply running into the arms of all that you flee from. This is basic stuff Diebert. Perhaps you desire to flee and can't?

There is not such thing as a 'safety of a remote study' although there is some level or elevation. Removal and separation can help one attain elevation, and elevation is useful but only to look down over things.

• 5) 'Project all possibilities that you might have been wrong on the online communities and the world at large.'

You mean of course as I have done here on our beloved GF? This terrible personage, a great Internet-winged eagle, terrorising pitiable 'online Communities' from the air, snatching up the lambkins from their green pastures of plenty, feasting on them in my rocky height?

Deibert, you seem to imply that next I'll take up the elevation of a satellite. I'm that powerful!

I am of course laughing at your characterisations. So should you.
______________________________

As you will have suspected I've got to get back to the books so we can leave it for now. But remember Don't cry for me Genius Forum. ;-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alex, welcome back! Or course, you never really left the last time either as demonstrated with how fast you entered the discusion when your name was dropped once. Did you read here every day the last year? Just curious here, there's no good or bad in it.

Some corrections on your parting "shots" though.

Argumentum ad hominem is not the correct label, no matter if you'd have a "problem" with it or not. That term can only be used if the person is attacked "rather than attacking the argument directly". Of course when posts contain various direct argumentation, the added examinations can never be logically ad hominem. It might be rude or impolite, childish but never ad hominem! However, even if we'd allow to stretch definitions a bit, it might still not be a fallacy of any kind if it would serve to undermine the "credibility of statements of fact" or "when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning" (source wikipedia). Added to that, some misinterpretations of humour are sometimes difficult to distinguish from potential ad hominem arguments. Again, it depends mainly on the "joke" being the only substance supplied or not.

This is a false claim

Obviously, I thought, I was making an observation, summarizing my perspective on your participation and leaving. Not sure why it would be treated as "claim" like it's part of some logical argumentation. Perhaps you've some difficulty in distinguishing a logical argument or claim and some added observation or remark? Perhaps part of the boundary issues you're displaying in general?

• 5) 'Project all possibilities that you might have been wrong on the online communities and the world at large.'

You mean of course as I have done here on our beloved GF?

The same pattern I've observed everywhere you post, this loading of negative attributes on others which are being displayed in such abundance by your self! And the same observation has been made before by others on different fora. It remains a very likely explanation for the observed behaviour. One cannot know everything but sometimes the amount of obviousness is just too much.

This terrible personage, a great Internet-winged eagle, terrorising pitiable 'online Communities' from the air, snatching up the lambkins from their green pastures of plenty, feasting on them in my rocky height?

A grandiose image that might be involved but it might not function consciously. Which would make it all the more powerful.

[Leyla Shen]

And now it's my turn to laugh.

This is a fantasy I certainly do not share with either of you.

This terrible personage, a great Internet-winged eagle, terrorising pitiable 'online Communities' from the air, snatching up the lambkins from their green pastures of plenty, feasting on them in my rocky height?

A grandiose image that might be involved but it might not function consciously. Which would make it all the more powerful.

LOL

What's the difference between prey and predator?

When Alex the big ol' "scary" (woo, no -- help me) Jew says something of actual substance and frightens himself, then we can have a discussion.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What's the difference between prey and predator?

Knowing that difference a predator makes. *grin*

[Leyla Shen]

Not for Nietzsche!

Ever wondered what makes ghosts so hungry? They have no organs, much less a predatory nature.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Aha Nietzsche baiting...

Perhaps Nietzsche would say something along the lines of the difference being that the prey is commanded by its ressentiment, its fear or hate for what's superior and noble. But the predator only follows his love, deeply, deeply loves...all and everything, as well the juicy lamb chops!

Ghosts are an interesting case as they seem defined and constructed only by hunger and desire. Something keeping them somewhere against natural causes or natural flow. At least in the movies it seems more like a hate, a fear, a desire for the past, which often binds them. Which would make them prey, something to be busted.

[Leyla Shen]

To your first paragraph, yes indeed.

To the second, yes—for justice.

Unless, of course, your approach to a genuine haunting is in the G rated realm of being slimed. Then, well, it's anyone's guess as to who the dark overlord is, eh?

:)

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

My Most Dearly Beloveds, let us return to the important topics.

I continue with the theme I have been working on for some time and I stay with it because it is unpopular and provokes reaction. I have made it clear that I feel it necessary, if one wishes to deal 'realistically' and also maturely and thoughtfully with the patterns of thought one encounters here (a metaphysic one might call it) which has become the person and the personality of this particular forum (I know, that is not a popular idea: that the forum can be accurately described in that way), to pay close attention to everything dismissed, attacked, ploughed under, denigrated, and ridiculed.

Additionally, and since there always seems to be 'sub-texts' or underground aspects to some questions and issues (for example Jewishness, or the Jewish influence in Occidental affairs), I have also realised that it is crucial to bring them to the fore, to force the issue as it were, and see what it reveals.

It is important to openly state the following: I do not regard any person who writes on this forum, and certainly no founder, as having in any sense a clear bead on 'the problem' that we face, and I take the position that it is the assumption of solution, or the arrogation of declarations about understanding the deeper issues, which especially takes the form of declarations about and praxis about ratiocination - 'reason' and 'logic' being special words here - as well as attacks on the feminine (recently being played out all over again) which need to be brought out into the open and examined. 'The feminine' is hauled out often at the end of a particular exchange and seems to satisfy some primitive desire. I frankly have not got that one figured out yet, though it begins to look like a group ritual with neurotic overtones. I'd certainly welcome suggestions from the Chief Philosophical Operators here about this.

All of these issues, I propose, are aspects of what is 'discarded' and, as a garbage collector par excellence, I have carefully picked them up, photographed and catalogued them, and placed them in special acid-free artefact boxes in a air-conditioned vault. One by one each box can be taken out, its contents emptied on the examination table, and examined in depth.

Let's start with the following:

Psst Pam, he isn't Catholic like he isn't a Jew or Christian or conservative even. Alex just fits on some stuff once in a year which then appears as something he's attached to. But he's more attached to the conversation and the shopping around than anything else. His dream is to belong! He knows the curse of Cain, the one we all feel. His mission is to discover a way back to the "family", to some origination. Most try to fly away from the things he's trying to piece together. At times it's fascinating.

The problem is now the culture, the modernity, the alienation, every challenger as representation of that. You dream up a "body" to return to which when picked apart looks a lot like a personal collection of sentiment, hunches and deep seeded emotional memories. In some ways a "mother", a family of justifiers you have recreated by some hyper-masculine act, to hold on to.

If only you'd not behave like such a crusader after posting two of three times on a topic. Your need to explore and expose others and self is in itself a good quality which this forum always has encouraged and responded to. But that response, when images and words are not only deeply reflected on but also reflected back, that seems like too much mirroring for you. One you can't stand but will always return to. The mirror calls her seductive siren song -- she will undo while you just want to reveal more...

The fortunate mistake of confusing 'seed' for 'seat' in 'deep-seated' is interesting. Seed, mother, body, feminine: all crucial tropes, are they not?

What I also find interesting is the unusual inclusion of a loaded mythological metaphor: Cain & Abel. A metaphor of that sort has to be unpacked. I am not sure thinking about it how Diebert might undertake it. But I will say it is interesting. Who killed who? What aspect of self kills what aspect of self? What has happened that - according to Diebert - we 'all feel'?

What exactly is it that 'we all feel' here?

I want to juxtapose these fairly typical Diebertian enunciations, which aslo encase some of the basic notions that operate in Diebertian philosophics, with some quotes from an interesting AltRight philosopher by the name of Pierre Krebs.

• From Fighting for the Essence:
  
  "Torn from the links to his community, amputated of the feeling of belonging to and participating in the historical and cultural project of a people, the individual of the market society in the American style must forever resort to the excrescence of his petty ‘I’, which is the last chance he has of giving a minimum of significance to his life. But in ‘shrinking’ into himself, he is quite naturally led to exaggerate the sphere of his intimate relations, the last refuge towards which he hurries to compensate for the growing malaise that is provoked around him by an anonymous crowd that he perceives as a foreign body because it has ceased to be a community. Condemned to narcissism, the individual progressively becomes the prey of the worst mental imbalances, of permanent depressions, of chronic anxieties and anguishes whose development, diagnosed by psychologists and doctors, is indeed symptomatic of the disastrous injuries that the egalitarian society inflicts in its wake."
  
  "In fact —in the culminating paradox of egalitarian society —if the crowd turned into a mass remains the womb of the worst of promiscuities, it is, at the same time, also the scene of the worst of solitudes, which grows in the solitary crowd of millions of ‘I’s, all forced into the mini-destiny of a petty, egotistic life that is increasingly painful, all in the increasingly more anguished search for a micro-happiness that wilts in the narcissistic shrivelling-up of the individuals into themselves. But the egalitarian society does not leave any other existential choice to its nomads. Besides, how can one imagine that, in the world of an egoistic credo striving for the sole, individual satisfaction of material welfare, man can still be a bestower of significance, a being capable of going beyond himself, of overcoming himself, since the reasons that he may find to let himself be borne above himself, through the feeling of belonging to the living community of a people, to his collective destiny, to the historical project of his culture and of his politics, no longer exist. In a society that converts the hierarchy of personalities into the atomising egalitarianism of individuals, that disintegrates the links of belonging and eradicates the identitarian consciousness, there is no longer a place for the man with a will to power who wishes to create something above himself! He finds only termites, all equal in an equal world that has become equal to them."

I have some ideas to post about Kreb's declarations and I will do it in another post. (I also plan to offer some interspersions: 'Practical Investment Strategies for the Historically Impractical Gentile by a Very Practical Jew', so stay tuned!)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Feel free to post references, theories and cultural analysis all you like, as long there's a link to the forum main topic, somewhere, not just some broader philosophical general discourse plodding along for its own sake.

... continue with the theme I have been working on for some time and I stay with it because it is unpopular and provokes reaction.

Translated: you stay and eternally recur because of the reactions you get. Negative reactions just are more energetic. Cause, effect, my dear.

Additionally, and since there always seems to be 'sub-texts' or underground aspects to some questions and issues (for example Jewishness, or the Jewish influence in Occidental affairs), I have also realised that it is crucial to bring them to the fore, to force the issue as it were, and see what it reveals.

Translated: I can dig and prod all I want with discussing motive and ad hominem argumentation but you don't get to do it to me without me protesting and taking off again.

It is important to openly state the following: I do not regard any person who writes on this forum, and certainly no founder, as having in any sense a clear bead on 'the problem' that we face

No sane person would waste any time discussing repeatedly topics, year after year, with people who are deemed not have any sense of the topics which he wants to bring to the table. It puts yourself in some serious saviour/victim role. And you're not even realizing it, as that dynamic can only work because one consistently makes effort not to look at it. You think it's a sort of act (or was) but it's more a kind of mode: surface as all there is.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

"Enlightenment: the state of having knowledge or understanding : the act of giving someone knowledge or understanding."
___________________________________

All my topics and ideas are completely related to the core themes that deal with 'ultimate reality' and enlightenment in the (if you'll permit me) Western or Occidental philosophical sense of the word. I do indeed 'feel free' to post here, and to keep posting here, as the mood inspires, and to come and go as it suits me. Thus, what interests me, and the way I define my effort, is not as you do: plodding along for its own sake, but moving along, or moving deeper, or moving in any direction that I see intellectually or spiritually fit as I pursue ideas.

Translated: you stay and eternally recur because of the reactions you get. Negative reactions just are more energetic. Cause, effect, my dear.

I anticipated that you would focus on this. While it is possible to troll for reaction, and to find it, that is not what I mean. Though I will not intervene as you work to insist that it is as you desire to paint it. When I say 'reaction' I mean 'hot-points', unexamined conclusions, a whole metaphysic of conclusiveness that when challenged is reacted against. Do you see the difference? It is possible that you can't, or that you won't, given the way that you seem to desire to assert control over the parameters of conversation.

Everything that 'you' reject, denigrate or ridicule I bring to the fore for examination. So, since you brought it up, my approach, generally speaking, is to discover the hidden ground under assumptions and propositions taken as facts. And since you mention other fora where I have participated (and where it seems you have felt a need to peek in and monitor and take notes) I clarify my purposes as just this: noticing what other people choose not to notice, or that which they push away.

Translated: I can dig and prod all I want with discussing motive and ad hominem argumentation but you don't get to do it to me without me protesting and taking off again.

I'd rather say that all topics are on the table, and any topic that comes up is conversable - will be conversed. As you know I have a unique psycho-biological position: I have a Jewish parent and a Gentile parent. But one side of my family (if we are to pursue the biological-cultural angles, and these interest me, now, more than before) is very old stock European. My interest here with 'ultimate truths' and with 'enlightenment' has to do with 'my stock' (a way to put it) but not with 'ultimate truth' as an abstract. Abstract 'ultimate truths' can easily fall prey to mind trips and deceptions.

No sane person would waste any time discussing repeatedly topics, year after year, with people who are deemed not have any sense of the topics which he wants to bring to the table. It puts yourself in some serious saviour/victim role. And you're not even realizing it, as that dynamic can only work because one consistently makes effort not to look at it. You think it's a sort of act (or was) but it's more a kind of mode: the surface is all there is.

Is 'sanity' the measure here? And who, ultimately, shall arbitrate? Do you decide who is sane and insane? What foci are sane and insane?

Who has 'deemed' who does and who does not have 'any sense' of the topics brought to the table? Conversations are pluralities. The wider the disparities, often, the more fruitful the result.

I notice your continuing attempt to locate this in 'victim/saviour' lingo. Branding and labels have their place, if they are accurate, if they are real. If they are not, they tend to get turned around. I can only suggest that you continue in that vein and see where it takes you. I do not describe my efforts in this way. (I think you are thinking of Talking Ass and his playing within these roles). I am interest in serious ideas, and the ideas that are located at the core of the most important concerns that can be named and discussed.

You'd get more milage actually considering the ideas in the post, Diebert. It was clearly enunciated.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"Enlightenment: the state of having knowledge or understanding : the act of giving someone knowledge or understanding."
___________________________________

All my topics and ideas are completely related to the core themes that deal with 'ultimate reality' and enlightenment in the (if you'll permit me) Western or Occidental philosophical sense of the word.

That's just mangling definitions to have it your own way. A cheap trick! You know very well that nobody here is interested in that particular sense of the word. Although there's indeed an emphasises on reason, similar to what happened during European philosophical movement carrying that name. But there's no relation further, unless the topic would be the "European interpretation of Buddhist enlightenment" and so on. But that in itself would be typical modern academic discourse, a bit out of place to say the least. At this forum the emphasis is more on play, if you will, a less structured, minimally educated, less formal way to approach things allowing for more intuition, less exactness without going of the tracks (as seduction would have it). But for that, a goal needs to be in place, without goal, no tracks, no alignment, no proper spacing. For this reason I do challenge your attempts to derail. Then again, that's your modus operandi and I can accept that. Still I'm inclined to bring it under your attention.

I do indeed 'feel free' to post here, and to keep posting here, as the mood inspires, and to come and go as it suits me. Thus, what interests me, and the way I define my effort, is not as you do: plodding along for its own sake, but moving along, or moving deeper, or moving in any direction that I see intellectually or spiritually fit as I pursue ideas.

Yes, "moving always", ha-ha. But you're too dim to understand I was remarking on how you go, or that it even has to be announced at all. Only self-absorbed narcissists generally feel to even bother.

As you know I have a unique psycho-biological position: I have a Jewish parent and a Gentile parent. But one side of my family (if we are to pursue the biological-cultural angles, and these interest me, now, more than before) is very old stock European.

Yes, you keep telling that tale. But for some reason nobody but you is allowed to bring it up ever! And when anyone does, it's being interpreted as some dark cloud of persecution or ridicule hanging over it.

Is 'sanity' the measure here? And who, ultimately, shall arbitrate? Do you decide who is sane and insane? What foci are sane and insane?

Pointless questions designed to derail and cloak the issue. You are here trying to discuss your precious topics in a place, this joint from all the joints in the world, where "nobody has any sense at all of what you're talking about". The tragedy is that even if you were right, you are still very wrong and demonstrating something else entirely, something beyond your ability to assess in your self. And you just would never accept the possibility others, the senseless, rude, clunky folks especially, could so easily spot it. I think you'd rather die.

I am interest in serious ideas, and the ideas that are located at the core of the most important concerns that can be named and discussed.

And I doubt that sincerely! It seems that exactly that interest is covering for something else and I hate to use the world "subconscious" because I think it's conscious but its revelation denied by a clever "split", an unspoken secret which is hidden in plain sight (and as such not "sub" anything). It's a human condition, a fundamental I'd encourage you to study in your self as much as you try to find it in others.

But I don't want to continue doing the digging for you, as if I could. Next post of me here, if any, will try to address the ideas you believe to be so hard core.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Mangling definitions, no. Reclaiming absconded definitions, very much so. I do not know if a platform of philosophical inquiry should be adapted to 'what people are interested in', and I think that a project of discourse must be one where all channels of investigation are open.

Since you feel 'very free' to critique my intentions and to attempt to undermine the integrity of my approach at the most fundamental level - I have no problem with that - I also am free to say what part of your assessment is wrong or imprecise and to restate purpose. With you, or in the face of you, one always has to 'restate purpose' since your project - the Diebertian Project in essence - revolves around exposing 'seduction'. One understands this, and then one foregrounds it and makes it the topic of a reverse-critique to examine Diebert's presuppositions and predicates. The entirety of your critique is founded on this base.

This is a forum founded by Westerners who set themselves up in opposition to an entire metaphysic. This in itself is very interesting to me, and germane to all conversations which have to do with religion and metaphysics. You can categorize a conversation about this as 'academic discourse' or as 'unrelated to the topic' yet I reject - quite absolutely in fact - your effort to pigeonhole and control a subject that, to all appearance, is beyond your grasp. How else should I interpret your reluctance? 'The goal' you say? I challenge you, Diebert, to articulate 'goal'. You cannot. And you will not. When it comes to definite statements you are one of the most slippery philosophical operators I know. Charming, well-mannered, a great MC, but slippery as all hell.

I reject absolutely the notion of 'derailment'. I would rather describe a need, in philosophy, in religion, in life, in communication, to rerail. To define what we mean by 'rail', direction, purpose, necessaity, etc.

My 'modus operandi' is not intelligible to you. One, because everything about my processes is in motion and you cannot follow where my ideas have led, and 2) because in this sense you remain (I suggest) stuck in a special way within the limits of a discourse bounded and constrained by artificial dimension: the Diebertian discourse of 'seduction'. What I would prefer that you 'accept' is an integrity of approach which is articulated and rearticulated and because it is openly stated and made clear (no one else does this), is up-front and honest. I state exactly what interests me, and why, and also what I am doing and why.

I think someone round here once called you on having 'Alex Jacob on the brain'. I suggest to you that it may be a good idea to mentally let 'Alex Jacob' go. He is for you a 'derailer', the disrupter of your serene forum-party, a narcissist, and much else. The one writing here, now, is not your 'Alex Jacob' and, I feel, you need to see that.

If I am 'dim' then I can surely be 'enlightened'! I call to your attention that one of the chief tools that has been in traditional use round these parts is the crude assertion of 'stupidity' and such. It fits in with 'delusion' 'femininity' 'ignorance'. You are beyond any doubt a bright fellow, Diebert, but it is unbecoming to your brightness (a play on your name) to fall into these usages. The things I understand, I understand and communicate quite well. Well enough. But the question then becomes: What does 'dim' mean? Who really is dim? And who is not? And once again I possess the term of disparagement (the garbage man again) and am curious about what is being disparaged. You see?

As to the Jewish Question allow me to say the following so that we can get oriented here. When I first came on to GF I had extensive 'conversations' with our own dear Leyla who is, fairly openly, a classical 'antisemite'. However, I will allow her to make her own definition. In comparison to that time - years ago now - I have amplified my grasp of the anti-Semitic position, mostly through a reading of Houston Chamberlain: an extraordinary historian by any measure and said to be one of the architects of German anti-Semitism. His analysis is extraordinary. His condemnation of 'the Jewish project' is extraordinary. Some posts back I said that I am interested in exploring that position. It is a position that has two operative elements: Idea and Will. This is what defines 'the Jew' in history, and it is what, essentially, is so threatening in the Jew to you the Gentiles (if you will allow me to say it in such stark terms). Now, at this point, I have no problem exploring these territories.

It is true: because of my psycho-biological situation (mixed genealogy) I have a unique position: it is one of tension and conflict. That is, these tensions and conflicts exist within me at a foundational level. I discover that in me, in my person, that the field of conflict between European Pagan and Ultra-Civilized Jew-Christian exists. But at the same time, and whether you or anyone else here understand it, or doesn't, this conflict is real indeed for those of European heritage.

Now, shall this be linked to projects of analysis of Western Neo-Buddhists who have, to all appearances, been exiled from their own psychic structure by grasping at highly neurotic mystic straws (Seeker is a perfect example, a perfect mirror but there are others too, not the least being your fine person!) Yes. The answer is 'yes', 'yes, indeed!'

I do not accept your assertion that 'no one here understands'. And when you say 'pointless question' I am, again, inclined to stop, turn around, and linger over what you have derided and dismissed as 'pointless'. I will rather say 'pointed' and 'poignant' and 'necessary'!

What is it that the 'senseless, rude, clunky folk' are seeing Diebert? Is not the entire QRS-tian Project about hammering different possibilities of understanding into dense minds? Is this not, at the essence, what education is about?

Why, Dear Diebert, are you so virulently opposed to these movements toward analysis of the positions you hold dear? You encourage me to 'study myself' (and so does Seeker in a very overt way) but isn't it possible at least to suggest that you need to study yourself?

According to your analysis of me (an off-shoot of the Ultimate Arbiter's Luxury Position) I am incapable of sincere examination of ideas, or platforms, or life's most imortant issues. What a lovely position to hold! Subconscius forces, splits, 'unspoken secrets hidden in plain sight': It is Diebert's Core Philosophical Position: Seduction.

I reject your assessments and turn them around. I would imagine that you are describing some aspect of yourself. 'I don't want to continue doing the digging for you', that's a little funny as this is all that you desire to do. Do both of us a favour and stick to the ideas (with ad hominem as flavoured salt!)

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

• "Torn from the links to his community, amputated of the feeling of belonging to and participating in the historical and cultural project of a people, the individual of the market society in the American style must forever resort to the excrescence of his petty ‘I’, which is the last chance he has of giving a minimum of significance to his life. But in ‘shrinking’ into himself, he is quite naturally led to exaggerate the sphere of his intimate relations, the last refuge towards which he hurries to compensate for the growing malaise that is provoked around him by an anonymous crowd that he perceives as a foreign body because it has ceased to be a community. Condemned to narcissism, the individual progressively becomes the prey of the worst mental imbalances, of permanent depressions, of chronic anxieties and anguishes whose development, diagnosed by psychologists and doctors, is indeed symptomatic of the disastrous injuries that the egalitarian society inflicts in its wake."
  
  "In fact —in the culminating paradox of egalitarian society —if the crowd turned into a mass remains the womb of the worst of promiscuities, it is, at the same time, also the scene of the worst of solitudes, which grows in the solitary crowd of millions of ‘I’s, all forced into the mini-destiny of a petty, egotistic life that is increasingly painful, all in the increasingly more anguished search for a micro-happiness that wilts in the narcissistic shrivelling-up of the individuals into themselves. But the egalitarian society does not leave any other existential choice to its nomads. Besides, how can one imagine that, in the world of an egoistic credo striving for the sole, individual satisfaction of material welfare, man can still be a bestower of significance, a being capable of going beyond himself, of overcoming himself, since the reasons that he may find to let himself be borne above himself, through the feeling of belonging to the living community of a people, to his collective destiny, to the historical project of his culture and of his politics, no longer exist. In a society that converts the hierarchy of personalities into the atomising egalitarianism of individuals, that disintegrates the links of belonging and eradicates the identitarian consciousness, there is no longer a place for the man with a will to power who wishes to create something above himself! He finds only termites, all equal in an equal world that has become equal to them."

It is I think fairly clear: I have been pursuing the idea that many of our 'spiritual strategies' are techniques or manoeuvres to deal (creatively) with a loss of power through a severing of contact and relationship to 'reality'. We all seem to me to exist and to semi-live within a fractured structure and it seems to me that it is fracturedness that produces, that calls forth, the need for remediation. That is, a strategy of gaining a mental or metaphysical position which, even if it is only apparent, enables us to preserve a sense of self in a dissolving and 'acidic' present. Thus, I see (and for example) the unending dialectic between movingalways and Seeker (Pam and John) as being symptomatic of disassociation from self.

However, I would have to say that I do not dis-preciate either position, nor the attempt, as it holds and expresses an admirable will. I am interested in John's position because, as it is with Quinn and Rowden (who knows where Kevin is now in all this), it is a bold attempt to arrive at an unassailable Ultimate Arbiter's Position. John's definitions are outrightly mystical and thoroughly non-empirical, and thus they are 100% personal and they extend from personal experience. But the entire platform is expressed through a 'rationalist' manner which is, I think, just a cloak. In this sense, though I regret using a word that will be misconstrued, his platform is neurotic.

Now, what do 'ultimate reality' and 'enlightenment' mean in such a context of disassociation? I suggest that they are meaningless. Someone may counter me by asserting the 'realness' of an enlightened state, yet no one can define what that state is, nor who 'has' it.

So, I will suggest that it is necessary and required to go back to the point from which this 'split' occurs and to retrace the steps.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I would suggest - as 'recovery' - a program which incorporates these elements:

• "Our foundations are threefold: human, intellectual, and strategic. They are human: these are our mythological, historical, biological, psychic, and social roots, for we are men of a heritage (our cultural heritage), men with a foundation (the ethnic structures with which we identify), men of a tradition (the mythological structures and the memory of the narratives on which we are based), and men of an intellectual attitude (the mental structures of the collective unconscious of our people). They are intellectual: the acquisition of our intelligence, the sum of our knowledge, the alternatives that our ideas propose, the researches, the studies, the analyses that are going to articulate, in all domains, the differentialist conception of the world. They are strategic: the metapolitical project that announces a new culture and new values. These new values are articulated within specific structures of the European mentality, of its ethnic groups, and of its history, a contrario to the egalitarian ideological project which breaks up identities, shatters specific cultural or ethnic structures and, in the final analysis, modifies the human, psychic and social integrity of peoples."
  
  ---Pierre Krebs, 'Fighting for the Essence'

As I have often suggested: the 'enlightenment' hallucination has always seemed to me an avoidance of reality - in contradistinction to a man really existing in real space and time - which confuses the unreal for the real.

As an alternative to 'enlightenment' (in the indefinable neo-Buddhist sense) I would suggest the Greek 'sophersune': balanced mind, balanced self.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

When it comes to definite statements you are one of the most slippery philosophical operators I know. Charming, well-mannered, a great MC, but slippery as all hell.

This is the criticism I wrote to you, though I have to admit that the last few posts of yours were fairly straight forward in explanation of how you see things. I agree that Diebert doesn't make many definite statements and is generally very slippery. Actually I was very focused on this earlier on, and couldn't grasp how we continuously managed to seemingly say nothing, but then I realized something later on, "the answer". Diebert is being slippery, but he's doing it for a good reason, he's simply very aware of the conceptual structures that people house themselves in, and purposefully refuses to become attached to any one of them, he's the one who only writes to blow those weak structures over. Which is odd because you are similar, and perhaps I'm even similar in that regard, though all for different reasons, from different perspectives, which you might find some elaboration on below.

It is true: because of my psycho-biological situation (mixed genealogy) I have a unique position: it is one of tension and conflict. That is, these tensions and conflicts exist within me at a foundational level. I discover that in me, in my person, that the field of conflict between European Pagan and Ultra-Civilized Jew-Christian exists. But at the same time, and whether you or anyone else here understand it, or doesn't, this conflict is real indeed for those of European heritage.

This is exactly the sort of thing you won't see any of us write! You are clinging to this story, and it's just a story. You don't seem to have 'grokked' that. The personal story, the drama, the victim, the history. The story of the history of "Self" is the one thing here that we eschew. At least you won't hear me talking about my nationality or what my parents were like, and you definitely won't hear me speaking about the 'position of tension and conflict' it puts me in. Again, see below.

Why, Dear Diebert, are you so virulently opposed to these movements toward analysis of the positions you hold dear? You encourage me to 'study myself' (and so does Seeker in a very overt way) but isn't it possible at least to suggest that you need to study yourself?

This here is the difference. I can say that Diebert has probably spent many hours 'studying himself', whereas you have most likely rejected the idea or felt skeptical toward it from the start. This is in fact the teaching of the Buddha, the "path", which is to contemplate. The point is that such contemplation leads to the "mystical" experience as you put it. It leads to recognition, revelation, epiphany, a greater awareness (until of course much of this is seen to be empty). When you dismiss this sort of independent insight as "neurotic mystic straws", it is very clear that you simply haven't experienced that path, or aren't very far along it.

You think we are deluding ourselves with a sort of exclusive "special-ness" to different degrees, but the fact is that you'll never convince any of us, because many of us, I assume, value this "Buddhist" or "mystical" 'method'. You can't understand it because you haven't experienced it, you haven't "studied yourself" deeply enough it seems. For example, where Pam might seem very foreign or even deluded to you, I know (without having had to be told) that Pam has spent probably tens of thousands of hours in independent contemplation. I would say that it is only a matter of time and willingness. A couple of weeks ago you said you'd give it a try but you were swamped so you'd do it next week, (drop it all, sit in a room, whatever) did you? I would bet that you didn't, and that is the true slipperiness, which is the indicator of the unwise. To deflect, to slither away, to find any excuse for distraction, to not contemplate independently (to not be honest with oneself, to not love wisdom). I would say that deception and self-deception are so layered and so prevalent that it is near-impossible for one who is unwilling to become 'enlightened'.

I am interested in John's position because, as it is with Quinn and Rowden (who knows where Kevin is now in all this), it is a bold attempt to arrive at an unassailable Ultimate Arbiter's Position. John's definitions are outrightly mystical and thoroughly non-empirical, and thus they are 100% personal and they extend from personal experience. But the entire platform is expressed through a 'rationalist' manner which is, I think, just a cloak. In this sense, though I regret using a word that will be misconstrued, his platform is neurotic.

Now, what do 'ultimate reality' and 'enlightenment' mean in such a context of disassociation? I suggest that they are meaningless. Someone may counter me by asserting the 'realness' of an enlightened state, yet no one can define what that state is, nor who 'has' it.

I don't disassociate from self, I have criticized the attempt. What I disassociate from is ignorance.

You know what I'm thinking, I can answer those questions. "Ultimate reality" refers to what is true in the "whole picture", what is absolutely true. The nature of reality when we're not talking about the subject of the specific. Whereas others may attempt to abandon the conventional/worldly (such as through denying the self), I would say that wisdom is in the balance between knowledge of "Ultimate reality" and that of the worldly.

Enlightenment is the eradication of the clinging to delusion, the recognition of the nature of reality through a clear insight which is has been freed from the obscurity of so much baggage, such as the "history of self", though there's a long list. It is the correct understanding of absolute truth, as well as the attainment and application of wisdom in regard to the temporary/worldly.

As I have often suggested: the 'enlightenment' hallucination has always seemed to me an avoidance of reality - in contradistinction to a man really existing in real space and time - which confuses the unreal for the real.

That's only because it's something you can't 'see'. (And I'm aware that may sound a bit like a faith claim or unproven delusion, but so would any unknown to any fool, and it's not like we're talking about an imaginary creator here)

I agree with the criticism of the denial of Self, but I don't know what you imagine when you think of "in real space and time".

Also, have you considered that because you've been exposed to so many people who might claim to have 'ultimate' wisdom, but are actually deluded, you've simply assumed that such a thing doesn't exist? I can point out some of the delusions which are blatant in some of the forum creators writings, as well as in each person on the forum. You have avoided stating most of your beliefs yet, though you slipped up on your belief in regard death as end, which is usually an easy place to catch most people out on, and that's how you can distinguish whether one "has it" or not, if they believe in that which does not exist:

+God- Can't see him, can't talk to him, can't describe him, can't evidence him, can only imagine.
+The materialist's mind-independent realm from which consciousness is supposedly produced, and which would supposedly exist independently of consciousness- Can't see it, can't describe it, can't think about it. It supposedly exists beyond conceptualization, it is supposedly entirely different from the reality exposed to us which we refer to as 'consciousness'. All one can do is imagine (perhaps when some immature person imagines waves or atoms).
+ Pam's "being finished with consciousness of form"- While I imagine Pam regards herself as having insight into the "mind at rest", and as having the ability to see it, describe it, and experience it, the fact remains that the "being finished" part is not true in the reality of consciousness. For her it has only been a temporary rest to which she has referred, and never a "being finished".
+Beingof1's talking to the meta-mind of the universe through a wall- Answers itself.
+Yours and Cahoot's "Death as an end"- Can't see "the end", can't experience it, can't think about it, can't describe it, it is supposedly entirely different from the reality exposed to us which we refer to as 'consciousness'. This "End" exists only in language and imagination.


All of this is only a small part of the million imaginations which people come up with. Is it so hard to recognize that the reality you know, is reality? Thought, sensation, feeling, emotion, imagination, these are the undeniable truths which you can know with certainty.

Part of the reason I'm on the forum is because it related to 'Buddhist enlightenment', and to elaborate, the following is seemingly the teaching of the Buddha. The quotes beneath are of course only from one text, but there are many more I could reference. While I don't at all believe these are even the accurate or authentic words of the person who Buddhist's believe they are, if we're to talk of 'Buddhist enlightenment' at all then I can refer to these:

"Objects are discriminated by the ignorant who are addicted to assertion and negation, because their intelligence has not been acute enough to penetrate into the truth that there is nothing but what is seen of the mind itself."

"the error in these erroneous teachings that are generally held by the philosophers lies in this: they do not recognise that the objective world rises from the mind itself; they do not understand that the whole mind-system also rises from the mind itself; but depending upon these manifestations of the mind as being real they go on discriminating them, like the simple-minded ones that they are, cherishing the dualism of this and that, of being and non-being, ignorant of the fact that there is but one common Essence.

On the contrary my teaching is based upon the recognition that the objective world, like a vision, is a manifestation of the mind itself;"

"the Truth of Noble Wisdom that is beyond the reasoning knowledge of the philosophers as well as being beyond the understanding of ordinary disciples and masters; and which is realisable only within the inmost consciousness; for your sakes, I too, would discourse on the same Truth. All that is seen in the world is devoid of effort and action because all things in the world are like a dream, or like an image miraculously projected. This is not comprehended by the philosophers and the ignorant, but those who thus see things see them truthfully."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb09.htm

I should add that this is only one tiny aspect of wisdom (the refutation of imaginary external realms and gods). It's a waste having to refute all the craziness, I really wish we could move on one day.

In regard to absolute truth, I don't believe in anything but that which I'm sure we all agree on, the reality of what we refer to as "appearances" or "form" arising in what is abstractly referred to as "consciousness".

I should make it very clear, I don't regard nearly everyone as simply being wrong, or as being insane, but as being entirely and completely uneducated, as well as deceived. As being entangled within an endless and complex network of popular delusion in which each dolt intellectually relies and depends on the words and works of another dolt, who is relying on the words and works of another dolt. You just haven't been taught any better, and probably can't perceive that this is in fact the case.

Again, I'm talking to you, it's not that you're simply wrong, it's that you're currently incapable of independent logic and understanding. This is because you have never attempted to learn for yourself what this whole existence business is about.

You spend all this time thinking, and apparently it's never crossed your mind to investigate thought itself. You admit so, and you believe you're logical? The same goes for the senses and the body.

To say that I attempt to arrive at an "unassailable Ultimate Arbiter's Position" is not the case, instead I see myself as being at an accessible area for those who have transcended the terrible twos. What really matters in regard to 'truth claims' is who is right.