Christians and me, Part II:

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote:[
The choices the American people face today:

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.

Whatever happened to the "worldly" section of the forum? I cant imagine Trump winning, it would be a new level of testament to the fucked up situation which is the US. The prevalence of ignorance in regard to more practical matters should really be our focus. Reminds me of a quote, which is still relevant about 2400 years later:

"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."
Plato
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

It was likely 'wise' to have avoided atempting to answer the question about education. I imagine that you would have stumbled into a mire and got caught.

In my view, the preference for the abstract-inane, and by this I refer to the unending dialogue which defies summary - if even one 'understands' it - being carried on adjacently on another thread, rules here:

A mad henid-driven banshee fills post after post with indeciperable quips which only she understands. An anal-obsessed Hindu programmer, slathered in oil, who's mastered arguing but desperately requires an argument, performs somersaults, flashing brainy mudras. A postmodern Dutchman who cashed in Scripture for The Complete Aphorisms of Baudrillard performs 'Intellectual Kingdom' ("If I say, 'I love you', then you have already fallen in love with language, which is already a form of break-up and infidelity".) (Oh man, is that not deep?)

A quibbling over details which have no relevance? Irrelevant quibbling over inanities which given the amount of energy poured into are made to seem important? Become Monumental? Or is it just that bickering and term-mongering and oneupmanship of nomenclature is, well, fun? Is this not symptom?

So, we have few interesting currents here: A consideration of the postmodern; a question about where exactly the Forum (in origin and inception) stands in relation to postmodernism and nihilism and what, now, is being enacted here, and why; and now (in a form of postmodernistic bizarreness) Seeker, cocooned in a set of half-baked religio-spiritual notions seeks to establish himself as corresponding to the Philosopher of the Republic-model and one of the 'aristos' who will bring order to this chaotic world.

I don't know about you but with my neo-fascistic Imperial longings I shall cast my vote for Emperor and Emperatrice Diebert & Leyla.

Professor Whitehead wrote of the danger of
  • Inert ideas, that is to say, ideas that are received into the mind without being utilised or tested or thrown into fresh combinations ... Education with inert ideas is not only useless; it is above all things, harmful ...
By and large, generally, I'd suggest that 'you' have substantially gone off the rails. Why? That is indeed the question. 'Rail' has to be defined, naturally. I have always found it useful to employ an idea from Chinese thought: The Well. We require 'wellsprings' for the roots of our selves and without 'water' we shrivel up and die. To seek 'pure water' is therefor the first order of activity. But we all seem aware, in greater and lesser degrees, that 'getting to the wellsprings' is not so easy. Conceptually, there are barriers. The world around us establsihes false wells and tauts false waters. Everywhere a person turns (in modernity, and I'd suggest this is the core of the postmodern problem) one encounters arrows pointing at this or at that, privelaging 'value' and 'meaning', and one can also see modernity as an automatic conveyor belt that carries individuals, transports them, to pre-establsihed ends.

And then ... There is Genius Forum. The place where, according to the by-line, the tired individual, the pilgrim lost in becoming and corruption wakes on the shore of (potential) being ... to find himself in a Lacanian maze guarded by an aggressive and over-protective Bulldog and assailed by philosophical mosquitos who chatter on like clattering wind-up false teeth.

Once one has been infected by corruption and 'acid', how can one recover from it? Well, the first step has to be through examining 'determining predicates'.

'Education' becomes a very interesting topic, and especially to seek articulations about how one would educate children. One will have to reveal if one's ideas are 'nourishing water' or 'wilting acids'. I could almost make that into an aphorism!
Leyla Shen wrote:How can you be certain you're not deluding yourself?
Why, recurring to experts of course, those who know. What a dumb question!
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote: 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?
The abstract eternal truth that worldly idiots like you don't understand is that these things - "intelligence", "reasoning" and "Jup" - are references to appearances. They're still real, but you are acting as if they can be applied "to" a subject beyond the thoughts and feelings already appearing. So it is you who are too stupid to reason properly, and that is not contradictory to anything I've already stated because I've spent 10000 hours staring at a wall.

I am now officially endorsing Alex for President of this thread.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote:
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote: 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?
The abstract eternal truth that worldly idiots like you don't understand is that these things - "intelligence", "reasoning" and "Jup" - are references to appearances. They're still real, but you are acting as if they can be applied "to" a subject beyond the thoughts and feelings already appearing. So it is you who are too stupid to reason properly, and that is not contradictory to anything I've already stated because I've spent 10000 hours staring at a wall.
Mockery, strawmanning, assuming, making things up, useless. Just to clarify, I often find myself to be less distracted with my eyes closed, if that were my intention, otherwise I'd prefer a better view than a wall :) The fact that you mock contemplation itself just attests to your ignorance. Speaking of how we spend our time, shouldn't you be getting some rest in so you can get be ready for your 9 to 5? Wouldn't want to make your boss angry. (I'll go window shopping for a nice wall all the while)
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Thank you, Jupi. But I think 'House Doctor' is a position that suits my talents.
The abstract eternal truth that worldly idiots like you don't understand is that these things - "intelligence", "reasoning" and "Jup" - are references to appearances. They're still real, but you are acting as if they can be applied "to" a subject beyond the thoughts and feelings already appearing. So it is you who are too stupid to reason properly, and that is not contradictory to anything I've already stated because I've spent 10000 hours staring at a wall.
Devastating, simply devastating. You've burned a hole in my screen.
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:It was likely 'wise' to have avoided atempting to answer the question about education. I imagine that you would have stumbled into a mire and got caught.
The question was very loaded.

Also, you should take a closer look at this, and realize that this was probably your hopeful intention. Your intention is not to determine what is true or to honestly contemplate ideas and statements, but to make a rebuttal, to argue against, to put others into disrepute.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Julius Evola wrote:Such people feel rather condemned without escape and responsibility to this end in the midst of a world stripped of value and meaning. All this, when the best of Nietzsche had already indicated a way to rediscover a sense of existence and to give oneself a law and a value untouchable even in the face of a radical nihilism, under the banner of a positive existentialism[my italics], according to his own expression: that of a ‘noble nature’. Such are the lines of overcoming, which should not be intellectualistic, but lived and realised in their direct significance for the inner life and its own conduct. Getting back on our feet is not possible as long as we remain in any way under the influence of similar forms of a false and twisted way of thinking. Only when you have freed yourself from dependence on drugs can you attain clarity, uprightness, and force.
He was speaking about French Existentialists of the Sartrean variety, yet my angle of view to the odd gobbledegook that is performed here is that it represents a similar conundrum. Once one has focused-in on the absurdity of the language-games, the false-fronting, the boyish ego-battles, the nomenclature 'squirmishes', and the younguns are caught in the headlights like naughty racoons, one can then ask them in resounding parental voice: So, what have you been up to, eh?

'False and twisted way of thinking' proceed from false or shaky predicates, and thus again it is the predicates that have to be interrogated.

'A world stripped of value and meaning'. What more need be said?

'Clarity, uprightness and force': These are the clearly visible and distinguishing hallmarks we note around here, isn't that so? You must be on the right track therefor! 'By their fruits ye shall know them'.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Seeker wrote:The question was very loaded. Also, you should take a closer look at this, and realize that this was probably your hopeful intention. Your intention is not to determine what is true or to honestly contemplate ideas and statements, but to make a rebuttal, to argue against, to put others into disrepute.
My intentions have been clearly expressed right from the start. It is not so much a 'loaded question' as one that will cause you to make definite statements. And making those statements you will (I think) see that your bizarre ideas about enlightenment and clear-seeing (or contemplation) do not really connect so easily with sound philosophical notions. Well, that is my view. My intention is very much to 'determine what is true or to honestly contemplate ideas and statements'. My aim is to demonstrate why it is that your general ideas have a poor foundation. I would not say though that they could not be better founded. So, I stick around to see what might come of it.
I talk, God speaks
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Pam Seeback »

Gustav: A mad henid-driven banshee fills post after post with indeciperable quips which only she understands.
Assuming you are referring to the wise movingalways, I say, eureka! He's got it, he's got it, by jove, I think he's got it! Not the mad henid-driven banshee part, but the wisdom she brings that the only absoluteness or certainty a man has is his own inner vision of purpose, whatever that may be. That the law of identity rules truthfully, therefore absolutely, therefore harmoniously, therefore perfectly and completely (the individual is the All). Which of course is the antithesis of intellectual compromise or relativism that rules not at all, but instead, creates inner disharmony, a sense of imperfection and incompleteness (the collective is the All).

I am is truth,we are is false. See? Not vague in the slightest.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

movingalways wrote: I am is truth,we are is false. See?
He's not going to see what you mean at all, there needs to be a medium of common experience through which you can communicate. Either way I don't think your explanation was clear enough, your statement I understand, but the experience just doesn't exist with Alexis.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Pam, not by a long stretch. I don't understand your focus but I appreciate your style and your perserverence. I was referring to someone Marxist, genuinely incomprehensible and henid-possessed.
...but the wisdom she brings that the only absoluteness or certainty a man has is his own inner vision of purpose, whatever that may be. That the law of identity rules truthfully, therefore absolutely, therefore harmoniously, therefore perfectly and completely (the individual is the All). Which of course is the antithesis of intellectual compromise or relativism that rules not at all, but instead, creates inner disharmony, a sense of imperfection and incompleteness (the collective is the All).
I appreciate the first part but would back away from what comes after. I don't myself (now, in my immature state, plagued by ignorance and the slime of my human birth) have much place for the other statements, rather abstract. I am also (presently) chary of universalist declarations and I feel you are pretty involved with them. While the absolute or an absolute may be truthful, I am interested in each person's 'ramp' and 'conceptual path' to that (whatever that is). You stated it well in the first sentence.
I talk, God speaks
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Pam Seeback »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Pam, not by a long stretch. I don't understand your focus but I appreciate your style and your perserverence. I was referring to someone Marxist, genuinely incomprehensible and henid-possessed.
...but the wisdom she brings that the only absoluteness or certainty a man has is his own inner vision of purpose, whatever that may be. That the law of identity rules truthfully, therefore absolutely, therefore harmoniously, therefore perfectly and completely (the individual is the All). Which of course is the antithesis of intellectual compromise or relativism that rules not at all, but instead, creates inner disharmony, a sense of imperfection and incompleteness (the collective is the All).
I appreciate the first part but would back away from what comes after. I don't myself (now, in my immature state, plagued by ignorance and the slime of my human birth) have much place for the other statements, rather abstract. I am also (presently) chary of universalist declarations and I feel you are pretty involved with them. While the absolute or an absolute may be truthful, I am interested in each person's 'ramp' and 'conceptual path' to that (whatever that is). You stated it well in the first sentence.
Alex, while my statements may seem abstract to you, the nuts and bolts of their view is that a man lives an authentic or real life when he lives 100% of his conscience. That his inner template is all he requires. In the purest religious sense, it is the subject/object union of I and the Father are One, the Father is complete, I am complete, thoughts, images, sensations, the whole ball of wax. And the only ramp one can follow to get them to the Father is to give up following the relativist ways of the world.

As far as I can see, correct me if I am wrong, you are promoting and proposing the relativist worldview. If I am correct, and you wish to discuss further why the relativist worldview ("we the people must agree/find common ground") is false, therefore, for the truth seeker must be left behind and why the absolute view (Father-Son, I am) is true, therefore for the truth seeker must be kept, I am more than willing.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Whatever happened to the "worldly" section of the forum? I cant imagine Trump winning, it would be a new level of testament to the fucked up situation which is the US.
It's called now "helpdesk" -- meaning you really need help if you want to discuss such things here (possibly lonelyness) :-)

RIght now I think Trump would be a perfect candidate! Only he represents America, the best and the worst, in full. Now we can discuss why I say that and why I think you're looking for the wrong "fuck" -- but the idea of this forum is to attempt discussing the fundamentals in our thought: perception, truth, value-making, masculinity and so on. It's very rare to come to an understanding when starting from the top, to explain all the relative, ever-shifting traps of appearances ("all you got"). Can anyone explain themselves, really?
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

We have come to this before I think. I look at it differently I suppose. I see things as a continuum. Let us say that you are of a monastic frame of mind. And I have no argument in and of itself of your description of your path and your commitment. But like you (I think) I have to deal with 'the world' and, in fact, help the people who are associated with me to design their existence in this world. So, the notion of and the importance of the idea and the necessity of 'education' is everyday at the fore.
If I am correct, and you wish to discuss further why the relativist worldview ("we the people must agree/find common ground") is false, therefore, for the truth seeker must be left behind and why the absolute view (Father-Son, I am) is true, therefore for the truth seeker must be kept, I am more than willing.
I suppose that I would say that in a non-dual reality there can be no relativist worldview, there can only be living and acting in this world. Though I recognize a continuum of shall we say 'interests' and occupations from thorough entrenchment in material reality up and through a transcendent relationship, I have many (good) reasons to define a path which maintains clear and direct and productive links with the human world. What about you?

I would say that we must begin to understand that we do not have to agree nor 'find common ground'. I am more inclined now to allow and to accept regional and cultural and racial differences. (This I got from reading Pierre Krebs). Though I am inclined to seek to understand certain Hermetic truths about 'our reality', I think reality is best left alone as the puzzle it is. What I mean is that I accept it as such. I agree with Krebs that it is universalist and monotheistic religious notions which also have a dark underside.

'Father' may 'exist', as 'being' is said to be, but I would have to say that there must be many Sons (to push along your metaphor). I guess in this sense I have a way to comprehend Hindu polytheism: A different 'deity' for each road of life. I worked my way through part of a rather difficult text on 'The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel' by CH Dodd. Difficult because 1/6th is in untranslated Greek. My Greek is very basic. But what I found of great interest was his historical and philosophical preamble to this Gospel: it is constructed out of Hermeticism. Meaning, what underlies or predicates Christianity (in certain senses) are Hermetic ideas. Hermes is a peculiar concept, a peculiar 'god' if you will: Hermes is the messenger of 'the Father' but he is also a shapeshifter.

I have a feeling you will understand me here, but each man - any man - 'reaches out' in this sense, and according to his capacity and make-up to the 'god' of his predilection. And god responds. It is absurd to establish prepositions here: Intelligence inside and intelligence outside is non-different.

I have written so much on these topics and I assume that you have read what I write. Allow me to ask you this: Is there some part, any part, of my analysis, my stress, that makes sense to you?
I talk, God speaks
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Pam Seeback »

I relate to your stress of wanting to understand and to be understood, however, I don't believe a reality based on human understanding is possible or even desirable. No point in chewing over old bones. :-)
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It's very rare to come to an understanding when starting from the top, to explain all the relative, ever-shifting traps of appearances


That's true, and this is something I'm interested in: Which methods are most effective in 'sharing' understanding, or bringing another to it via communication? There seems to be so many different layers, "traps", distractions, bridges, barriers, desires, and tendencies which endlessly lead people away from harmonious communication of understanding. (As well as harmonious relations in general)
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Pam wrote:I relate to your stress of wanting to understand and to be understood, however, I don't believe a reality based on human understanding is possible or even desirable. No point in chewing over old bones. :-)
The key 'operative segment' in that sentence is 'based on'. I would suggest that - and speaking of 'our' Western world of theology, literature and ideas - that 'our understanding' has not ever been 'based on' human understanding until the Enlightenment period and - for the first time in history - the attempt that was begun to literally do away Christian religion, to make it illegal. The origin of the movement to undermine religious notions, and to break away from a 'divine centered' way of thinking and understanding, began then.

Now, what is interesting here is that - taken generally - I have assumed a position of 1) recognizing a need to 'maintain links' with 'our traditions' which are, in their essence, not those of the Enlightenment period and a whole wave of an assault against what you feel comfortable labeling a 'divine understanding' (whatever is the opposite for you of 'human'), as well as recognizing a need to understand better the content of the symbols of Christianity, and 2) taking the position that 'we' need a defined theology more than simply or only radical (mystical) experience. To define a theology is an endeavor where man has to use and to apply 'human understanding' and to agree responsibly, and voluntarily, to abide by principles.

The essence of all that I write, and what interests me at the most central level, is in this.

What then exactly is the conflict between myself and 'Genius Forum'? And must I, after stating the above, necessarily take issue with you?

I am concerned about lines of thought, or trends of definition, which 'cause' us to break with our own matrix and our antecedents. Some here seem to relish and even to exult in breaking connection, and they take your basic idea of a 'non-human' knowing or knowledge, or the possibility of some sort of experience (thinking of Seeker here) which they privilege, and set *that* up as the measure of value. *That* becomes the most important thing, or state, or focus. (Though I doubt very much that Seeker could ever use the term that you imply as the other pole from 'human based').

And I have noted that that is destructive (and irresponsible). And that that endeavor, or that omission, has relationships to other destructive trends which, as I say, have begun substantially in the Enlightenment period.

I have brought out a critique against 'QRS' because I see that ultimately 'they' are part of acidic and destructive processes that, in fact, have no conceptual way to even register your statement about 'non-human sources of understanding'. That idea is a non-possible idea for them.

Based on what you write, and also based in the fact that I don't think you have thought these specific things through (about shifts in 'metaphysic' in our culture and the effects this has had/is having), I suggest that you, too, become susceptible to a trend which has a destructive effect. But I also think that we have all been 'infected' by powers, concepts and forces which do not originate in ourselves and yet which we serve, willingly and unwillingly. There is a need to carefully think through all of this material.

I would also suggest that almost no one really understands what I attempt and so the reaction I get is, overall, contempt. Diebert for example, for all his smarts, does not grasp what I am up to nor does he understand its value, and too Diebert has been 'seduced' and operates out of a substantial 'seduction' and postmodern confusion. Seeker cannot grasp what I am getting at and yet is not wholly immune to understanding (in my opinion). Layla is, because of her extreme and irremediable Marxist infection, outrightly hostile to 'it', and for this reason she is very instructive and emblematic of a trend and a mood in present modern culture. For this reason she is a 'henid-driven banshee': her hostility is hardly 'divine' and represents nearly a demoniac turn (in ideas). Jupi is also driven by a non-rational hostility which dresses itself in an extremist 'rationalist' form but his anger and contempt is, overall, quite similar to Leyla's, though he has a programmer's mind (a mechanically mathematical mind) and Leyla is, quite frankly, deranged and incapable of a rational movement in thought.

No part of this is a joke, and this is all material of enormous consequence. The 'evidence' of how we separate from ourselves and - though it is a tough definition to work out - 'the divine' and the 'non-human' (meaning the non-demoniac) is a very challenging conversation.
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: I would also suggest that almost no one really understands what I attempt and so the reaction I get is, overall, contempt. Diebert for example, for all his smarts, does not grasp what I am up to nor does he understand its value, and too Diebert has been 'seduced' and operates out of a substantial 'seduction' and postmodern confusion. Seeker cannot grasp what I am getting at and yet is not wholly immune to understanding (in my opinion). Layla is, because of her extreme and irremediable Marxist infection, outrightly hostile to 'it', and for this reason she is very instructive and emblematic of a trend and a mood in present modern culture. For this reason she is a 'henid-driven banshee': her hostility is hardly 'divine' and represents nearly a demoniac turn (in ideas). Jupi is also driven by a non-rational hostility which dresses itself in an extremist 'rationalist' form but his anger and contempt is, overall, quite similar to Leyla's, though he has a programmer's mind (a mechanically mathematical mind) and Leyla is, quite frankly, deranged and incapable of a rational movement in thought.
We are all these things apparently, but what are you then? :) The careful one who picks up what has been left behind, who we cannot understand, the angel who is, by implication, more logical. Who has read more and knows more, and is warning of destructive practices?

Don't you get it, all that really matters in regard to truth is who is 'right'. Which is what truth is, the opposite of which is delusion- to believe in that which is not true. The fact is that not all world views can be right, otherwise we'd have a literal god, and so on. So by way of simple logic, even if the largest population/worldview were the truthful one, lets say Christianity, that still leaves the majority of multiple billions of people who are delusional, who believe things which are not true, who argue for things which are not true.

Truth exists, it is a simple fact, it is not only a "metaphysical dream".

So then the question becomes, how does one avoid delusion and determine what is true with certainty? I assume you would say that it is not possible? "You can get closer and closer" etc.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Pam Seeback »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It's very rare to come to an understanding when starting from the top, to explain all the relative, ever-shifting traps of appearances


That's true, and this is something I'm interested in: Which methods are most effective in 'sharing' understanding, or bringing another to it via communication? There seems to be so many different layers, "traps", distractions, bridges, barriers, desires, and tendencies which endlessly lead people away from harmonious communication of understanding. (As well as harmonious relations in general)
How about:

1. One encounters silence of thought.
2. One becomes aware of the appearance of thought.
3. One questions the appearance of thought in relation to silence of thought with the goal of finding "its/their" truth. Which is where things get muddled because one must use thought to question the nature of the silence of thought. And to make things even more muddled, one must use the thoughts of their indiviidual culture.
4. One enters the fire of reasoning the relationship of cause to effect.
5. One spends much time with #4, both in self reflection and other reflection (the internet has provided much room for other reflection, GF is a prime example).
6. One surrenders to the truth that the effect (the appearance) cannot determine the nature of its cause.
7. One stops defining the relationship of cause to effect.
8. One begins to live of their individual causality, which by virtue of its moment-by-moment infinite-finite absolute nature cannot be "given" or "shared" with other individual infinite-finite absolute causalities. One can either enjoy their "I Am (everything)" as a solitary or teach the steps leading up to their enjoyment to others.

Obviously as bare-boned as I believe my steps toward enlightenment to be, they assume the reader:

1. Has made the same discoveries as me
2. Is familiar with my language and has grasped its implications

Two side notes:

1. The challenges of the Tower of Babel comes to mind.
2. One who is living of their enlightenment of "I am (everything)" is in the world but not of the world. What "being in the world" means is an individual experience.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Seeker wrote:We are all these things apparently, but what are you then?
I found early on, with Dan and David mostly, that their position, in their own eyes, because it 'logically had to be correct', enabled them to believe with no doubt at all that they were correct. Their position therefor was 'unassailable'. There could be (logically) no questioning of it nor critique, and this position offers a perfect 'fort' in which to hole up and 'take on all comers' (the whole deluded world).

You seem to me to have carved out for yourself just such a niche.
Don't you get it, all that really matters in regard to truth is who is 'right'. Which is what truth is, the opposite of which is delusion- to believe in that which is not true. The fact is that not all world views can be right, otherwise we'd have a literal god, and so on. So by way of simple logic, even if the largest population/worldview were the truthful one, lets say Christianity, that still leaves the majority of multiple billions of people who are delusional, who believe things which are not true, who argue for things which are not true.
Oh, I certainly 'get it', but what I 'get' is not what you wish I would 'get'! You establish 'truth' as a monolith, and you place yourself as the holder and owner of it, and it appears to you so natural, so right, and so inevitable, that you do not understand that your 'truth' is partial.

Our ideas of 'truth' are approximations. They are necessary - required - if they do not cause us to rule out and deny (block) other dimensions of the truthful. I would say that in this one has described the very core, and the sheer essence, of your own self-deception, your delusion. But as you well know you cannot be 'deluded' because you have and you possess the Truth. And my suggesting this to you is delusion-defined.

All views are indeed symbolic structures, just as language is a symbolic group of approximations. In order to 'get' the truth behind the truth (the declaration about truth) one has to employ another mode of thinking. It is not 'relativism' but intellectual and also possibly 'spiritual' or philosophical maturity.

The essential viewpoint - a cat bird's seat par excellence - for the denizens of GF has always been, and still seems to be, this inflated idea of having grasped 'ultimate truth'. It is like a drug. It seems to require a detoxification to get it out of the system. And some have done just that: detoxified from the seductive absolutism offered by a thinking platform (a seductive ideology).

Trippy, eh?
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:They are necessary - required - if they do not cause us to rule out and deny (block) other dimensions of the truthful.
No one has done so, you just imagine that a "prioritizing" of 'absolute' truth means that one must necessarily be ignoring all other "dimensions of the truthful".
Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:this inflated idea of having grasped 'ultimate truth'.
You continuously claim so, but how do you know such a "grasping" is not possible?
Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: that you do not understand that your 'truth' is partial.
A 'partial' truth may still be absolute and certain. No one has claimed to know all possible dimensions of truth, nor has anyone denies their existence.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

No, I notice how 'you' (some of you, sometimes, and in differing degrees) use notions of 'absolute truths' to block yourselves from other considerations.

You establish - as the Founders have continually established - a kind of mental conundrum: If I say 'Absolute truth does not exist', you answer 'How can you know that?' Anyone who asserts that 'absolute truth' is not a possibility for our realization automatically voids their own assertion. The absolute-minded religionist can then make his claim unhindered.

Hidden in your question, is your claim. All of this functions in logic-circles: closed loops of reasoning in which you are stuck. But you don't recognize 'stuckness', nor is it a logical possibility for you. In this sense - precisely in this sense - arguing with 'you' is nearly the same as arguing with a religious zealot. But that cannot be! you exclaim.
A 'partial' truth may still be absolute and certain. No one has claimed to know all possible dimensions of truth, nor has anyone denies their existence.
I have only focussed on pointing out various errors of understanding that arise because of this absolutist mind-frame. The reason I do this (the reason I bother to do this and to come here to do it even though it is a vain activity) is twofold. One is that I am interested in how 'metaphysical certainty' is constructed out of predicates and perceptions and also 'self-view'. In this sense I turn 'you' and you-Seeker into an object of study. I am certainly interested in truth and truthful ideas and the use of ideas in the life we live. But as I have said ten thousand different times, and in ten thousand different ways, I do not see 'you' as fulfilling truth-requirements, but rather failing them. These are mildly subtle distinctions but they fly over your head.

The other main interest in 'all this' for me is that Idea generally speaking (I suppose I mean 'ability to think') seems to me corrupted, quite severely. Perhaps because millions of people have been brought onto a platform where thinking, and affecting things through their thinking, has been made possible (the postwar emphasis on university education for example). But there are many many strains of corruption that affect the capacity to think. We all suffer from this and I do not exclude myself.

Now, Genius Forum makes very grandiose claims about having 'reclaimed thinking' and reclaimed a capacity to arrive at truthful choices through what it calls 'reasoning' (the use of reason and 'logic' as they call it). It makes claims to absolutes, just as you make claims about your understanding of absolutes. But so many 'obvious' failures are in evidence that, in my view, it is the errors that are more pronounced than the 'truths'. But the attraction for and the seduction by claims about absolutes is so strong and so tempting that - as in your case - it sucks a mind into itself like a vortex.

All this has become the object of my interest and I can tell you that it has not at all been an easy road to hoe. It requires dedicated intellectual work and lots of study and thought.

Now, I have just written this out (again). You read it. But it goes in one ear and soars out the other.

Trippy, eh?
I talk, God speaks
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Pam Seeback »

Alex: What then exactly is the conflict between myself and 'Genius Forum'? And must I, after stating the above, necessarily take issue with you?

I am concerned about lines of thought, or trends of definition, which 'cause' us to break with our own matrix and our antecedents.
But breaking with our cultural matrix is exactly what must happen on the road to truth. I explain further below.
Some here seem to relish and even to exult in breaking connection, and they take your basic idea of a 'non-human' knowing or knowledge, or the possibility of some sort of experience (thinking of Seeker here) which they privilege, and set *that* up as the measure of value. *That* becomes the most important thing, or state, or focus. (Though I doubt very much that Seeker could ever use the term that you imply as the other pole from 'human based').
Although I am not one of them, it appears as if there are truth seekers who can forgo any kind of supporting matrix and stand wholly in the fire of reason and allow it to do its work. For me, at first and for many years, I needed the matrix of a mythical, metaphorical Self, call it a bridge between "the two worlds." The bible and the realms of existence of Buddhism provided me with what I needed to “cross that bridge.” The whole point of reasoning and of building a supporting metaphorical bridge is to eliminate any sense of separation between subject and object, in other words, for those of us who need a bridge, even though there is no bridge, a bridge is constructed so we can gradually come to this realization.
And I have noted that that is destructive (and irresponsible). And that that endeavor, or that omission, has relationships to other destructive trends which, as I say, have begun substantially in the Enlightenment period.
But in trying to subvert the destructive element of dropping the cultural matrix (and it is indeed experienced as a destruction) you are also subverting the transformation that results of this necessary destruction. I'm speaking of your own subversion here, because, in truth, you have no power to stop anyone from seeking the truth of themselves.
I have brought out a critique against 'QRS' because I see that ultimately 'they' are part of acidic and destructive processes that, in fact, have no conceptual way to even register your statement about 'non-human sources of understanding'. That idea is a non-possible idea for them.
I agree that the QRS did not offer any supporting matrix on the forum, but they did not discourage them either. David and I had many lively discussions regarding the metaphorical “male and female principle.” Have you read the letters between David and Kevin “Letters between enemies?” Although they are not a matrix per se, they do reveal the difficulties and challenges experienced by both on their quest for truth. While they took more of a monk-like path than I (I worked in the world for 30 years, I am married with two children and two grandchildren and am engaged in their lives) I do relate to their quest and the struggles they encountered.

Do you not question the continuance of this battle with QRS when none of the three have posted here for a long time?
Based on what you write, and also based in the fact that I don't think you have thought these specific things through (about shifts in 'metaphysic' in our culture and the effects this has had/is having), I suggest that you, too, become susceptible to a trend which has a destructive effect. But I also think that we have all been 'infected' by powers, concepts and forces which do not originate in ourselves and yet which we serve, willingly and unwillingly. There is a need to carefully think through all of this material.
The entire process of questioning the nature of the cultural matrix and the spiritual matrix is just that – a careful think through of what each means. By no means is this a lighthearted undertaking, one's entire being becomes focused on and with this process. And yes, there were many times (at least for me) when I doubted the experience, even regretted the experience, sleepless nights were not uncommon, but in for a penny...

As for being infected by concepts and powers that do not originate in ourselves which we serve, willingly and unwillingly, this could as easily be said about the analysis of your cultural matrix as about the dropping of such. At some point, one must reconcile one's perception of “other” or fear paralysis sets in.
I would also suggest that almost no one really understands what I attempt and so the reaction I get is, overall, contempt.
I do not feel contempt for you, I have compassion for your concerns as do I believe you have compassion for us born of your perception of "our plight", but until you experience the life-and-death quest for truth you cannot possibly relate to those who do. I sense that my declaration of "a life-and-death quest" is a concern for you, perhaps you worry that Pam is being influenced by demonic forces or foolish whims, etc., but how will I know this is happening unless I ask myself? Who else can give me the truth of things but me?
Diebert for example, for all his smarts, does not grasp what I am up to nor does he understand its value, and too Diebert has been 'seduced' and operates out of a substantial 'seduction' and postmodern confusion. Seeker cannot grasp what I am getting at and yet is not wholly immune to understanding (in my opinion). Layla is, because of her extreme and irremediable Marxist infection, outrightly hostile to 'it', and for this reason she is very instructive and emblematic of a trend and a mood in present modern culture. For this reason she is a 'henid-driven banshee': her hostility is hardly 'divine' and represents nearly a demoniac turn (in ideas). Jupi is also driven by a non-rational hostility which dresses itself in an extremist 'rationalist' form but his anger and contempt is, overall, quite similar to Leyla's, though he has a programmer's mind (a mechanically mathematical mind) and Leyla is, quite frankly, deranged and incapable of a rational movement in thought.
What I have always asserted to you, challenge me if you want is that you cannot KNOW the intentions/motives of anyone here. You are not the only one that projects motive on others, I was introduced quickly to this brand of “enlightenment” (perhaps for some, intended to "kill" the ego?) when I first I arrived on GF years ago when Dennis was determined to analyze the truth of “Pam”. Back in those days I was less secure in my quest and foolishly fed into his "baiting."
No part of this is a joke, and this is all material of enormous consequence. The 'evidence' of how we separate from ourselves and - though it is a tough definition to work out - 'the divine' and the 'non-human' (meaning the non-demoniac) is a very challenging conversation.
Just as you asked me to consider the concerns at dropping the cultural matrix, I ask you to consider how one can attain to the divine if they are entangled in the land of "they say?" How did Jesus explain the effects of this inner war of the two worlds, the pull of the divine and the pull of "they/we?" Matthew 6:24: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” The whole idea of “the bearing of the cross” is to bear the suffering that comes with letting go of one's cultural identity so one's spiritual identity can be born. Did not the Jews condemn Jesus for not identifying with their cultural/religious matrix? And what was his response? “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.” Jesus was not anti-matrix, it was caused to happen, but he knew it did not belong in his Father's kingdom.

Finding out what and who we are under the covers of our cultural identity is not for everyone. But for those who are driven to know, it is everything. Which means, no one, not you, not a priest, not a child, not a husband, not a friend can stop those who are driven to know. Have you considered that your desire to stop the quest only adds fire to the quest, sort of like forbidding your daughter to date a certain boy only serves to drive her into his arms? Do you believe you have stopped a single poster on any forum to which you are a member from continuing their quest to know?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:You seem to me to have carved out for yourself just such a niche. You establish 'truth' as a monolith, and you place yourself as the holder and owner of it, and it appears to you so natural, so right, and so inevitable,...
-then, directly following, completely void of any awareness how it undermines itself (lies, of course always do that, it's a feature):
Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: In order to 'get' the truth behind the truth (the declaration about truth) one has to employ another mode of thinking.
Trippy! Makes the head spin! But do you have any idea why? Still got your head stuck where the sun of self-reflection doesn't shine. Anyway, this is not about truths behind truths like matryoshka dolls. There are certainly different levels in which a conversation can take place and God knows I've engaged in them all. The point is that from the same perspective, a shared context, it's all about establishing how one truth relates to another, how they size up. And there one quickly sees there's something which once might have been truth, an actual representation, but is stubbornly held on to, becoming false as it doesn't reflect its original context any more, as it becomes disconnected. Truth as moving target? This is not solved by just switching perspectives and introducing new convenient "levels". Even if at each level, another truth could indeed function, there's also another type of falsehood appearing. The discussion is still the same, really, assuming all participating are still in the same one. Which is not always the case any more if someone insists on changing the terms and the goals, as a means to stay talking, because he's not aware of what drives him yet. It clearly needs to stay hidden to function.

The truth here is that I know exactly what you're up to Gustav and always knew. The postmodern confusion and fog living is yours. Your problem has been pointed out but you respond the only way you can: with more "analysis" gone mad. And yet, some interesting stuff has been produced, like a good little librarian doing a splendid job collecting all the dead letters and stale visions to archive or display in his many "book cases" and museum stands. And isn’t that what we, modern men, are becoming reduced to nowadays? Recapturing, recounting, reliving.... against the truth of his own non-existence, like moths to the flame.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

I think, Diebert, that you have expressed in an essential form, the nature and content of your own limitations in regard to my thought, or endeavor. 'The truth is that I know exactly what you are up to and always knew' is a luxurious catbird's seat. This is your 'unassailable vantage' and one that you can always occupy and pronounce from. The rest of what you have written, though I suppose it might appear profound and isnightful, appears rather empty to me.
I talk, God speaks
Locked