Christians and me, Part II:

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

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Pam wrote:But breaking with our cultural matrix is exactly what must happen on the road to truth. I explain further below.
The sorts of statements you make are part-and-parcel of your overall, larger view and understanding, and I think I can say, and I think that many people can say, that what you are getting at is intelligible and makes sense. And I would further note that you are describing your own position, or your own path, and it would appear as one of radical spirituality.

I am of the opinion that you are just one of hundreds, thousands and for all that I know millions of people who have worked to define their relationship with God or existence. And all of those people - at least of those that I am aware of (having read their works) - never leave off their connection with their 'matrix'. To employ the story of Jesus' confrontation and conflict with his matrix seems to me to be intensely problematic. Meaning, it does not work really to the advantage of your argument. Because quite simply to react against a stale or stultifying matrix means to rejuvinate and bring new life into it. But not to abandon it, and not certainly to abandon people.

I cannot judge your choices and I think you are very aware that each person oversees their sovereign processes. Life is so strangely complex in this sense and really, when one has opened up to the activity of divinity in one's life, really rather weird. Again, prepositions (as in 'here' 'there' 'up' 'down' 'in' 'out') have little meaning since, without being able to explain really much of anything about life, we all live it.

Yet I sense that we are not speaking on the same level, nor to the same concerns. And I also sense that you basically cannot relate to the concerns that I highlight, and that the only thing that interests you, and draws you along, is your very personal path. Who can argue against that choice? or that destiny? Again, I would not, and in reality I am not, even with my critical endeavors which, as I say, have relevance and utility for me (the value of conversation/confrontation to help one to articulate and concretize ideas). It is a fair statement though to note that everything that you write, and your entire focus, is thoroughly personal and thoroughly private. In other conversations you have indicated, more or less, a desire or an intention to be done with physical incarnation. This can be seen as part-and-parcel of the Christian path (though I understand that such notions are likely the 'bridges' you no longer need or want): Life here as part of an exit-strategy. I cannot be sure because you have not to my knowledge stated it directly, but that is my impression.
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.
Because I have lived through downfalls and pits of various sorts - difficult periods of collapse that yet laid foundations for rejuvenation - I can, and I think many can, understand what you are saying. It does require maturity though. But as I said I think your own 'story-line' does not ultimately work to the advantage of your argument, and for the following reasons. It is when one deals with the consequences of a fallen structure, or a failed choice, that one is forced to rebuilt. And when one rebuilds one must build 'on solid ground'. And if it happened that, to emply the metaphor of a plant as I did before, that the water with which one nourished oneself was after all bad water, one will likely make better choices, new choices, and seek clear and nourishing water.

And that is now and has always been the core of my 'argument': that this is what we 'must' do and that this is 'spiritual work'.

But you paint what I am speaking about as if I am defending the outmoded temple structures of ancient Judea against spiritual revolutionaries. This is not a fortunate metaphor for my endeavors. It fits into your story though, and your conception of yourself in this world.
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.
We are not speaking to the same thing. And despite your view of what QRS did or did not do, and whether 'matrix' was offered or not, and because some aspect of their specific radicalism is similar to yours, such that you are inclined to 'defend' it (or explicate it might be a better word), what they very much did do, and with a great certainty, is to define 'wisdom' and 'ignorance', truth and delusion, in very specific and stated ways. And THAT is very much a matrix. And it is a matrix which I - and I am not alone though it would appear I am one of the more percervering! - have taken a stand against. Not for spite and not to simply stir up trouble, and not because I am 'ignorant' or 'deluded', but in defense of a whole group of things which they too quickly dismiss.

And once again, and for the hundrenth time, I restate my overall project, not because I hope to convince you or 'you', but because it is something that needs to be understood better.
Do you you not question the continuance of this battle with QRS when none of the three have posted here for a long time?
That is, I think, a stament of significant misunderstanding. Ideas in truth have very real consequences. Partial or incomplete truths can have and often do have very bad effect. It would be really foolish, in my way of seeing things, to have failed to have risen to the occasion and taken adantage of an opportunity to look into and research the missing peices. My concerns and my endeavors have nothing to do with these various personages, and you have I think failed to grasp the larger issues to which spiritual concerns, and concerns of life, or civilisational concerns, point us. Not you of course, this I understand. But I am speaking to things beyond your zone of interest and things which, quite simply, have no relevance and meaning for you.

I would also like to suggest that in numerous ways, though it is not something I have much interest in talking about, just how 'life and death' issues have impinged on my life, my ideas and my choices, and of course my present concerns. I also know that you have the insight to know that you can't. Yet if I fiercely (to put it dramatically) defend certain 'conceptual pathways' it is because of meaningful realizations and promptings about these things, not because I have not experienced them.

It is simply a truism that people are called in different directions.
Who else can give me the truth of things but me?
Is one of those inarguable statements. Until it is more closely looked into. What gives you the truth of yourself is a shared human self, and language, and the endeavors of countless generations of people who have carved out of the world everything that we understand as *meaning*. Your statement, Pam, actually encases a certain ignorance. You imagien yourself as independent and perhaps 'beholden to none' but your God (you might not say it like that). This I would have to say is a false statement. And so I speak to another level or layer of truth, and make suggestions about 'preservation' or 'better understanding' or more considered, mature analysis of things, ideas, literature, our history, and much else.

All that I can 'know' of motivations is what I pick up through reading the words written here. It is a given to me that we ALL get it wrong, and often. But we are forced to deal in generalities and this is what goes on in all fora.
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?
I'd ask you to notice how you have corralled me into a specific 'corner' which, naturally, you established from the start! Your argument and thrust is cogent though. It all follows from your predicates.

But: I am not oposed nor do I argue against deeper ways of knowing 'who we are'. I would also say that the path that you privelage, because it is a 'platform', can be and should be examined. Radicalism should be examined. There is no such thing as a 'pure (untainted) radicalism'. Radicalism indicates a group of different motivators (usually).

To couch my endeavor as a 'husband or priest' (etc) who desires to 'hold you back' from self-knowledge could indicate some of the obstacles you've had to deal with, but I am in no sense advocating fearful holding back from exploration. Nothing of the sort. And I am recommending what I consider to be a fuller and more mature type of 'knowing' and relationship to what can be known, and what use to make of it. Duty is a big idea for me.
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, thank you for your detailed response, duty is a big one for me too, every path is indeed individual, just as you question the merits of mine in contrast with yours, I do the same. Go forth as shall I. Blessings. :-)

Came back to add this poem by Mewlana Jalaluddin Rumi, divine suft heart, I hope it expresses the beneficial blessing bestowed on the "radical" ones:

There are two kinds of intelligence: one acquired,
as a child in school memorizes facts and concepts
from books and from what the teacher says,
collecting information from the traditional sciences
as well as from the new sciences.

With such intelligence you rise in the world.
You get ranked ahead or behind others
in regard to your competence in retaining
information. You stroll with this intelligence
in and out of fields of knowledge, getting always more
marks on your preserving tablets.

There is another kind of tablet, one
already completed and preserved inside you.
A spring overflowing its springbox. A freshness
in the center of the chest. This other intelligence
does not turn yellow or stagnate. It's fluid,
and it doesn't move from outside to inside
through conduits of plumbing-learning.

This second knowing is a fountainhead
from within you, moving out.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: 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.
Is that what you're saying, or just that we can't know absolute truth, or that we can only get "closer and closer to reality"? It's important that you answer this, because depending on your answer, what you're saying may be extremely contradictory.
I do not see 'you' as fulfilling truth-requirements,
Who's truth-requirements? Yours I assume.
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'.


Do you mind actually talking about these errors? Ones which are hopefully not just based on your aversion to the conclusions. You don't use any reasoning to show that what you're saying is true, you just continuously assert that it is true, over and over (while simultaneously critiquing those who claim to know truth). Is that not fanaticism?
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

What are those conclusions, Seeker?

In 'our traditions', at least in my understanding Pam, or generally one might say, 'we' do not separate domains as does Rumi. I wondered when reading the poem above what might be comparable from the 'ancient' world, and I thought of Sappho. True, her passion was not exactly divinity, but the sentiments are similar.

But I do not think that Rumi shares much in common with the authentic philosophical schools of Greece and of a general trend and focus. Idea, philosophy, language, art, religious sentiment (if I can call it that): these are the basis of integral creations. And the Greek focus on 'the citizen' and the relevance of the citizen in public life: Not even a possibility in Rumi's world. A Rumi creates a mystic individual with no civic relationship and, if I read his sentiment correctly, and yours, no desire for that at all. Certainly this is good for religious and mystical fanaticism.

Basically, I note that *here* (to speak generally, always a danger) one discovers people who are post-religious or ex-religious. In another climate they'd have been religious zealots within specific orthodox traditions. Yet for various reasons that choice has been rendered impossible though the zealousness of mind remains. It seems to get applied to a different field but it is the same or a similar fanaticism.

In my way of seeing, although I think monasticism very definitely has a place, the 'object' must be a balanced person who is learned and accomplished intellectually (school learning is basically how Rumi expresses it) and yet who also has an inner, spiritual life. And it is in the interrelation between the two that the sort of individual I admire, and naturally desire to be, comes to be.

But I am aware that I am simply expressing 'sophersune' which is, as I said, the term with which I replace the false and distorted notion of 'enlightenment': a honeytrap for minds of a certain sort. Referring to 'enlightenment', and organizing one's life around it, and referring to it but never being able to produce it or offer an individual (a citizen) who is 'enlightened', when this occurs in our culture, reminds me of sects that worship aliens. A fantastic, invisible 'thing' which is referred to but never becomes visible. Yet one's entire life is oriented around it. But in this sense it lures on away from 'reality': the tangible world of 'our matrix'.

Mysticism is one thing, and it is Rumi's thing (overall). But 'theology', and good theology, is the combination of skills and modes of perception.
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:What are those conclusions, Seeker?
The prioritizing of seeking "absolute truth", the promotion of independent contemplation, such as meditation, that there is the possibility to have a clear and certain insight into the nature of reality, etc.

Can you answer those questions I asked?
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:Just as bourgeois society is something intermediate, so there are two possible ways to overcome the bourgeoisie, to say No to the bourgeois type, bourgeois civilisation, and the bourgeois spirit and its values. One possibility corresponds to the direction that leads on to the lowest point of all this, towards a collectivistic and materialised humanity with its ‘realism’ in the Marxist style: social and proletarian values against ‘bourgeois and capitalist decadence’. The other possibility is the direction that combats the bourgeoisie in order to effectively raise oneself beyond it. The men of the new grouping will be, yes, anti-bourgeois, but by means of the aforementioned superior, heroic, and aristocratic conception of existence. They will be anti-bourgeois because they despise the easy life; anti-bourgeois because they will follow not those who promise material advantages, but those who demand all of themselves; anti-bourgeois, finally, because they are not preoccupied with security but love an essential union between life and risk, on all levels, making their own the inexorable character of the naked idea and the precise action. Yet another aspect by which the new man, the basic cell for the movement of reawakening, will be anti-bourgeois and will differentiate himself from the previous generation, is by his intolerance for every form of rhetoric and false idealism, for all those big words that are written with capital letters; for everything that is only gesture, phrase, effect, and scenery.
I am - to all appearances - interested in defining spirituality, and incorporating spiritual experience into my life lived, yet I have to say that I very strongly question the choices made by the 'school' to which The Founders belong. What exactly IS that school? What exactly are its tenets? Who here elucidates it best? Seeker? Diebert? Pam? Leyla? Jupi? Leyla? (Gasp) To be truthful and factual, when one probes 'your' position the definitions recede. Nothing is certain. Nothing defined. Nothing clear.

This fact is so interesting to me.

Is the 'rationality' that consumes Pam the same 'rationality' that possesses Jupi? Like some version of the Paraclete? A 'holy fire'? Is it the same fire that consumed David? And that even now consumes Kevin as he records and sends out yet another enlightenment video?

Though I note many points in Evola and the 'traditionalist' school which I do not agree with, nevertheless this paragraph contains both an energy and a content (focus, concern) which, in my view, pales and renders somewhat ridiculous the alien-like assertions about spiritual life which seem to capture many who gravitate here.

It is a question of curiosity but can 'you' consider that a 'superior, heroic, and aristocratic conception of existence' is necessary and 'good'? Do you share a relationship to these values? To a 'concrete engagement' in defining relationship?
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 »

I think you can glean 'answers' to your questions Seeker through what I have written, and certainly recently.

It is not enough to say 'prioritizing absolute truth', nor to propose 'independent contemplation' (meditation), nor that one can gain insight into 'the nature of reality'. That is why I'd say that your spirituality is incomplete, even absurd: childish and immature. It has to be linked to a 'total program' for how life is lived, society organized, politics realized, legal cases adjudicated, justice defined, relationship understood, and every other category that could be listed.

As I said a few posts back: It all hinges on education. If you cannot describe how you would educate a child and in this sense 'construct a society' (incorporating spirituality), you have in my view indicated the core area of failure and error.
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:yet I have to say that I very strongly question the choices made by the 'school' to which The Founders belong. What exactly IS that school? What exactly are its tenets? Who here elucidates it best? Seeker? Diebert? Pam? Leyla? Jupi? Leyla? (Gasp) To be truthful and factual, when one probes 'your' position the definitions recede. Nothing is certain. Nothing defined. Nothing clear.
That's because you're stereotyping different people and imagining they exist in the same 'school', or as forum founder 'students'. So your question: "Who here elucidates it best? Seeker? Diebert? Pam? Leyla? Jupi? Leyla?" is a ridiculous one which you use to straw man individuals by referring to such general ideas, by attempting to place entirely different views into the same "school" and then pointing out those different world views as some kind of evidence that we are contradicting each other and ourselves.
Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:That is why I'd say that your spirituality is incomplete, even absurd: childish and immature. It has to be linked to a 'total program' for how life is lived, society organized, politics realized, legal cases adjudicated, justice defined, relationship understood, and every other category that could be listed.

As I said a few posts back: It all hinges on education. If you cannot describe how you would educate a child and in this sense 'construct a society' (incorporating spirituality), you have in my view indicated the core area of failure and error.
First of all, it is ridiculous how terrible an argument this is, to suggest that a discussion of metaphysics, or any philosophical viewpoint for that matter, must necessarily describe all these areas of life before one can determine its more specific value.

Secondly, you've never said any of that before at all. This is the first time, and where is your 'total program', you idiot? You just listed a bunch of topics that have not yet been discussed at all and then 'accused' me of incompleteness. Is it even possible for you to cease stereotyping? Nearly every criticism you give is based on assumptions, generalities and prejudices. For example, I've never use the word "spirituality", but apparently mine is incomplete and doubt my ability to incorporate my "spirituality" into education? Who are you even talking to? You're so deluded in your assumptions. If you look at everything I've written in this thread and since I started discussing here again relatively recently, it is all surrounding a very 'narrow' topic you could say, and that is metaphysics and the nature of reality, - and you have rarely spoken about this topic at all, except to repeat your criticism of supposed "absolute claims" - as well as the suggestion that all philosophy must include a necessary context of purpose and action(Which is related to the topics you brought up, which have not been spoken of). Simply put, to discuss metaphysics and epistemology is necessary if we are to talk of any further philosophy. You continue to suggest that focusing on these topics now necessarily implies some 'denial' of the world (because of what you've read from the founders and your tendency to generalize, last time I checked I wasn't 80 and my name isn't Dan), I would say that these worldly topics are important areas which require conventional and worldly wisdom, along with time, experience, learning, and action.

You are in fact the 'narrow-minded' one, who constantly uses words such as "my focus", while simultaneously proposing that we should not have a narrow focus. I'll mention now that in regards to philosophy, I neither focus on metaphysics, relationships, culture, education, or knowledge, but only on the entire activity of "life", which is why I liked your determination of wisdom as a "balance".

So, Alex, is it possible to discuss a fundamental topic without you ignorantly proposing that it necessarily implies a "blocking out" of all other topics and ideas?

If it is possible, then answer the questions. When dealing with such evasive characters such as yourself, it's important to understand what you would say your 'position' is. The fact that you're entirely ignoring questions altogether is literal proof of your evasiveness. You resort to endlessly restating "your focus" as a reason for complete dismissal. Perhaps if you stopped being so dismissive (dismissal, to ignore, ignorance), and accepted the possibility that such questions may become relevant, then we could get over this "stuckness" which you have simultaneously created and forced upon others.

You're really not the brightest fella, but that's alright! Because of the beauty of discussion- if you will allow it- you'll get to move forward.

So to start, answer the questions:
Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: If I say 'Absolute truth does not exist', you answer 'How can you know that?'
Is that what you're saying, or just that we can't know absolute truth, or that we can only get "closer and closer" to it?
Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: I do not see 'you' as fulfilling truth-requirements,
Who's truth-requirements? Yours I assume.
SeekerOfWisdom wrote: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'.
To which absolute claims do you refer? (That I've made). And what are the errors and failures in regard to them?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Pam Seeback »

Seeker: I'll mention now that in regards to philosophy, I neither focus on metaphysics, relationships, culture, education, or knowledge, but only on the entire activity of "life", which is why I liked your determination of wisdom as a "balance".
Can you be more specific as to your worldview of wisdom as a "balance" in relation to the entire activity of "life" assuming that you view these two "things" as related?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by jupiviv »

movingalways wrote:Came back to add this poem by Mewlana Jalaluddin Rumi, divine suft heart, I hope it expresses the beneficial blessing bestowed on the "radical" ones:
"Maulana", not "Mewlana"; "sufi", not "suft". Cream puffs and other perishable food items should be bought local rather than ordered online, even when the e-reseller in question vouches for seller/distributor QC.

Allah, Muhammad chare yaar, haji, maula, qutub, farid.

The pinnacle of Islam.

Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine: et homo factus est.

The pinnacle of Christianity.

Christianity's canticle for the God-man is in this instance more pleasant to the ear, but for that very reason abhorrent to the mind. Islam's is less dulcet, but at least knows its place and refrains from suggesting that a bastard and the whore who whelped him have a share in divinity.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by jupiviv »

By the way, the video referenced as "The pinnacle of Islam" is of an Afdiggastani qawwali band performing a song about Allah (mostly in the style of Hindu devotional music) for a bunch of sikhs in Punjab, India circa '70s-'80s. Afdiggastan today is a hellhole, which it wasn't back in that era (not a developed nation by any means but *civilised* all the same).

International mainstream media are pummeling Europeans with doublethink "facts" it can't even credibly assert as such anymore in the eyes of a growing majority - "100s of women get groped/raped/touched/catcalled", "drowned refugee kid", "we welcome the Syrians whose homes we bombed for freedom and democracy into our culture of freedom and democracy", "cartoons! YAAAY...oh no...BOOM!". The real question, as usual, isn't even mentioned let alone discussed - if these raghead terrrist rapist assholes aren't coming from Afdiggastan or Syria a few decades ago, then why are they coming from those places *now*?
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

This goes out to Jupi.

(BTW, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan is quite well-known in Europe and the States. I'll bet that Pam has listened to him. I have a number of CDs).
____________________________________
Seeker wrote:That's because you're stereotyping different people and imagining they exist in the same 'school', or as forum founder 'students'. So your question: "Who here elucidates it best? Seeker? Diebert? Pam? Leyla? Jupi? Leyla?" is a ridiculous one which you use to straw man individuals by referring to such general ideas, by attempting to place entirely different views into the same "school" and then pointing out those different world views as some kind of evidence that we are contradicting each other and ourselves.
I think you are being a bit disingenuous. People attracted to an 'enlightenment' path and who use often the same terms and concepts can be, should be included as part of a 'school'. True, there are great variations between individuals, often more issues of personality, but the general trend similar enough. What unites 'you' is greater than what divides you (as far as I have been able to tell).
First of all, it is ridiculous how terrible an argument this is, to suggest that a discussion of metaphysics, or any philosophical viewpoint for that matter, must necessarily describe all these areas of life before one can determine its more specific value.
You might describe it as a bad argument from your chosen perspective, and with your established tenets which to you seem oh-so-correct, but I would and will stick by my statement and it can and should be defended. But what I say is different from your recap. To make grand pronouncements about 'absolute reality', to state that one has 'seen' it and understands it, can define what is delusion and what is wisdom, and much else, is a system that MUST have clear links to all the areas of life and must literally pronounce on those things. So, it is not at all a 'terrible argument' but a necessary statement. To undermine our own traditions which have done all this, and to replace it with an enlightenment fantasy-trip spirituality, is evidence of recklessness. Our own traditions need to be better understood and through that understanding one will grasp why it is that our systems are interlinked or interpenetrated by spiritual concerns.

Metaphysics, philosophy, ethics, politics - from a Greek perspective - are all connected. They must be connected. You say silly and rather stupid things quite regularly, Seeker. Lack of proper education.
Secondly, you've never said any of that before at all.
You have never really read what I have written then ...
I would say that these worldly topics are important areas which require conventional and worldly wisdom, along with time, experience, learning, and action.
Your first *truly wise* statement.

One might have senses and intuitions about 'absolute reality', and one might define a metaphysic and a practice that encompasses one's understanding, yet I do not think that existence can ultimately be known. You can, like anyone can, make all sorts of different propositions, and these are necessary, but I would say that 'absolute knowledge' as in 'absolute certainty of knowing', is outside of your capacity, and hence mine.
I talk, God speaks
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Self Medication

Post by Leyla Shen »

Bjornstrapon MD wrote:
Thank you, Jupi. But I think 'House Doctor' is a position that suits my talents.
Well, that explains why your expert opinions fail not only to cure disease, but to relieve symptoms altogether; yes, the talents comprising standard prescriptions and referrals to specialists in 15 minute flash sessions.
Between Suicides
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 wrote:
True, there are great variations between individuals, often more issues of personality, but the general trend is similar enough. What unites 'you' is greater than what divides you (as far as I have been able to tell).
Addendum: And then there is Leyla ...
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: To make grand pronouncements about 'absolute reality', to state that one has 'seen' it and understands it, can define what is delusion and what is wisdom, and much else, is a system that MUST have clear links to all the areas of life and must literally pronounce on those things. So, it is not at all a 'terrible argument' but a necessary statement. To undermine our own traditions which have done all this, and to replace it with an enlightenment fantasy-trip spirituality, is evidence of recklessness. Our own traditions need to be better understood and through that understanding one will grasp why it is that our systems are interlinked or interpenetrated by spiritual concerns.

Metaphysics, philosophy, ethics, politics - from a Greek perspective - are all connected. They must be connected. You say silly and rather stupid things quite regularly, Seeker. Lack of proper education.
Do you actually read what is being written? Who said that they weren't connected? I said it was a ridiculous argument to use as a dismissal of a particular topic, one cannot simultaneously address every topic, there must be a starting point. Otherwise I could say that your writings are 'incomplete' because you haven't covered all those topics in your posts, where is your 'total program'? You were simply being 'unfair' and you continue to evade the topic by repeatedly claiming that it "undermines our own traditions", when I literally just spent an entire post explaining to you that we haven't even discussed any of these other subjects, as you have refused to discuss even the very first one by dismissing the possibility of its relevance, you dolt. So I'll ask you again:

So, Alex, is it possible to discuss a fundamental topic without you ignorantly proposing that it necessarily implies a "blocking out" of all other topics and ideas? (Wouldn't it be wise to give it a go and see where it leads? Rather than generalizing based on your predispositions and expectations which have arisen due to your past discussions with the founders)

I'll also assume that when you say "proper education" you're referring to the "best education" which you had during schooling, right? :)
Your first *truly wise* statement.
One might have senses and intuitions about 'absolute reality', and one might define a metaphysic and a practice that encompasses one's understanding, yet I do not think that existence can ultimately be known. You can, like anyone can, make all sorts of different propositions, and these are necessary, but I would say that 'absolute knowledge' as in 'absolute certainty of knowing', is outside of your capacity, and hence mine.
Finally, you answered a question, and by doing so, you allow reason and logic to play its part in determining truth. It's a very simple response: Does this mean that I cannot have absolute certainty of knowing about anything? You said it was outside our capacity. But what about very simple things? Such as that there is what we refer to as "thought"? Though it doesn't say much in an of itself, it is still knowledge and it is even more basic and certain than Descartes' claim, surely I can know that with absolute certainty, or would you say that you are not absolutely certain that there is thought? Or is your problem with such statements pertaining to the ill defined definition of such a broad term as "thought"?

Also, if you are refuting the possibility of absolute certainty, you probably shouldn't write words like this in caps and italics: "MUST"
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Educationalists

Post by Leyla Shen »

And if the dam breaks open many years too soon...

  • The separation of the “deed” from the “doer,” of the event from someone who produces events, of the process from a something that is not process but enduring, substance, thing, body, soul, etc … this ancient mythology established the belief in “cause and effect” after it had found a firm form in the functions of language and grammar.
NIETZSCHE

Got to keep the ferals on the path, la la-laaa...
Between Suicides
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 »

The grand old strategy of projecting all what's bad and ugly outwards appears to be slowly catching up with its own deception.

This is what's generally perceived as decline or collapse but even that view is still part of that same strategy.

It's possible to use this perspective to shed some light on various processes inside and outside the forum these days.
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:Finally, you answered a question, and by doing so, you allow reason and logic to play its part in determining truth. It's a very simple response: Does this mean that I cannot have absolute certainty of knowing about anything? You said it was outside our capacity. But what about very simple things? Such as that there is what we refer to as "thought"? Though it doesn't say much in an of itself, it is still knowledge and it is even more basic and certain than Descartes' claim, surely I can know that with absolute certainty, or would you say that you are not absolutely certain that there is thought? Or is your problem with such statements pertaining to the ill defined definition of such a broad term as "thought"?
'Reason' and 'logic' are extremely loaded words and are used *here* as part of elaborate semi-philosophical game-playing. I think that with a wee bit of effort you would recognize this too. I don't have the energy or desire to go into it - I've done it already numerous times - yet I would say that if you were interested in understanding how a group-project works, and specifically one enacted and rehearsed in the forum-environment, you'd do well to examine this inane use of 'logic' and 'logical terms' and 'reason' and 'raciocination' as an elaborate game. It is transparent and stupid in the extreme. Essentially: It is boyish.

I think you are captured by a game that you play with yourself, and that you rehearse in your own mind. So much so that you 'believe' it. Here, above, you seem to congratulate me for performing similarly to you: to have used 'logic to play a part in determining truth'. Duh. I use such logic to butter my toast.

You, and those you engage with here in 'performance' and 'rehearsal' as I am wont to say (indicating a sort of elaboration and refinement of game-playing), establish a 'logic-game' with rules and limits that are entirely flexible, and I think it would need to be said that - speaking generally - the logic-game has more to do with a given personality who desires to enforce his view or opinion than it has to do with real 'logic'.

Yes, I suppose that in many ways it is true that I would use 'logic' to come to understand that 'logic' is a minor part in coming to understand that 'absolute reality' cannot be known and grasped in the way that you, stupidly and arrogantly, pretend that it is, while you set yourself up as one who does this, has done this, and can pronounce from that perspective. But I would say that it is less a strict use of 'logic' and more seeing through boyish mischievousness, and the intellectual shenannigans of an unprepared mind. A bullshit artist to put it colloquially. Would you call that 'application of logic'? I suppose you could.

To answer your other dumb-ass questions, we can obviously 'know' many details about existence, and to butter my toast I have to operate quite elaborate sets of knowledge. But I can't really 'know' anything about how toast and me got here, nor about any aspect of being or manifestation, nor about Being taken, Heideggerianishly, as the large question Why is there something and not nothing? At a certain point one can only allude to things that are not within the localising and practical-logical mind's realm. Are you registering this? In a sense this is child's play.

What you and others here have a really difficult time grasping is that 1) in many senses 'you' function in a similar mental landscape, a shrunken territory for shrunken persons who are trapped by shrunkenness and their addiction to certain usages of the mind. If ever a 'truth' existed and was stated in clear and simple terms this is it. 2) that people of this mental order ('birds of a feather') congregate with each other to a) rehearse their agreements and b) establish a logic-kingdom where, agreements establsihed, they can face and in a sense confront the world.

I discovered, and I believe it to be true, that the 'QRS' platform is, overall but not exclusively, a strategy to deal with a confusing and overwhelming present. But because it is a 'manoeuvre' that is in this sense 'caused' by reaction-to, it is symptomatic of the recognized dysfunction. This is how I see the 'enlightenment' gambit. Do you register this? Once one has unravelled, if you will, the motive that underpins the gambit, the larger ball of yarn begins to unravel, and this connects to many different things that can be said about 'our present'. Now, this unravelling is super-distressing to some folks that have constructed self around it. But that is not of concern to me. Now, if you were to stupidly ask: "Oh, well, then what 'concerns' you, idiot?!" I would sigh - yes I would sigh melancholically - and say "That is all that I write about. Read it again".

So, what does 'logic' mean here? What does 'reason' mean here?

What you notice is that I do not engage you on the specific platform of you logic rehearsal and your logic game and simply keep on defining the areas of importance as I see them.

I am curious to know if you read some of Evola's statements? What do you think of that level of focus? That is, a philosophy and a 'spirituality' (spiritedness, high-mindedness) that yet remains focussed in tangible concerns? Do you see it as 'wise' or 'ignorant' and 'delusional'?
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 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The grand old strategy of projecting all what's bad and ugly outwards appears to be slowly catching up with its own deception.

This is what's generally perceived as decline or collapse but even that view is still part of that same strategy.

It's possible to use this perspective to shed some light on various processes inside and outside the forum these days.
One of the benefits of being driven/called to end duality (as insane as it appears to be on the surface) is that one eventually receives the vision of the alpha and omega of duality. Which when viewed from the perspective of abiding in this vision brings about the wisdom of why there is evil and ugliness in the world. Simply put those who project what is bad and ugly outwards are unconscious (ignorant) of the realized vision of the alpha and omega (of distinction-making). Instead they are caught in the complexity of the distinction-making appearance itself, more specifically, in its drive for self-preservation (the delusion of the ego).

What those unconscious of the wisdom of the alpha and omega of the appearance cannot see is the more layered is their appearance, the more distinctions they cling to, the further away they are from the vision of the alpha and omega. Metaphorically, biblically (for those who relate) this is the vision of the Father of the appearance of the Lord God, the vision of "it was good and only good." It is also the wisdom and compassion/divine love of the Christ or bodisattva.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Seeker wrote:Does this mean that I cannot have absolute certainty of knowing about anything? You said it was outside our capacity. But what about very simple things? Such as that there is what we refer to as "thought"? Though it doesn't say much in an of itself, it is still knowledge and it is even more basic and certain than Descartes' claim, surely I can know that with absolute certainty, or would you say that you are not absolutely certain that there is thought? Or is your problem with such statements pertaining to the ill defined definition of such a broad term as "thought"?
Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: we can obviously 'know' many details about existence, and to butter my toast I have to operate quite elaborate sets of knowledge. But I can't really 'know' anything about how toast and me got here, nor about any aspect of being or manifestation, nor about Being taken, Heideggerianishly, as the large question Why is there something and not nothing? At a certain point one can only allude to things that are not within the localising and practical-logical mind's realm. Are you registering this? In a sense this is child's play.
My questions were in reply to your statement regarding the lack of possibility for "absolute certainty of knowing".

I asked some very simple questions, you answered saying "we can obviously 'know' (why have you suddenly decided to put this word in quotation marks?) many details about existence", but really evaded the questions as they were stated, you didn't even mention the core of the question which was "with absolute certainty", and also ignored the ones about thought. Read them again, and answer. Then I will reply to your questions, that's how a conversation works. I'm beginning to think you're mad, or just extremely immature, you endlessly repeat your conclusions and your statements about the idiocy and destructive nature of- what really? I've barely spoken to you at all, yet you group everyone as being part of the same 'shrunken territory'- and then simultaneously refuse to discuss anything that isn't within the realm of your territory.

You have gone so far as to excuse your ignoring of questions and dismissal of questions by saying that it is a "game" which you're not going to play. It will be clear to anyone that you are simply avoiding having to answer questions because you know that you're going to make very obvious and idiotic contradictions. This is why you have an aversion to words like "reason" and "logic", any in depth discussion or investigation into these terms and their application would work against you.
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 am not very interested in your particular 'loops' and so, and I make this clear, I simply side-step them. It is somewhat different from avoiding though. And naturally I am still here and present. All things, and many more things, will naturally out themselves over time.

Just not according to a schedule you administer.

Nevertheless, and despite your interpretation, I quite clearly offered response which dealt with the overall gist of your 'questions' and the problem, but taken in a sense that subverts your project. Sorry!

I did not so much say that it is a game I am unwilling to play - indeed to be here is to be in some senses 'in the game' - but more that I think that logic-games need to be seen 'for what they are'. My statement is very different from yours. Once a logic-game and other forms of deception and self-deception are brought to light a more 'authentic' conversation then becomes possible. You see?

I do not even mean that you have to participate in that conversation since, in reversal, you become the subject of it. It seems to be excruciatingly difficult for you to understand what I mean and also why I take this tack. So be it ...

And as to your last two sentences: You are quite entitled to your opinion.
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:You have gone so far as to excuse your ignoring of questions and dismissal of questions by saying that it is a "game" which you're not going to play.
Your output on this thread embodies self-pretence, so Alex is right in this instance (albeit like a broken clock). Both Alex and you are completely oblivious of *context*. Terms, concepts and even entire philosophies mean different things in different contexts. The concept that absolute truth can be known, for example, is *entirely* different in the context of Mr. Wright's Catholicism than that of a mathematics professor. The concept that wisdom shouldn't be too good for the quotidian domain means different things in the original context of the Tathagata and that of, say, Osho.

But since both of you are stuck in a single context, or at least a group of related contexts, anyone who isn't operating within the same will always seem stupid to you. Your context - online Buddhism as philosophy; online debate as affectation of wisdom. His context - nerdy guardian-librarian of the Western Canon who gets the girl in the end. In fact, I'll be an arrogant bastard and cite my summarisation of these two contexts earlier in this thread as evidence of my superhuman perspicacity:

Face it, Seeker: you're calling the grapes sour. Dennis Mahar's "Purposeless Guide to Grokking the Meaninglessness of Meaningful Meaningless Emptytude" ain't an ejewmacation, son. An ejewmacation is what you have when you can cite passages from the middle of a book as evidence of your adversary's idiocy!

Even though some may believe this thread has been derailed many times over, I think it still serves its original purpose for those capable of discerning it. It was never about Christianity or a poncy Catholic sci-fi author, but about the fact that deluded people oppose reason even when they respect it (because it sometimes helps them vindicate their delusions). Only faith in reason can silence the clamour of delusions, because it is humbly, beautifully, nobly silent before the God that reason reveals.

Out there with the lily and the bird there is silence. But what does this silence express? It expresses respect for God, that it is he who rules and he alone to whom wisdom and understanding are due. And just because this silence is veneration for God, is worship, as it can be in nature, this silence is so solemn. And because this silence is solemn in this way, one is aware of God in nature—what wonder, then, when everything is silent out of respect for him! Even if he does not speak, the fact that everything is silent out of respect for him affects one as if he spoke.

- Kierkegaard.

And with that eulogy of silence I ask Dieberclete to lock this thread. We are all Lilyans now.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Heidegger wrote:“I work concretely and factically out of my ‘I am’, out of my intellectual and wholly factic origin, milieu, life-contexts, and whatever is available to me from these as a vital experience in which I live.”
"We are like plants which – whether we like to admit it to ourselves or not – must with our roots rise out of the earth in order to bloom in the ether and to bear fruit.”
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:a more 'authentic' conversation then becomes possible. You see?

For example?

If you're determined to side-step, then there's not much progress to be made on that previous topic, just an endless repetition. Though whenever I enter in to a conversation I do so with the purpose of benefiting in some way, whether it be through new ideas, wisdom, or advice. Since we're essentially abandoning the entire foundation of reasoning- as I see it at least- then we can at least skip forward so that I can ask what these "gifts" are that you bring? And I don't ask out of any secret intention to criticize your reasoning based on what you say, I'm curious to know what some practical beneficial advice would be. Despite that I've only urged a discussion regarding metaphysics and knowledge so far, my personal focus is almost always "conventional and worldly wisdom, experience, learning, and action." These are topics within which I think common ground is much easier to find, (we are all human here, except for maybe movingalways) such as the common ground of suffering that the Buddha used.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Christians and me, Part II:

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

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

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

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

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

So utterly contrary to the general mood (or the 'historical mood') of our Beloved GF. N'est-ce pas?
Last edited by Gustav Bjornstrand on Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
I talk, God speaks
Locked