The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

Women aren't geared for it, because their very soul is vanity. There isn't a single woman who doesn't believe deep down that everyone finds her lovable, even if they hate her or she hates them herself.
That's not true. Stop projecting.

Obviously, you've never met my mother.

Woman has no beliefs, and especially not the "deep down belief that everyone finds her lovable"; rather, she (and all her "beliefs") is the demand itself.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Maximiliano Vignaga
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:00 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Maximiliano Vignaga »

Leyla Shen wrote:
is the demand itself.
What does that mean.

I've read Weininger and he wrote something like: The beauty of women does not belong to the individual woman, but to the man who is in love with her.

Does that mean women have nothing of their own, but all belongs to men?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

jupiviv: And the essence of wisdom is to guard and treasure those diamonds even after they have turned into sand.
“So bright...so beautiful...ah, Precious.” - Gollum.
Women aren't geared for it, because their very soul is vanity. There isn't a single woman who doesn't believe deep down that everyone finds her lovable, even if they hate her or she hates them herself.
In following suit, I shall make an equally absurd absolute statement: Just as a man doesn't believe deep down that everyone finds him wise, even if they hate him or he hates himself.
A man can understand that if he "dies to the world" then no one, especially women, will love him for it. Other corpses or aspiring corpses to the world may agree with and respect him, but they won't die with him or sit at his deathbed. This understanding (if it isn't suppressed or distorted) generates an abysmal and inhuman suffering that marks the beginning of Life.
Is the beginning of your new Life, the making of absolutes for the sake of reasoning why they are not absolutes, for the sake of contrast, doubt, continuance of consciousness? To keep the waves on the ocean moving?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote:I suggest that in prescribing that "we" not burn away the very wings which made us moth ... that you are not bringing into the light the psychological tension (suffering) that for some, is the result of just such a "keeping up of appearances."
It's no use suggesting to the moth to do anything differently with his dancing and diving. And I don't. But you are not the moth and certainly you are not the flame either. Suffering hower will desire the flame because of its very nature. The call is to understand.
Perhaps this outlines the difference between male wisdom consciousness and female wisdom consciousness.
You always with those gender based distinctions! ;-)
Not content to flutter or flap the wings that made her moth, she lives instead in the deep things of love: where liveth her moth but inside Her Breast? It's not that she can't flutter if she has to, the key phrase being "if she has to."
She lives in the deep things of attachment and the material. Sure, this is were the necessity was born, culturally, psychologically and is still echoing around us in a world starting to reflect amidst all the creeping up insanity and disarray. A world of change.
To paraphrase your quote to Seeker: shall we enjoy our certainty while we can? Or perhaps more truthfully phrased: Shall we enjoy our necessity of believing in certainty while we can?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Women aren't geared for it, because their very soul is vanity. There isn't a single woman who doesn't believe deep down that everyone finds her lovable, even if they hate her or she hates them herself.
That's not true. Stop projecting.

Obviously, you've never met my mother.

Woman has no beliefs, and especially not the "deep down belief that everyone finds her lovable"; rather, she (and all her "beliefs") is the demand itself.
Who here isn't projecting?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

The one who can tell the difference between need, demand and desire/satisfaction, obliteration and the (eternal) unattainable object.

As to your other posts, I will reply after work tonight.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:To paraphrase your quote to Seeker: shall we enjoy our certainty while we can? Or perhaps more truthfully phrased: Shall we enjoy our necessity of believing in certainty while we can?
Faith is there to be enjoyed and leaves us or others always to be "saved" -- from something. The escape hatch of ambivalence and contradiction: it keeps the 4x wheels spinning I suppose. This was the essence of my quote to nobody in general.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: Faith is there to be enjoyed and leaves us or others always to be "saved" -- from something.
Sounds reasonable AND unreasonable. I like it.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

j: Women aren't geared for it, because their very soul is vanity. There isn't a single woman who doesn't believe deep down that everyone finds her lovable, even if they hate her or she hates them herself.
L: That's not true. Stop projecting.

Obviously, you've never met my mother.

Woman has no beliefs, and especially not the "deep down belief that everyone finds her lovable"; rather, she (and all her "beliefs") is the demand itself.
m: What does [is the demand itself] mean.
It means only and exactly that in the social/collective psyche the female manifests as the quintessential demand for love; she is beyond a satisfaction of need; no matter how many clothes or shoes or houses or cars you give her, she remains an unfulfilled and unfulfilling — demanding — object of desire; a parody. And just so it is that she beckons the heart relentlessly.

A little story (paraphrased) used to illustrate this point is one about a pauper who, after explaining away his condition of poverty to a man of better means, is given a sum of money which he promptly uses to buy himself an extravagant meal rather than to otherwise maximise a satisfaction of his needs. The donor happens across the scene of the pauper so extravagantly indulging himself and, incredulous (since even he would not so indulge himself), recites the pitiful details the pauper had revealed to him in eliciting the donation, to which the pauper replies, “If I can’t eat well when I don’t have money and I can’t eat well when I do, when can I eat well?”
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Vanity means always a mirror and the temptation to mistake the image - or the gazer- for having a life, an existence, even as "appearance"
But even this is vanity - to pretend that the image doesn't have a life. If all is vanity, i.e., thing are mere images, then those images are the reality.
If those images are your "everything", that will be your reality, your absolute, sure. But that's always the temptation. This is also why it's true to say "all [stuff] is vanity": all you see, think or feel are reflections, your own face staring back.
Merely seeing oneself in everything one encounters is feminine vanity, but *you* aren't vain in that sense. Masculine vanity transforms everything into itself - whether reality or a reflection. In the latter case, the reflections are a veil concealing what you want to see but can't; they reflect your impotence.
Be careful that what you think you have will not fall apart like your new diamonds turning into sand next morning when you wake up.
And the essence of wisdom is to guard and treasure those diamonds even after they have turned into sand.
Not a very good job of guarding if one would let them decay into sand. Unless you mean one would start revaluing sand :)
If everything turns into sand then what's the point of preventing something from turning into sand? Sand or not, they're my diamonds and I'm not parting with them.
Things are never reached, before men arrive, another horizon is drawn. The truth of never reaching the object is a secret not talked about. This is the way of things but so much of our own is caught up in it.
If that is true then the path of wisdom is also never reached and so all of this suffering is pointless. No, you sow what you reap - whether happiness or wisdom. The eightfold path promises an end to dissatisfaction, but not to the things that cause it. If you need to fundamentally change your view of things in order not to be dissatisfied with them then you're just drawing another horizon.
Last edited by jupiviv on Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Jup, wrote a whole reply, wasn't logged in again, lost it. I think it's logging me out after a time while I'm replying.
Lol! That's impermanence for you.
Anyway, you're wrong about the few blanket statements you made, one in regards to our ability to communicate all-encompassig qualities, as apparently knowledge only exists in contrasts, according to you. The other about how we can't talk about things, if they're constantly changing, do you even think before you make such claims?
Well, when you attempt to debunk those claims, remember to copy the post to the clipboard before hitting submit so that you can paste it back in in case you're logged out. Apparently 2k posts weren't enough to make you notice that users are logged out when their sessions expire.
According to your reasoning emotions don't exist because they're constantly changing,
No emotion changes the instant it occurs, which is what a constantly changing thing does.
and existence itself will come to an end at bodily death because you've made the error of placing a causal metaphysical priority on the appearance of the body. A priority which apparently precedes the arising of appearances themselves.Probably only because that is what you've been taught.
I said that unconsciousness appears to precede consciousness. If you disagree then you have to provide some evidence that, from your perspective, consciousness is prevenient to or synchronous with unconsciousness. That said, I don't equate temporal precedence with importance or value, so your argument is irrelevant.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

movingalways wrote:
jupiviv: And the essence of wisdom is to guard and treasure those diamonds even after they have turned into sand.
“So bright...so beautiful...ah, Precious.” - Gollum.
The Precious doesn't answer,
Though I ask a million times.


Interestingly, "saiyaan" means precious, spouse/lover and Krishna. That last meaning was obviously added by women, and explains why Krishna - the blue-skinned philandering flutist-cowherd - is the most popular Hindu deity.
Leyla Shen wrote:It means only and exactly that in the social/collective psyche the female manifests as the quintessential demand for love; she is beyond a satisfaction of need; no matter how many clothes or shoes or houses or cars you give her, she remains an unfulfilled and unfulfilling — demanding — object of desire; a parody. And just so it is that she beckons the heart relentlessly.
A woman is already fulfilled, because she is always "in love" with herself. To a woman, it is only natural for a man to continuously show her how much he loves her. Likewise, for her to receive things regardless of whether she needs them because after all she deserves them. A woman interprets the question "do you love me?" as "do you realise how lovable you are?", which is why some of them do not answer - out of modesty or a desire to get the man to praise them further - despite being asked a million times.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

In the Name of the Father

Post by Leyla Shen »

That happens where females or males identify, in the pre-symbolic mirror phase of the imaginary order, with the mother as “Ideal I”—that fullness, comfort, joy, the capacity to fulfil every need on demand; abundance.

Here there is no ascension (as Lacan would have it) from the mirror phase into the symbolic order as a “subject I”, and therefore there is the failure to enter into the world of relations through a symbolic rather than imaginary self/other order.

The imaginary is images of wholeness. It resolves the primordial disunity into a coherent unity for the child. No lack exists there but through the inevitable and subsequent entry into the (pre-existing) symbolic order. When the entry is successful, the law exists. When it isn’t, there is only fantasy. The signifiers in the symbolic order exist without a coherent relation to the signifieds in the imaginary; as a floating sea of symbols without any meaning. Sometimes they attach to just their opposite in the imaginary. We call this delusion.

She is not fulfilled. She doesn’t know what need or lack is!
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote: remember to copy the post to the clipboard before hitting submit so that you can paste it back in in case you're logged out
I wrote it using a half broken phone screen which I can't copy on haha.
jupiviv wrote:
No emotion changes the instant it occurs, which is what a constantly changing thing does.
Perhaps you're focused more on the definition such as "anger" and not the reality of the experience of "anger". Also what about sensations, try even staring at a solid wall for half a second and your vision is constantly wavering, shifting focus, etc. At every single moment, this even occurs in a pitch black room. Everything of consciousness is impermanent, there's never been a moment in which a thought has just 'stood still' in your mind, or a sight has just remained as it is. Anyone can easily confirm this for themselves, every experience/sensation that arises of what we refer to as consciousness is in a constant state of transience, it's all ephemeral by nature. You ignore this fact of the transience of the 'stream of consciousness' as if it is irrelevant. And this is not a statement which you can turn on me saying that I am being contradictory, for you do not even understand it! Let me try and explain a little further so you don't go crapping out some more fantasy logic using your robot mind. The fact of the transience of consciousness does not in any way reduce the validity of the communication of truth or worldly knowledge, instead, it reduces the validity of your metaphysical dreams regarding the nature of reality. While some of your logic may be valid in regard to specific circumstances or viewpoints, that doesn't mean it can be used to make valid metaphysical claims.

jupiviv wrote: I said that unconsciousness appears to precede consciousness.
Oh well, you said some bullshit which immediately makes various fundamental philosophical assumptions without any explanation, now it's solved! The only thing you've 'got' is consciousness, you can't even conceptualize outside its 'boundary'. *Que immediate emotional reaction and prejudiced response due to your imagined familiarity with this line of reasoning.*

Jup, you believe in bodily death as 'the end' and hence also have had seemingly zero insight into the illusory-like nature of the world and body, an insight which is synchronous with that of impermanence, the very same thing really. The world which you believe exists, doesn't exist how you believe it does. It's almost entirely fictitious! Most of your world view is undoubtedly made up of nothing more than some brief imaginings. You're like those teenage kids who conceptualize some tiny circles bumping into each other then think they're thinking about quantum mechanics. Eventually you'll experience what 'emptiness' really is, because it isn't related to your childish thoughts about the "unknown causality" (spooky voice). You need to admit to yourself that most of your understanding of the subject is based on what you've heard in regard to scientific studies of the brain, or something along those lines. Chances are you've probably never even seen a human brain, or a person die. Even if you have, I guarantee you've never undertaken any independent study of the process! My point isn't about the reality of these things, they all happen and I'm not at all denying the reality of them, my point is about your incapability to recognize your strongly prejudiced world view, which is almost entirely founded upon and made up of belief in the words, works, or studies of others. You're intellectually disabled and dependent on a crutch!

I'm not arguing that your logical reasoning doesn't work within the context of your premises, I'm arguing that the premises themselves are invalid. I don't regard you as being capable of sound independent philosophical or metaphysical thinking/observation/investigation. I only regard you as being capable of rearranging your prejudices and regurgitating shit you've heard about. At best you've undertaken some independent childish conjecture in which a notion arises, you deem that it sounds agreeable to your mind of spontaneity, then you immediately go on to cling to the notion with the fervor of a zealot. I'm saying you don't, like Leyla clearly doesn't, know how to think. You just know how to be emotional, prejudiced, and spontaneous. I'd say that these were feminine qualities, but I don't cling to agreeable sounding conjecture and call it absolute!

All that's going to happen when you read this is an immediate denial, and zero hours of honest or independent contemplation regarding the possibility of you being dead wrong and foolish. You haven't yet learned how to listen. Your domain is the rebuttal, the intention to find something to argue about, and if you can't find something you just work on arguing about definitions, there is no listening going on, no intention to comprehend or investigate, that takes time and you need to apply yourself to do it, children hate that!
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

And we're still waiting for you to provide the proofs in support of your claim that you "know how to think". Where is your philosophy? Surely it's more than that oversimplification -- that well-worn "absolute truth" -- you call "direct experience"...
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote: Where is your philosophy? Surely it's more than that oversimplification -- that well-worn "absolute truth" -- you call "direct experience"...
One has to start from the beginning, and is the experience of 'consciousness' not the beginning of all philosophy? It is the default position, the nature of things as they are, not as Jup imagines they might be. It is these claims of the supposed 'more' that I am disputing, whether that 'more' is "the end" at bodily death, the 'mind-independent' or even external 'physical' realm that materialists postulate, or the "being finished with consciousness of form".
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

One has to start from the beginning, and is the experience of 'consciousness' not the beginning of all philosophy? It is the default position, the nature of things as they are,
No, it isn’t. It’s the beginning of the sum of our personal experience.
...not as Jup imagines they might be.
You don’t have an imagination?
It is these claims of the supposed 'more' that I am disputing, whether that 'more' is "the end" at bodily death, the 'mind-independent' or even external 'physical' realm that materialists postulate, or the "being finished with consciousness of form".
“ “: All signifiers without a signified.

The end at body death is “more” since death cannot be experienced as the thing-in-itself and cannot therefore exist, by definition. Is that about right?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: In the Name of the Father

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:That happens where females or males identify, in the pre-symbolic mirror phase of the imaginary order, with the mother as “Ideal I”—that fullness, comfort, joy, the capacity to fulfil every need on demand; abundance.

Here there is no ascension (as Lacan would have it) from the mirror phase into the symbolic order as a “subject I”, and therefore there is the failure to enter into the world of relations through a symbolic rather than imaginary self/other order.
Interesting line of thought. although I generally read Lacan though Baudrillardish lenses (which would be "meta-critical" I guess). Here the idea could arise that the demand for fullness, completeness, the whole crawling back in the womb thing is just one instance of the seduction of the imaginary order. There are many more, the one you name happens to be the thing a woman can easiest relate to from their perspective as it comes, in some ways, naturally. But overall for men there are many darker pulls to the "pre-symbolic". It's perhaps more about perversion or perhaps its closest to vertigo as response to a fear or attraction to heights, the steep fall. Perhaps there's no image better in expressing the power of the pre-symbolic, the Nietzschean abyss -- way beyond "Mother" or "Woman". Actually what appears to have happened is that in the biological order, some gender or class has historically, when circumstances called for it, applied this broader principle to its cultured being as claim to power over the producer, the wielder of the ordering rod by representing a forbidden twist (for example the merge of mother, child and whore), a re-ordering, forming a walking, living contradiction, one without depths of course unless it's the depth which masks there's none. For the clueless man this is absolutely mind-boggling and can only respond by being pulled in one way or another, like orbiting a black hole. But this issue lies way beyond genders of course, it's just that genders have been caught up in it for a long time.
The imaginary is images of wholeness. It resolves the primordial disunity into a coherent unity for the child. No lack exists there but through the inevitable and subsequent entry into the (pre-existing) symbolic order. When the entry is successful, the law exists. When it isn’t, there is only fantasy. The signifier s in the symbolic order exist without a coherent relation to the signified in the imaginary; as a floating sea of symbols without any meaning. Sometimes they attach to just their opposite in the imaginary. We call this delusion.
Seduction is not limited to images of "wholeness" but is just as easy, perhaps even easier, about subversion, breakdown or the pull towards death. The issue of delusion is about the seductive power of the good and the bad. It's like that "abnormal attraction to sin" -- with all regret attached after the fact. This helps understanding the desire for "bad" things in some, demeaning behavior, even violence and humiliation, all that darkness where even the brightest can and will fall for in a blink of an eye. Of course this all happens, all the time, everywhere, under the skin, only to bubble up once in a while as some mysterious event. Now of course, romance or the whole gender game of attraction would then be nothing but a special case of this more generalized principle. As Kierkegaard mapped out in his Diary of a Seducer. But I digres...
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote: No, it isn’t. It’s the beginning of the sum of our personal experience.
Which is the entirety of the reality to which any of us are exposed.

You don’t have an imagination?
I do, but I'm already bored of whichever silly reply you're going to make about this.
The end at body death is “more” since death cannot be experienced as the thing-in-itself and cannot therefore exist, by definition. Is that about right?
The end at body death is "more" since it is not part of the reality of the experience of consciousness. While body death is very real, "the end" of consciousness/being is entirely a fantasy. One line of reasoning you mentioned above- that one cannot even speak about it, or think about it, because it cannot be experienced or conceptualized. One might as well say this: "Fnwwezzg is coming for me at body death! I just don't know what it is or what it's like, besides that it's supposedly "the end" of consciousness."
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

Interesting line of thought. although I generally read Lacan though Baudrillardish lenses (which would be "meta-critical" I guess).
It certainly lends itself to a formidable complex of libidinal possibility.
Here the idea could arise that the demand for fullness, completeness, the whole crawling back in the womb thing is just one instance of the seduction of the imaginary order.
Seduction is a ritual or ceremonious exploitation of the imaginary; it’s strategic and, as such, belongs properly to the symbolic order. This is your idea of “approach”, I think; the closest one can get to the object of desire in a jouissance-prone psyche without tipping over into oblivion. It’s a deliberate intensification of passion and exhilaration that’s almost deadly—and that’s where and how it finds itself in the imaginary, too.
But overall for men there are many darker pulls to the "pre-symbolic". It's perhaps more about perversion or perhaps its closest to vertigo as response to a fear or attraction to heights, the steep fall. Perhaps there's no image better in expressing the power of the pre-symbolic, the Nietzschean abyss -- way beyond "Mother" or "Woman".
I would liken the Nietzschean abyss to the idea in Lacan that, try as you might to fill that lack, the Real can never be completely symbolised; it defies human order in that sense.

Jouissance (deadly enjoyment) is probably the fullest expression of the drives in Lacan; the thing the pleasure principle (“enjoy as little as possible”) (symbolic order) strives to limit. The “death drive” seeks to annihilate the lack by possession of the unattainable object (of desire), but it seeks to do this in the Real where, of course, an object of desire (rather than one of need) does not and cannot exist; there is no residuary (or surplus, as Lacan has called it—i.e., that unsatisfiable “something more”) lack between need and satisfaction which can give rise to a real object “desire” in the Real itself. Desire is part of the symbolic and imaginary orders we call, in contradistinction to the Real, reality.

We can use the terms penis (the real object) and phallus (the symbolic and/or imaginary object) to illustrate this point and the interconnection between the three orders a little more. It is only in the symbolic and the imaginary that, say, a cucumber or an education – even a mind – could take the place of the penis (what the father has that the mother and the child lack, male or female, and cannot give her).

A psycho-social theory for the libidinal foundation of human enculturation (heirs, family relations, inheritances, exchange dynamics); the continuous ordering and separation of mankind from its primordial nature passed down through the generations: one is born into and not with at least one pre-existing symbolic order.

Edit to add: NOTE—The following "...phallus (the symbolic and/or imaginary object)" should really read "...phallus (the symbolic/signifier and/or imaginary/signified)."
Last edited by Leyla Shen on Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

No, John. The truth is, you are boring and couldn't strike up an imagination if your life depended on it.
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: Perhaps you're focused more on the definition such as "anger" and not the reality of the experience of "anger". Also what about sensations, try even staring at a solid wall for half a second and your vision is constantly wavering, shifting focus, etc. At every single moment, this even occurs in a pitch black room.
Yes, there are variations in those things. However, for variations to be identified there needs to be at least some continuation; even the variations need to have some continuation. E.g., the sight of a wall requires a wall that retains certain properties of a wall, not to mention a faculty of sight that retains its nature and function. This is very easy to understand but you refuse to do so because you are attached to your ideas.
Everything of consciousness is impermanent, there's never been a moment in which a thought has just 'stood still' in your mind, or a sight has just remained as it is.
If thoughts are constantly changing then a single thought will occur just *once*. It can't be related to any other thought or applied to any subject matter beyond that which exists precisely at the moment of its occurrence. If it recurs or is recalled in any way, that would indicate some degree of permanence and negate the assertion of constant change. Therefore, you are contradicting your premise by acting as if a thought has not changed into something else - by contending it against other thoughts.
jupiviv wrote: I said that unconsciousness appears to precede consciousness.
Oh well, you said some bullshit which immediately makes various fundamental philosophical assumptions without any explanation, now it's solved! The only thing you've 'got' is consciousness, you can't even conceptualize outside its 'boundary'. *Que immediate emotional reaction and prejudiced response due to your imagined familiarity with this line of reasoning.*
The fact that thoughts or concepts occur within consciousness doesn't refute them. Counterarguments do that, which you haven't offered.
Jup, you believe in bodily death as 'the end'
Based on the available evidence, it is highly likely that bodily death is the end of our consciousness. In any case, consciousness is a finite thing and therefore has a beginning and an end. The determination of what the beginning and the end are, and when they occur, lies within the domain of science.
My point isn't about the reality of these things, they all happen and I'm not at all denying the reality of them
I disagree. By asserting that things are constantly changing and occur only within consciousness, you are denying their reality.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote:for variations to be identified there needs to be at least some continuation; even the variations need to have some continuation. E.g., the sight of a wall requires a wall that retains certain properties of a wall, not to mention a faculty of sight that retains its nature and function.
You're avoiding the core of the point entirely, it doesn't matter if there is a continuation of what we refer to as a wall in that sense alone, the entirety of the experience is still constantly changing. Form being transient doesn't mean there is no form. "Properties", like qualities, are not actually things, but are abstracts. Qualities may indeed be permanent, such as the quality of impermanence, but we cannot point to the idea "impermanence" or even the idea of what a "wall" is and say that it's an unchanging aspect of form. All appearances in consciousness are constantly wavering, and the relative consistency of worldly things doesn't change the fact. Even thinking and speaking of truth, even if it were an eternal truth, is a completely transient occurrence.
jupiviv wrote:If thoughts are constantly changing then a single thought will occur just *once*. It can't be related to any other thought or applied to any subject matter beyond that which exists precisely at the moment of its occurrence.
You just made that up. Why must a thought only occur once if they're constantly changing? Can a similar thought not arise? That reasoning doesn't make sense in reality. I can have a thought which appears for a brief moment and then a very similar one over again, every time it is transient, despite its 'reappearance'. But It's not actually the same thing, the thought isn't some permanent entity hiding out on the sidelines waiting to pop in again.
jupiviv wrote:The fact that thoughts or concepts occur within consciousness doesn't refute them.
No but if you investigate them, much is revealed. Try not to work with generalities and blanket statements. You straw manned what I said, which was that thoughts in regard to the metaphysical or ultimate nature of reality are rarely indicative of any actual truth of reality. And also that you can't transcend or contradict the nature of consciousness- even in concept- with an aspect consciousness.
jupiviv wrote:consciousness is a finite thing and therefore has a beginning and an end.
Do you even read what you write or contemplate it at all? You're just making an assumed premise and therefore an assumed conclusion.
jupiviv wrote:Based on the available evidence, it is highly likely that bodily death is the end of our consciousness
In most cases people attempt to use evidence to go beyond the boundary of what it actually reveals; to make assumed conclusions based on nothing more than inference. Faulty reasoning based on fundamentally flawed metaphysical foundations. There is in fact zero evidence that bodily death is the end of our consciousness, just as there is zero evidence that the body is the metaphysical seat of consciousness. The evidence only reveals their close current relationship, it certainly doesn't show any "end" to consciousness itself.

You don't even realize it but, whenever you refer to the body you're actually only referring to- in fact you're only capable of referring to- an aspect of consciousness, an appearance. You're not referring to some mind-independent body, you're only referencing your sensations, your feelings, and so on.
jupiviv wrote:lies within the domain of science
More proof of your intellectual disability! Your entire metaphysical understanding is based on a pathetic cheat, an avoidance. You need a crutch and you pretend that your reasoning is independent! Are you a scientist Jup? Have you undertaken scientific studies of the body? No, "Those scientists, those other men, those other philosophers, they've looked into this, they've let me know what is reasonable and unreasonable. There's a whole history surrounding all of this."

You're entire life you've just sheepishly followed along with what is popular, what you've heard is certain and obvious. It's so ingrained in you that the moment you hear anything familiar you'll instantly have a predisposition toward it, if it's unpopular and sounds disagreeable, you'll dismiss it, if it's popular and sounds agreeable, you'll accept it. Yet you don't realize you have no clue what you're talking about. I'm telling you that the mind which is not entirely deluded by prejudiced is extremely rare, and it's unlikely you've got one. You need to go back to the beginning, you need to do it all yourself.

jupiviv wrote:and occur only within consciousness, you are denying their reality.
See your wording there? "only within consciousness". You've already made two assumptions. Firstly that there is that which is "external" to consciousness (despite the fact that the nature of existence as you know it is limited to those aspects of what we refer to as consciousness). Secondly that things are arising "within" consciousness, as if it were some space, perhaps in the head, rather than simply a reference to the various senses, thoughts, etc. Finally, that you believe you've ever even referred to anything which was not a manifestation of consciousness. Whenever you speak of a thing you've seen, you're speaking of a collection of sensations, not the object you imagine to exist "out there".

You shouldn't read and think of what you see as something which you need to write a rebuttal too based on your previously stated 'position', you should spend time in contemplation of it. Also know that if anything I only ever have good intentions, mutually beneficial intentions. I only say so in case your reasoning in regard to absolute truth is still subtly fused with your emotion or personhood. Most people are so strongly swayed by the appearance of the speaker, and appearances in general, that logic plays almost no role. There's no listening in these cases. This sort of thinking can remain very subtle and is very powerful, blinding even. Perhaps if I bribe that 'part' of you things will go more smoothly. Maybe I can show reason to your worldly self before I can get through. You said you worked at Cisco right? Do you enjoy doing so, or what would be an ideal life in your eyes? Try to be honest.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: Actually what appears to have happened is that in the biological order, some gender or class has historically, when circumstances called for it, applied this broader principle to its cultured being as claim to power over the producer, the wielder of the ordering rod by representing a forbidden twist (for example the merge of mother, child and whore), a re-ordering, forming a walking, living contradiction, one without depths of course unless it's the depth which masks there's none. For the clueless man this is absolutely mind-boggling and can only respond by being pulled in one way or another, like orbiting a black hole. But this issue lies way beyond genders of course, it's just that genders have been caught up in it for a long time.
The depth, the Abyss is Mystery, the formless. The clueless man has no idea of this truth, looking for mystery in all the wrong places, aka seducing and being seduced (by form). The contrast to the clueless man is the man who understands that Mystery is what/who he is. How the awakened man responds to the ultimate truth of His Mystery is the domain of poetry and philosophy. Which makes the most awakened man the one who never forgets that whatever he says or does is ultimately Mysterious. Which makes laughter born of wisdom very good medicine.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:The depth, the Abyss is Mystery, the formless. The clueless man has no idea of this truth, looking for mystery in all the wrong places, aka seducing and being seduced (by form). The contrast to the clueless man is the man who understands that Mystery is what/who he is. How the awakened man responds to the ultimate truth of His Mystery is the domain of poetry and philosophy. Which makes the most awakened man the one who never forgets that whatever he says or does is ultimately Mysterious.
Hark, the sound of seductive discourse. Poets and philosophers have been mostly seducers, too. There's no meaning in the mystery.
Locked