Impossible to know with accuracy

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hello Being! How are you?

Carl G, of course, was one of the many obsessed kids populating this forum who then talked with you, another forum emo and a match was made in heaven!

Thanks for telling us about that amazing and unlikely event. Give my regards to Carl!

[Beingof1]

Hello Being! How are you?

Carl G, of course, was one of the many obsessed kids populating this forum who then talked with you, another forum emo and a match was made in heaven!

Thanks for telling us about that amazing and unlikely event. Give my regards to Carl!

Hello Diebert,
I am recovering from the insanity that most swim in.

I will give him your regards. I had no idea you had engage Carl to the point of putting together a psychoanalytical profile. But then, I have known you to believe in your omniscience while excluding others from this seeming 'gift'.

And you? How are you doing? Still judging others by your standards of right and wrong concepts?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I will give him your regards. I had no idea you had engage Carl to the point of putting together a psychoanalytical profile. But then, I have known you to believe in your omniscience while excluding others from this seeming 'gift'.

And you? How are you doing? Still judging others by your standards of right and wrong concepts?

Hi Being, my memories of Carl are mostly short, wise-ass posts with some distinct flavour of smugness and bragging. Not that much content, just attitude. That's not exactly a psychoanalytical profile. And there are elements of compliments there too, in the right context.

As for right or wrong concepts, I remember you as someone into 9/11 conspiracies, prepping, evolution denial, major scientific illiteracy and other serious misinterpretations and abuse of texts, like most of modern Christianity. And Carl had the same problem, which is to let the emotion rule the mind, then turn around to deny it, then turn around again and call other people stupid and uninformed. Of course you two had a connection!

For that reason I might sound hostile to you but in fact I'm giving you back a nice version of your own hating attitude, laid bare on this forum often enough. Or perhaps you're going to tell me you abandoned the more idiotic beliefs and anger you so dearly hanged on to? And reformed once again!

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

That is not my impression of Carl G. At all. Here is a post of his as an example. In this post he speaks honestly of his own experiences and indicates a questioning sort of approach. If you search his posts it seems true that they became one-liners toward the end. But I always thought he was making a substantial effort.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I had to look up 'emo': "Males that adhere to the emo subculture are sometimes confused with metrosexuals; indeed the line between the two is somwhat blurred, though both groups claim to be intouch with their emotional side. The ephemeral and hackneyed nature of emo songwriting suggests that its audience will be restricted largely to teenagers. the genre suffers from a lack of credibility outside the aforementioned demographic group, much like current Nu Metal bands."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Gustav, it was more meant like short for emotional, a constant referring to reasoning based only on moving experiences.

From your quote

- angels are good by definition?
- I have felt the presence of both angelic and alien, and seen evidence of their existence??
- The energy is more pure than that of the average person???
- healing energy from the Greater Force????

This all means nothing, just references to some unclear framework of references of some subculture, mixed with feelings which appear rather underdeveloped. The average sage feels a bit wider and deeper than angels, demons and energies. It's just childish to sell this stuff as wisdom or insight.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Your understanding hasn't gone far enough or deep enough into the mystery to realize there is only one clear and ultimate truth. Not going to help you with it right now though xD Just answering your question.

Well, a couple of comments. One is that it is not possible for you to know what I have done, experienced nor what I know, nor in relation to what I live my life nor (in the case of the Forum) conduct my intellectual and spiritual life.

Just above, I quoted Dan in his outline of the recommended approach to participating in GF, and a large aspect as per his definition was employing reasoning to support beliefs and ideas. To say 'Your understanding hasn't gone far enough or deep enough into the mystery to realize there is only one clear and ultimate truth' is insufficient in a forum like this one. One reason, as I said, is that you can have no idea what I have experienced as I said, but two because it is required to give a more fulsome answer. What you do is to roundly avoid the topic. Additionally, you did not in any sense answer the question. You merely pontificated and referred to your sense of your own experience, whatever it is. This is not a philosophical approach. It is mere mystic declaration. I don't discount that sort of experience necessarily. But I would suggest that unless one can speak about it intelligently, and certainly of ideas and concepts such as 'delusion', 'ignorance' and 'idiocy' (these are your chief critical words), you are not serving the outlined purpose of the forum. Now, I don't really care that you don't do that, though it is annoying and frustrating, but I see this as a failure on your part.

To say 'There is one clear and ultimate truth' is meaningless. It is like saying 'there is one clear and ultimate existence'. It can't be denied.

One has to be able (IMO) to say much more than just 'God Is Great' and refer to one's own mystic experience. This is where you are I have no way to communicate. I look for all the lines of connect between the spiritual experience and society generally, and for this reason have good reasons to search within the literary traditions. You seem ONLY to be able to refer to some unintelligible experience which has moved you, and can say no more about it, the definitions that support it or arise out of it, nor anything else at all. And simultaneously you imagine yourself as a Teacher of Enlightenment. And nothing is fishy about this to you?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I focussed on this Diebert:

Wisdom is based in nonduality but encompasses duality. We live in a dualistic world, and so our efforts to help others and the world in general must follow those lines (though rooted in oneness).

And subjective? I don't think so. High moral standards, as expressed through life-affirmation, creativity, consciousness, and agape love, are pretty rock solid beneficial for the whole. And are given to us from the whole, so to speak, to promote.

This all means nothing, just references to some unclear framework of references of some subculture, mixed with feelings which appear rather underdeveloped. The average sage feels a bit wider and deeper than angels, demons and energies. It's just childish to sell this stuff as wisdom or insight.

I don't want to play that game of pitting one poster against another, and especially not when two people are 'allies' to some degree (you know, in those forum games that come to life and are played), but if you take that stance in relation to Carl (and here you criticize it), why in the name of heaven do you have nothing to say, say, about our own dear Seeker? I bring this up in the spirit of genuine inquiry. There are two people in this thread who refuse, absolutely refuse, the philosophical challenge. One is Seeker and the other (Oh Heaven help! our new moderator) Russell.

These are people who are 100% committed to a mystic relationship to the Absolute and have nothing more to say, on any level, about anything else. And they are totally non-philosophical and incapable of dialogue.

How in the name of God do you reconcile this? (I swear this is not a snarky question or a trap).

As to 'I have felt the presence of both angelic and alien' (paraphrasing from Carl's post I'd say 'alien' means demonic), I think anyone who has lived in this our world, and who has dealt with either mystic experience of psychologic experience, has had both 'angelic' and 'demonic' experience. We cannot say with absolute certainty what stands behind these symbols or these experiences, but it is part-and-parcel of human experience, and I am certain that you, too, have experiences along these lines.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

From Carl's post, quoted by Diebert:

angels are good by definition

In Medieval metaphysics, that is in a very recent system of visualizing 'our world', it was understood and foundational to understanding that there existed an 'angelic' world, and 'intelligent' world ('intellectus'). Thus, our higher faculties, and even what we are doing or attempting to do here: to reason profoundly and to allow reason and intelligence to move us at more than a mental, superficial level, it was understood that in this way the human being connects with the higher world and, obviously, with God. This God who (by Medieval definition) is outside and beyond the capture by any sort of reasoning. Thus Carl is making a statement of truth, though he is referring, consciously or unconsciously, to a former 'episteme', but one that has only very recently passed away (been superceded, apparently, by a 'rationalist' approach to knowledge). Our consciousness, our language, our symbols, our psychic life, our dream life and its symbols, stand still on this metaphysical platfrom: a way of visualizing the world and existence (and orienting ourself in it).

Seen in this way there is nothing particularly unsound in holding still to such a view. It is true (and I say this as a sort of Johannine Christian-of-sorts) that behind the symbol 'God' or 'angel' and much else there can only stand Logos, and all symbols resolve into logos (that which stands behind all ideation and the possibility of ideation), but when people refer to the Symbols and seek ways to orient themselves in relation to them, I can find no fault in it.

You suggest though that you have a superior lens of view, or that you have 'seen through' things and thus the human problem. How fallacious this seems to me knowing you and having conversed at great length with you. In this way I note that here (in this quality of arrogance!) you clearly link with Seeker and with Russell (and many who perform the GF charade).

True, this is where I locate, philosophically, my critical argument of *your* approach. But this is completely fair game and it is done (here and now) by me in totally up-fron terms and in accord with the reasoning outline of this forum!

[jupiviv]

Your understanding hasn't gone far enough or deep enough into the mystery to realize there is only one clear and ultimate truth. Not going to help you with it right now though xD Just answering your question.

Well, a couple of comments. One is that it is not possible for you to know what I have done, experienced nor what I know, nor in relation to what I live my life nor (in the case of the Forum) conduct my intellectual and spiritual life.

Speaking for myself, I have a fair idea. It is highly unlikely that you have a secondhand wife and kid or a Swiss bank account, judging by the way you have talked about both of them. And I'm probably not the only one who thinks so.

But that's neither here nor there. The important thing missing from the copious heaps of words you have excreted all over this site is the desire to understand others (which ironically is your too often stated purpose for being here). The same applies to your feisty little opponent. If ever this were to change in either of you, it would necessarily have to be an *inward* change and consequent rejection of all outward illusions of such change (which are always fabricated due to a sense of the lack of the other). Which, in turn, would lead to both of you making your respective selves a nice cup of "shut the fuck up" until you can find words worthy of your thoughts.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I don't want to play that game of pitting one poster against another, and especially not when two people are 'allies' to some degree

Uhhm, I didn't bring it up. I was just responding on someone who did and you are just focussing on it even more! If only you knew your own games!

These are people who are 100% committed to a mystic relationship to the Absolute and have nothing more to say, on any level, about anything else. And they are totally non-philosophical and incapable of dialogue.

How in the name of God do you reconcile this? (I swear this is not a snarky question or a trap).

In the end, relationship to the Absolute is what the forum is about. You want to be it about something else. So it's your problem, your contradiction, your endless denial of it and attempts to introduce anything as "alternative" or "needed" or "crucial" besides it. Only demonstrating you don't know the topic.

As to 'I have felt the presence of both angelic and alien' (paraphrasing from Carl's post I'd say 'alien' means demonic), I think anyone who has lived in this our world, and who has dealt with either mystic experience of psychologic experience, has had both 'angelic' and 'demonic' experience. We cannot say with absolute certainty what stands behind these symbols or these experiences, but it is part-and-parcel of human experience, and I am certain that you, too, have experiences along these lines.

It's time to feel and think more seriously, more grown-up. Which doesn't require any denial of the baby milk of feelings and impressions we had before. Greater understanding, deeper experiences and more profound presence are certainly possible. But it's important not to keep hanging around the pretty door, refusing to get in further, deeper. This is why I can seem to "trash" what others seem to hold so dear and sacred. Simply because I think they need to move on, not start to idolize anything. It's my perception of life versus death.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

'Relationship to the Absolute' is for me a question asked. What does it mean? If we accept that 'the Absolute' can be thought on, and referred to, then there are groups of questions which come up in relation to that. To answer them, to speak about them, is not mere abstract philosophy, but the only human work that makes any sense at all. With this, I have 'reasoned' you a response to your false classification of my endeavour.

Now, very clearly I state that you nor anyone of those who offer shallow definitions of both 'the Absolute' and relationship to it, who stand over and control the conversation that occurs on that topic, and who refuse any conversation except their own: to that I am opposed. Indeed. And with reason.

It's time to feel and think more seriously, more grown-up. Which doesn't require any denial of the baby milk of feelings and impressions we had before. Greater understanding, deeper experiences and more profound presence are certainly possible. But it's important not to keep hanging around the pretty door, refusing to get in further, deeper. This is why I can seem to "trash" what others seem to hold so dear and sacred. Simply because I think they need to move on, not start to idolize anything. It's my perception of life versus death.

Note that you assume that you stand over these questions, and make these decisions for all others! It is obviously arrogant, and wrong-headed. You don't have any right to tell anyone to 'grow up' when it is quite possible that you need to focus on that. In this forum it is NOT you who decide. You participate, you opine. You don't decide. And you don't exclude. That you think you should or can is where the problem is. And you will come to see this.

It is 'your problem' that you have a problem with what I do, as defined here. It is not my problem that you have this problem.

Frankly, I already assume I am 'further, deeper' and that many here are in a shallow, narcissistic spiritual territory, but furious that they are told that. But I am aware that that is 'just my opinion'.

Get it?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Jupi wrote:

The important thing missing is the desire to understand others.

Can you speak more about this? Understand others in what sense? Who should I understand? If I understand you, for example, what am I to be made to understand? What is it that you wish to present?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Take a chill pill, Alex. Do some self-reflection. You've been able to write about this all you want. I've the right to reply to you, don't I?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I am not interested in your advice to do 'self-reflection'. You do self-reflection as this is the actual issue here: your lack of it.

What an idiotic question! You have the right to write whatever the heck you wish ...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Note that you assume that you stand over these questions, and make these decisions for all others!

It looks like you think that offering "shallow definitions of both the Absolute and relationship to it" somehow translates to "making decisions for others". But saying like you did that: "...you don't decide. And you don't exclude. And you will come to see this" is not about making decisions for others? Think about that during your time off you got because of your Helpdesk rants and not because of discussing actual content or philosophy like we do here.

It's impossible to answer all this without carefully taking a step back and coming at it from a new, fresh angle.

[Russell Parr]

Looks like I missed out on all the fun!

Being, nice to see you still lurking. Still not interested in any formal debate at this time. Surely, posting here is good enough; I'm not going anywhere.

[jupiviv]

Understand others in what sense?

The sense that doesn't involve mannequins and pointless questions that lead back to themselves.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Fishy? Nope, I've already stated that I'm doing the opposite of teaching anything, especially to you, and I don't feel any need to prove or explain myself, as I once did. If you're worried about forum rules, I wouldn't care if I was removed.

In a short time I could show you how to be free and recognize your nature, but have no reason to care to, sucked in xD

And I didn't say you haven't spent time with meditative introspection/contemplation, I said that it's clearly not enough.

It's like this: For all this time there's been one path, one road, one truth to explore, and you're there, behind on the path, yelling ahead that there is nothing further you haven't already seen that would be worthwhile, that it is for zealots, and leads to fantasy/ acid.

To put it plainly, it is much more 'empty' than you know.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Jupi, you asked for something: greater understanding of others. I asked you to clarify what you mean, but you seem to avoid an answer. Why?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

What I can say Seeker, as repsectfully as possible, is that based on what I sense of you, and what I get from your exposition, I am not sure I desire the realization that, to you, is paramount. Yet you seem to recognize different possible levels of realization.

Is there no other level of philosophical conversation, or different aspects of realization, that interest you?

What is the ultimate purpose of the realization you aspire to?

I did not say that realization leads to fantasy and 'acid' (destruction of self is what this means to me), but that the realization I value leads to other foci.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

What's in it for me, seriously? Naught.

[Beingof1]

Hi Being, my memories of Carl are mostly short, wise-ass posts with some distinct flavour of smugness and bragging. Not that much content, just attitude. That's not exactly a psychoanalytical profile. And there are elements of compliments there too, in the right context.

This demonstrates to me how 'off' your perceptions of others actually is as Alex pointed out with a link. As an experiment of your perceptual reality: you should actually, like in reality and stuff, do a search for Carl`s posts and see how truly 'off' you are and begin to snap back to objective and rational perception. Carl is none of the things you listed - its all in your head - a little bitty strawman that has no relation to the person known as Carl.

The right context should be reality rather than your head all up in the clouds. You believe because you 'feel' an emotion about someone and your thought process builds a case of what someone might have said, again built on your self created image of this person, that this person actually is they way you have created them to be in your very own imagination.

I suggest you actually look with clarity and stop projecting. You are superimposing what you think others to be rather than what is actually said and done. Another example of this is when you talk about me in the next paragraph. I cannot really blame you as 99.99% of humanity is plagued with this optical delusion.

As for right or wrong concepts, I remember you as someone into 9/11 conspiracies, prepping, evolution denial, major scientific illiteracy and other serious misinterpretations and abuse of texts, like most of modern Christianity. And Carl had the same problem, which is to let the emotion rule the mind, then turn around to deny it, then turn around again and call other people stupid and uninformed. Of course you two had a connection!

Here you are only 75% off the mark - a wee bit better but still woefully lacking in actual reality.
1) 911 - not once have I ever mentioned 911 on this forum. I posted one video. I challenge you to do a search because it only exists in Diebert`s head. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE9LTYHiknE There, that makes 2 videos
2) Prepping - I have mentioned this once and that was to Scott in the 12 years I have been on this forum. That is hardly someone who is "into" it.
3) Evolution denial - DING DING - that is because it is bunk science and I have listed my logical and scientific reasons.
4) Major scientific illiteracy - oh sure; just because you cannot understand what I say does not make it wrong - just sayin

For that reason I might sound hostile to you but in fact I'm giving you back a nice version of your own hating attitude, laid bare on this forum often enough. Or perhaps you're going to tell me you abandoned the more idiotic beliefs and anger you so dearly hanged on to? And reformed once again!

Did you know I have spent time in meditation for you specifically over the years? You do not know my heart and that is your ego trying desperately to survive.

I have never changed my demeanor - I still call out delusion and will continue to do so until you get better at ridding yourself of it.

I just love how a forum full of geniuses would rather talk about me and my attitude rather than the subjects. Could that be because you do not like being shown that you may need to change?

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:
I don't want to play that game of pitting one poster against another, and especially not when two people are 'allies' to some degree

Diebert;:
Uhhm, I didn't bring it up. I was just responding on someone who did and you are just focussing on it even more! If only you knew your own games!

Yes you did - more evidence of your mind playing games.
You used it as a pitting game, no one else did.

Snap out of it please.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This demonstrates to me how 'off' your perceptions of others actually is as Alex pointed out with a link.

The link demonstrated most of my criticism actually, but never mind. I'd rather talk about the person who is actually here :)

I cannot really blame you as 99.99% of humanity is plagued with this optical delusion.

Why not 99,9999%? How many do you think are not plagued? And what if they are suffering from something too, making them see a plague everywhere?

In other words, meaningless statements, just pillow filling.

1) 911 - not once have I ever mentioned 911 on this forum. I challenge you to do a search because it only exists in Diebert`s head.
2) Prepping - I have mentioned this once and that was to Scott in the 12 years I have been on this forum. That is hardly someone who is "into" it.

Did or didn't you post a video of a fake "CIA WhistleBlower" on 9/11 which we then discussed? Did you or didn’t you post another video on an Instructor/Airshow pilot questioning the 911 Scenario?

Did you or didn't you post at this forum warning us that "they" will use radiation to poison the food supply, the reason for the chem trails, to "accelerate and dispersal to neutralize the food supply". Did you write or not write on this forum: "Get yourself a years worth of food, plenty of water, and survival gear. Life and death are not the issue, your survival is. "

These are the things which stuck in my mind since most of your other writings didn't manage to since they're rather irrelevant.

Of course, lying is in your nature, you have build a religion and life style around it. So it's understood you cannot keep 'm straight.

You do not know my heart and that is your ego trying desperately to survive.

You're trying to survive for sure. It's the situation we all find ourselves in when we discover the ego illusion. The things we do... the things we believe...in the name of...

I just love how a forum full of geniuses would rather talk about me and my attitude rather than the subjects. Could that be because you do not like being shown that you may need to change?

Your ego and attitude are more or less the subject since nothing else could stop you seeing "absolute truth". It's as clear as the blue sky and just like the sky it doesn't require anything at all, not even our appreciation. Or perhaps: appreciation is clear sky slightly breaking through.