Impossible to know with accuracy

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

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.

I see, its OK for you to pillow fill but not for others - yup I get 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?

Yes I posted a video - so that makes me what? A hazardous commodity?

BTW - I did edit my post I did not see your response to this. I did need to address the one, as in singular video I posted without comment in the long conspiracy thread and not -I repeat - not in the main discussion forum.

This is an example of how you build a case in your head - it is stunning you cannot see it.

I post one video in 12 years and that is what shapes your perceptual image of who and what I am?

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 wrote 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.

I already told you I said that and I still hold to this. Now you bring it up to make it look like I denied it because it just has to 'fit' your narrative in your head.

Here is a flagpole for ya, in the last 5 months in the USA there have been 5 reactor leaks that are major. Accidental I guess - again - snap out of it.

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.

Be careful Diebert - I mean I caution you - I never, ever lie. I may make a mistake but I do not ever, under any circumstances intentionally deceive.

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.

And you cannot spot a liar from one who always tells the truth - there is a mind screw for ya!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I see, its OK for you to pillow fill but not for others - yup I get it.

You're free to point out inconsistencies or logical errors.

Yes I posted a video - so that makes me what? A hazardous commodity?

BTW - I did edit my post I did not see your response to this. I did need to address the one, as in singular video I posted without comment in the long conspiracy thread and not -I repeat - not in the main discussion forum.

I post one video in 12 years and that is what shapes your perceptual image of who and what I am?

No I wrote that I remember you, among other things, as someone into 9/11 conspiracies. Which is what I demonstrated as having some reason to.

And I challenged your claim: "not once have I ever mentioned 911 on this forum. I challenge you to do a search".

Now we established that you posted video's defending 9/11 conspiracies and after challenged by me you defended even one.

I already told you I said that and I still hold to this. Now you bring it up to make it look like I denied it because it just has to 'fit' your narrative in your head. Here is a flagpole for ya, in the last 5 months in the USA there have been 5 reactor leaks that are major. Accidental I guess - again - snap out of it.

Sounds to me like you're still in conspiracies and prepping to some degree then. Or you do a lousy job distancing your self from that particular fever.

Be careful Diebert - I mean I caution you - I never, ever lie. I may make a mistake but I do not ever, under any circumstances intentionally deceive.

We're all victims of causality that way, Ken. The challenge is to bring to light what we don't realize we're doing or why that is. And even that I'm not sure if it's beneficial. Only sometimes to those who are dying to know I suspect.

And you cannot spot a liar from one who always tells the truth - there is a mind screw for ya!

Truth is nothing but a rule inside a game. To understand the difference between truth and lie, the rule needs to be examined first. Then understood why it needs to be followed, or when. Or when it turns into a lie.

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

You're free to point out inconsistencies or logical errors.

I do but I am thinking the amount of cognitive dissonance that exists is as infinite as the universe.

No I wrote that I remember you, among other things, as someone into 9/11 conspiracies. Which is what I demonstrated as having some reason to.

And I challenged your claim: "not once have I ever mentioned 911 on this forum. I challenge you to do a search".

Go ahead - link it. Like I said, I have never discussed or even mentioned it. I posted one video.

Now we established that you posted video's defending 9/11 conspiracies and after challenged by me you defended even one.

Yup - now it is "videos" as in plural since I posted the second one about an hour ago in response to your shaping of what I have shared.

Sounds to me like you're still in conspiracies and prepping to some degree then. Or you do a lousy job distancing your self from that particular fever.

You should be a lawyer or a politician rather than a philosopher as shaping and spinning is more befitting and complimentary to those vocations. Out of 667 posts you remember one video and that is what you remember about me after all of our lengthy conversations.

If one is to be a seeker of truth - one must be absolutely devoted to TRUTH - it makes perfect sense when you think about it, don`t ya think so?

Truth is nothing but a rule inside a game. To understand the difference between truth and lie, the rule needs to be examined first. Then understood why it needs to be followed, or when. Or when it turns into a lie.

It is not a game - this is as serious as it gets. One is either utterly devoted to truth or one is willing to deceive.

If one tells another a lie - you just told two lies. The lie you told another and the lie you tell to yourself in order to justify the lie. This leads to a maze of more lies to justify the supplemental lie. It results in insanity because it fogs our perception and one cannot see with clarity as it diffuses the thinking and cognitive abilities.

Lying and deception is suicide in small doses as it results in atrophy.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No I wrote that I remember you, among other things, as someone into 9/11 conspiracies. Which is what I demonstrated as having some reason to.

And I challenged your claim: "not once have I ever mentioned 911 on this forum. I challenge you to do a search".

Go ahead - link it. Like I said, I have never discussed or even mentioned it. I posted one video.

You got nerve. Link to you defending a crazy 9/11 conspiracty video on the forum.

But you're right, you believe in way more other wonderful nonsense since you never doubt anything at all. This is just one thing I remembered. Did you ever bother to find out the truth behind the story of this lady? It's there if you're interested. But inquiring is not your thing, it seems.

Out of 667 posts you remember one video and that is what you remember about me after all of our lengthy conversations.

Point is that you talked about 9/11 and survival. Most of the times we talked about miracles and faulty scriptures. It's the same problem though.

Truth is nothing but a rule inside a game. To understand the difference between truth and lie, the rule needs to be examined first. Then understood why it needs to be followed, or when. Or when it turns into a lie.

It is not a game - this is as serious as it gets. One is either utterly devoted to truth or one is willing to deceive.

A game is still a game when a life is at stake. What defines it are the rules when it's not the laws of nature defining them. When it's being ritualized.

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

You got nerve. Link to you defending a crazy 9/11 conspiracty video on the forum.

You dip - I already told you I posted that. I did not mention 911 read the thread - I mentioned the video and the credentials of the person interviewed.

Stop with all of your lies.

Here is your response in that very thread:

Diebert said: Bringing down all of our own skyscrapers might be a beginning. Every system ends up destroying its own edifices. So the most peaceful solution is to evacuate them first next time.

Yup - its OK when you say it but when I say it - the dynamic changes. Its all wrong because I said it - I get it.

Did you ever bother to find out the truth behind the story of this lady? It's there if you're interested. But inquiring is not your thing, it seems.

Wonder of wonders she was deemed mentally imbalanced by the 'authorities'. Amazing that the criminal psychopaths would come to that conclusion but by all means, the government and those in power always tell the truth, right Diebert?

Point is that you talked about 9/11 and survival. Most of the times we talked about miracles and faulty scriptures though. It's the same problem though.

My point is you make it about the person and not the issue and you are so trapped in that mindset you are incapable of seeing it.

It is almost never the discussion with you of the 'what and how' -its almost always about 'who said what'. This is delusion and you cannot see past the one saying it.

You keep seeing me rather than what is said - and that - is self deluded nonsensical babble. It is what anyone does to derail the substance of the issues.

Just look at the election process to see this glaring logical fallacy in full play.

A game is still a game when a life is at stake. What defines it are the rules when it's not the laws of nature defining them. When it's being ritualized.

There are no rules - you have devotion to truth or a willingness to compromise by deception.

If you want enlightenment - you must vow to never, under any circumstances intentionally lie or deceive.

That's it - pure and unabridged

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I did not mention 911 read the thread - I mentioned the video and the credentials of the person interviewed.

But I did not claim you "mentioned" the word 911. That's how you now change what I wrote to fit your conception of it

It must be how you arrived at "miracles" in your life. Just change a thought, a memory, deny any inquiry or reasoning: miracle! PTL!

Wonder of wonders she was deemed mentally imbalanced by the 'authorities'. Amazing that the criminal psychopaths would come to that conclusion but by all means, the government and those in power always tell the truth, right Diebert?

It takes a mentally imbalanced believer who fried his brain one time too often touching the light, to defend one I suppose?

It is almost never the discussion with you of the 'what and how' -its almost always about 'who said what'.

Your memory is, as usual here, impaired on the issue. And when I point it out, you just change the facts. This way you win.

Many if not most of our discussions so far were about "what and how", ranging from nitty-gritty details of experiences, claims or bible knowledge.

If you want enlightenment - you must vow to never, under any circumstances intentionally lie or deceive.

That won't help you if you are not able to verify if you indeed are doing what you think you are doing.

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

But I did not claim you "mentioned" the word 911. That's how you now change what I wrote to fit your conception of it

Diebert said:

I remember you as someone into 9/11 conspiracies

What are you missing here? I did not deny I have researched this event and I posted a video.

You characterized me as being someone making this and other nominal mentions being pivotal to my many discussions While in the real world I have mentioned them only once or twice but its all you can remember about me in twelve years of philosophical discourse. Like it is all you could seemingly recall about our numerous conversations.

Its a load Diebert and you and I both know it.

It does not pass the smell test Diebert - not a wiff. But by all means, continue with your diatribe like it has been dominate in our many conversations when you know for a fact it does not. We have spent more time discussing it in this thread than in all my combined posts in archive.

This forum needs a roll eyes smiley face if ever it deserved one for this conversation.

Your memory is, as usual here, impaired on the issue. And when I point it out, you just change the facts. This way you win.

You made the statements and you cannot back them up and somehow that is my job?

Let me get this straight, you make statements, I agree with what is true but disagree with what is not true and you want me to feather your delusional nest by finding the nonexistent evidence to demonstrate your faulty conclusion?

Could you show me where that logical syllogism exists so I can follow the 'rules'?

Many if not most of our discussions so far where about "what and how", ranging from nitty-gritty details of experiences, claims or bible knowledge.

They start out that way and then - as it appears to me - when you start getting your arse kicked you resort to finger pointing and how I am delusional and a liar and blah blah blah

We stick to the facts - again as it appears to me - until you realize you need to change your view and then the name calling begins. I may be much more sarcastic but it is the best way I know how to penetrate a deceptive cloak. I have tried 'nice' for years and no go. Others may temporarily be angary with me but that anger turns into deep meditative thought.

Funny the human dynamic.

If you want enlightenment - you must vow to never, under any circumstances intentionally lie or deceive.

That won't help you if you are not able to verify if you indeed are doing what you think you are doing.

Bull - bull and more bull.

Truth is all that matters. I am talking about self honesty - rigid and no compromise. It does not matter if you get all the facts right.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

O Hermes, friendliest of gods to men, bestower of windfalls and lucky chances, lord of those who do their business by night; O whiz-kid and wizard, patron of thieves, rogues and perjurers; O friend to travelers in obscure places, O guide and conductor of those who consort with the dead; O spirit of fluency and sly calculation, genius of ways and entries, ingenious deviser, nimble wit and agile explainer-away; O god of the main chance, O Hermes, preserve us from evil, for we are all engaged in hermeneutics, over which you preside. We are all interpreters, and the world is out text.
______________________________________

That won't help you if you are not able to verify if you indeed are doing what you think you are doing.

Truth is all that matters. I am talking about self honesty - rigid and no compromise. It does not matter if you get all the facts right.

It must be how you arrived at "miracles" in your life. Just change a thought, a memory, deny any inquiry or reasoning: miracle! PTL!

Diebert said: Bringing down all of our own skyscrapers might be a beginning. Every system ends up destroying its own edifices. So the most peaceful solution is to evacuate them first next time.

I do but I am thinking the amount of cognitive dissonance that exists is as infinite as the universe.

I selected a few of these and then underlined parts. I am interested in these questions for the following reasons: I have been thinking of 'The Red Pill' metaphor. I know that The Matrix (it had interesting ideas, too much distracting violence, in another context it could have been made really into a study in metaphysics, as such it was sort of wasted) set this metaphor in motion, but I would ask what metaphor preceded it? I mean in recent time? But what is interesting here is that the Red Pill is something everyone is interested in, in one way or another.

Very certainly the GF founders as: some process, some way of seeing, of something seen and understood which causes one to wake up. Is it ultimately Maya that we are speaking about? Is that not the ultimate metaphor? Did it not begin there?

There are various levels: One is some 'intrusion' (something from the outside) that enters one (in GF-lingo a 'cause') and produces a shift. The other side of it is something arising inside of one, which might start in alienation or feelings which are unsettled. The Red Pill Cure is after all an initiation, and the Red Pill represents, more or less, a shamanic initiation. There are political Red Pills which operate at a 'lower' level and all manner of different wake-ups.

Then there is another aspect: the aspect that has to do with interpretation. Frank Kermode wrote a book on literary interpretation which, I found, is applicable to larger questions of interpretation. For example, interpretation of The World. The Times review does only partial service as a review. But, you know, the issue really is hermeneutics, and what stands behind hermeneutics is Hermes: the shape-shifter; the revealer and the concealer.

I was rather surprised when I attempted a complex read, a great deal in Greek, of a very good book on 'The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel' by Dodd, to find that these very Greek ideas which touch on Logos and a Logos that preexists, is seeped in Hermetic doctrine. This interests me because it lifts in some way an aspect of Christian truth out of its Jewish matrix (never great explorers) and opens it essentially to philosophical speculation and discourse. We are all interested in philosophy, right, and therefor what could better be posited as the Ultimate Backdrop of all idea and the possibilities of thought but the Logos?

But our puzzlement begins when we take a look which is more than a look. It is the second look, the return to look again, and the lingering look - the look we hold in the mind, in our imagination, the one that goes to work on us - which is what the metaphor of the Red Pill alludes to.

Everything turns on 'the eye that sees' and the whole issue is one of sight, but insight. Some here may have read King Lear and remember Gloucester who, after being blinded, says: "I have no way, and therefore want no eyes; I stumbled when I saw". We must admit that - even for Seeker before his Vision become incandescent & pure by cause of Revelation - we are all dealing on questions of vision, sight, insight, and understanding. It is a question of, let us say, intensity of relationship.

When we differ, the accusations fly (and I am not saying they shouldn't, but I have this luxury because, obviously, I am more right than anyone) (insert smiley). In King Lear (and Shakespeare is an amazing metaphysician as well as an artist) it all has to do with sight & insight. No one sees clearly, and everyone mis-sees in Tragedy. And Gloucester only 'sees' when he no longer sees with his external eyes. The metaphor is a strong one.

A few things I am interested in, one being Diebert's constant reference to clear vision (his own). You cannot critique blindly (pardon the pun), and a critique is really a statement: I see clearly. The Red Pill for Diebert it seems is one of disentangling the metaphor of 'seduction'. But what I notice is that this conundrum seems to lead to a kind of disempowerment. For after all if it is all seduction, a man can make no move, and he is frozen. He is best off initiating nothing, undertaking nothing, and just sitting in his room minding his thoughts.

I am interested in Jupi's refrain about 'wisdom'. If wisdom is posited, it has to be defined. It cannot simply be 'reasonability' and 'ratiocination'. What is the fount of Wisdom? And when wisdom is attained, what does one do with it? And what 'allows' wisdom and self-realization? How is this structured into the Creation? Why?

Seeker's entire trip seems to be an extended statement on realization. It is the 'magnificent' something, the quintessence, but one is inclined to ask 1) Then what? and 2) So what?

What we see, what we understand, how we interpret, and what we do on the basis of our interpretations are good areas to focus in (as questions about). Beingof1 said: "I am talking about self honesty - rigid and no compromise. It does not matter if you get all the facts right". And indeed it does not, because you cannot. In a platonic sense you can only gain greater insight, clearer vision, but only insofar as you approach, so to speak, the Logos.

The Cave, the Red Pill, the Ascent, and the Return are powerful processes and they always function in this realm. On one level or another.

Diebert says: "Bringing down all of our own skyscrapers might be a beginning. Every system ends up destroying its own edifices". Metaphors within metaphors, or metaphors explaining metaphors. Though this may be true, in order to say it, and in order to refer to this truth, requires a Truth.

Of course miracles are real, and behind the Miracle is in essence the revelation of the Logos. It just happens in zillions of ways.

Is this not a good quote for Fools and Wise alike?

• “This life's dim windows of the soul
  Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
  And leads you to believe a lie
  When you see with, not through, the eye.”

[jupiviv]

I am interested in Jupi's refrain about 'wisdom'. If wisdom is posited, it has to be defined. It cannot simply be 'reasonability' and 'ratiocination'.

No, sorry. Wisdom is in fact nothing more than uncompromising rationality and truthfulness. At least, that is the part of wisdom that can be posited. The remaining part is the will and motivation to be truthful, even though there is no reward in it, which comes from the belief that Jesus saves. Since this part of wisdom leads back to the part of it that is rationality, it can neither be posited using that other part nor in any sense be separated from it. Thus questions like these:

And when wisdom is attained, what does one do with it? And what 'allows' wisdom and self-realization? How is this structured into the Creation? Why?

Are pointless, since they assume that one who is not wise, i.e. not reasonable, can be motivated to be it under the influence of reasons for being reasonable. People who ask such pointless questions are already convinced that wisdom is pointless.

Seeker's entire trip seems to be an extended statement on realization. It is the 'magnificent' something, the quintessence, but one is inclined to ask 1) Then what? and 2) So what?

But can you see the similarity between Seeker's magnificent something and *your* magnificent something? You know, the magnificent something that somehow qualifies your tiresome ad hominem as hermeneutic analysis of the "metaphorical ream of the dole" or whatever it is you're calling it today?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Egotistical people are like elephants, when one appears, they're hard to miss. xD

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I have been thinking of 'The Red Pill' metaphor. I know that The Matrix (it had interesting ideas, too much distracting violence, in another context it could have been made really into a study in metaphysics, as such it was sort of wasted) set this metaphor in motion, but I would ask what metaphor preceded it? I mean in recent time? But what is interesting here is that the Red Pill is something everyone is interested in, in one way or another.

The scene is almost similar to the pill scene in Total Recall, a big movie based on a novel from P.K. Dick. Same basic idea. When I was reading some excerpts of Dick's Exegesis (a philosophical Gnostic exploration) it became clear that many scenes and visual ideas from the Matrix could be lead back to this work, almost word for word at times. But some other movies too and also books. Baudrillard is mentioned by the directors and his book appears in one scene, containing a virtual drug. But I did read Baudrillard's reaction to the movie and he was very disappointed, not agreeing with how his ideas were portrayed.

Both Matrix writers and directors (brothers) became trans-gender in recent years. But that's (perhaps) besides the point. Or maybe not.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Gustav's a blue piller xD

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

No, sorry. Wisdom is in fact nothing more than uncompromising rationality and truthfulness. At least, that is the part of wisdom that can be posited. The remaining part is the will and motivation to be truthful, even though there is no reward in it, which comes from the belief that Jesus saves. Since this part of wisdom leads back to the part of it that is rationality, it can neither be posited using that other part nor in any sense be separated from it.

Since a mathematician, well-trained, will use uncompromising rationality and truthfulness, as well as (for example) an engineer, the possibility of arriving at Wisdom, is a methodology of this sort?

If you were asked 'What of the Wisdom that cannot be posited?' would you be able to say anything? or would you simply say 'There is nothing that can be said about it' and decline any description?

If there is no way to refer to 'the Wisdom that cannot be posited', how does one come to know it or to understand it? Can that be spoken of?

Were you born into this world with this understanding of Wisdom? I.e. is it innate in you? Is it possible to be born with this Wisdom? An obvious question is 'Is this Wisdom learned?' If this Wisdom is not something one is born with, how does one become Wise?

Can you speak more about 'Will to be truthful'? I may not have a clear enough idea of what you mean. Does the Will to Truth mean that the truthful one will be honest and truthful at every juncture? No matter what the positive or negative result will be?

Since this part of wisdom leads back to the part of it that is rationality, it can neither be posited using that other part nor in any sense be separated from it.

I don't understand. Can you explain?

Are pointless, since they assume that one who is not wise, i.e. not reasonable, can be motivated to be it under the influence of reasons for being reasonable. People who ask such pointless questions are already convinced that wisdom is pointless.

Are the questions I am asking about Wisdom pointless questions? Are you saying that, for example, a child or a young person who does not know what Wisdom is, cannot inquire what it is? Are you saying then that to understand Wisdom that intuition is required? Or some other process which is non-rational? Since I cannot believe that you mean this (though it is possible), what do you mean? Can one talk about Wisdom?

Additionally, there is an alternative to your assertion about 'pointless questions'. It might be that someone - anyone, including myself - either 1) has a different definition of Wisdom or 2) simply does not understand what Wisdom is and requires clarification.

How would you clarify?

But can you see the similarity between Seeker's magnificent something and *your* magnificent something?

While I have a sense of Seeker's 'magnificent something' (mystical revelation and knowledge, subjective overall), I am not sure how you would describe mine. What *magnificent something* do I refer to? Right now, today, I do not see the connection. Can you make it more clear?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

The scene is almost similar to the pill scene in Total Recall, a big movie based on a novel from P.K. Dick. Same basic idea. When I was reading some excerpts of Dick's Exegesis (a philosophical Gnostic exploration) it became clear that many scenes and visual ideas from the Matrix could be lead back to this work, almost word for word at times. But some other movies too and also books. Baudrillard is mentioned by the directors and his book appears in one scene, containing a virtual drug. But I did read Baudrillard's reaction to the movie and he was very disappointed, not agreeing with how his ideas were portrayed.

Both Matrix writers and directors (brothers) became trans-gender in recent years. But that's (perhaps) besides the point. Or maybe not.

But it is not quite the same idea in fact. In Total Recall it is a question of one identity being erased and another identity implanted. But the implant was not entirely successful and traces of old memory resurfaced in dream. As I remember, there is no 'pill scene' in Total Recall. He has vague memories of Mars and perhaps without clear sense as to why desires to experience an implanted memory-vacation of Mars which goes haywire leading to a sort of psychosis. It is not that the 'fundamental nature of Reality' is brought into question - reality stays the same - and if anything, wouldn't you say? his shift is ideological and identitarian. He simply does not know who he really is.

The premise of The Matrix is far more metaphysical insofar as to be 'red pilled' means to go through a process of destruction of an entire 'false metaphysic' as it were and entering into another, radically different one. The premise of The Matrix is therefor that 'nothing is what it seems', but yet from out of the matrix deception, if one is ear-tuned properly (gifted or lucky?) that 'messages' can come to you through the illusions (people, presences mostly) which surround you. The idea seems far more Hermetic.

[jupiviv]

Since a mathematician, well-trained, will use uncompromising rationality and truthfulness, as well as (for example) an engineer, the possibility of arriving at Wisdom, is a methodology of this sort?

Yes, it is the unbridled application of logic to every aspect of one's life.

Does the Will to Truth mean that the truthful one will be honest and truthful at every juncture? No matter what the positive or negative result will be?

To himself, yes.

Are the questions I am asking about Wisdom pointless questions?

Most of them are. You are probably intelligent enough to identify them, but won't because you're not interested in answers to begin with. It is likely just by chance that you ask a valid question every now and then.

While I have a sense of Seeker's 'magnificent something' (mystical revelation and knowledge, subjective overall), I am not sure how you would describe mine. What *magnificent something* do I refer to? Right now, today, I do not see the connection. Can you make it more clear?

Seeker's "magnificent something" (and to some extent Diebert's and Russell's, and Beingof1's to a larger extent) is the "wisdom" and/or "consciousness" (especially his own) that can somehow magically arbitrate the nature of reality. Yours is the fantasy of coming home to mammy (dialectical cream of the vole as collective Western consciousness) after a nasty spat with those GF kids who just moved into the neighbourhood - repeated indefinitely within, presumably, your personal library inside Castle Alex.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[As I remember, there is no 'pill scene' in Total Recall.

It seems you have only a flimsy recall of that movie (either version) and the deeper story or implications of such "memory recall". Like most P.K. Dick stories, the questions are asked "what is real" and "what is artificial"? That's the nature of the rabbit hole as it only opens up more questions and not accessing some metaphysical fantastically new existence. But everyone is free to interpret movies as they like although my view comes from having seen the movies and reading the authors and/or directors about their intentions. Which of course are always many.

As for the Matrix, it would be very interesting perhaps for you to realize that "Zion" and all the scenes outside the Matrix represent very well the physical "human body" like portrayed in Isac Asimov's Fantastic Voyage and visually as well the movie based on the book. The story the Wachowskis were trying to tell becomes perhaps easier to understand that way. Some scenes are also easier to understand, like why they need to be there at all.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Actually, and only because in the last 2-3 years I have become interested in film (never having put much time into it), I have watched Total Recall fairly recently and more than one. This is in fact the topic that interests me and should interest us all (IMV):

• "That's the nature of the rabbit hole as it only opens up more questions and not accessing some metaphysical fantastically new existence."

As for the Matrix, it would be very interesting perhaps for you to realize that "Zion" and all the scenes outside the Matrix represent very well the physical "human body" like portrayed in Isac Asimov's Fantastic Voyage and visually as well the movie based on the book. The story the Wachowskis were trying to tell becomes perhaps easier to understand that way. Some scenes are also easier to understand, like why they need to be there at all.

So, the message of the Matrix is according to this trope a 'return to the reality of incarnated existence' but devoid of fantasy-gloss. This seems fitting.

My point - among various points - is that no one of these persons controls the trope. The trope antecedes them, and the trope can be investigated in different ways, and fruitfully. The post I made on the topic of the Red Pill is more interesting (in my view) than debate about the specifics of a popular movie. Whether it is the Wachowskis or Asimov or Dick's version of a story is not really the point. The point has to do with we ourselves, here and now, and in these conversations.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Seeker's "magnificent something" (and to some extent Diebert's and Russell's, and Beingof1's to a larger extent) is the "wisdom" and/or "consciousness" (especially his own) that can somehow magically arbitrate the nature of reality. Yours is the fantasy of coming home to mammy (dialectical cream of the vole as collective Western consciousness) after a nasty spat with those GF kids who just moved into the neighbourhood - repeated indefinitely within, presumably, your personal library inside Castle Alex.

How would you defend this sort of description or accusation - as I see it an open invitation to participate in snark and a level of conversation which can only become ad hominem - as being defensible from the platform of wisdom? Is this a 'wise approach'? You are smart enough - I reckon - to understand that there is no way to respond to any of this, aren't you? How in your view does this first into philosophical discourse?

But I have these questions:

1) Can you expand on the 'magical arbitration of the nature of reality'? I don't quite get the term 'magical'. So, you imply that the 'nature of reality', for the Wise, is not 'arbitrated' by consciousness? Can you speak more about this?

2) What is 'dialectical cream of the vole'? I'd have to guess and I'd rather hear your definition.

Most of them are. You are probably intelligent enough to identify them, but won't because you're not interested in answers to begin with. It is likely just by chance that you ask a valid question every now and then.

Here, you make biased comments, and this seems a mistake. By your own definitions of 'uncompromising truthfulness' would you not have to admit the possibility that your view might be incorrect?

Uncompromising reason might suggest something different: that I am less interested in some in your answers (and for various reasons). But you would not, I assume? imply that you mediate truth? Or would you?

Is there any other person that you refer to, or know, who is Wise? Is there another wise one on this planet right now? (It sounds like I am mocking, but yet it is implied in the way your couch your understanding of truth and wisdom). But I am interested in a straight answer: Who?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Whether it is the Wachowskis or Asimov or Dick's version of a story is not really the point. The point has to do with we ourselves, here and now, and in these conversations.

Sure, it was just a side remark based on your wondering about 'The Red Pill' metaphor, what set it in motion and what metaphor preceded it. Understanding why others have invoked some particular metaphor, what they intended with all that, looked briefly like relevant stuff. For example, in Total Recall the question of the red pill: "it's a symbol—of your desire to return to reality" -- the real, the craving for authenticity, directness and quality are parts of this metaphor. As it always seems slipping away from us in artificiality, especially during all these conversations!

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

You are right (that's twice in 2016, you're on a roll): there was a pill in Total Recall. I'd forgotten.

But the thing about that scene is that it wouldn't have been a 'return to reality', it would have been quite the opposite: a return to an erstwhile illusion. He desired to end his Quest on some level, hence his wavering uncertainty, because his quest was strange, complex, outlandish and dangerous, but there was the seduction.

As it always seems slipping away from us in artificiality, especially during all these conversations!

OK, so: What is the bearing on the conversations here, and the Quest defined by GF?

What's real Diebert, and what 'artificial'? No Diebertian wishy-washy and convoluted responses...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You are right (that's twice in 2016, you're on a roll): there was a pill in Total Recall. I'd forgotten.

Thanks! The rock starts rolling, before you know it turns out to be an avalanche from my mountain of Being Right All Along (B.R.A.A-Ha-Ha)!

But the thing about that scene is that it wouldn't have been a 'return to reality', it would have been quite the opposite: a return to an erstwhile illusion. He desired to end his Quest on some level, hence his wavering uncertainty, because his quest was strange, complex, outlandish and dangerous, but there was the seduction.

The movie, like most novels and other books of Dick revolve around this particular plot: a switch turning from illusion to the real or the possibility of it being the other way around. This has to do with Dick's own transformational "vision" or "breakdown". But he also wondered if his own fiction was more than just that. The former fictional or fake as gateway to a "real" -- or at least a question mark. Wow, I really thought you'd appreciate that theme. Or at least pick it up from the repeated insertion. Under all the explosions and violence, some clever questions are being asked in my opinion. Played Harrison Ford in Blade Runner a human or a cyborg determining the artificiality in and of others before he had to terminate them? Every scene plays that question so well.

What's real Diebert, and what 'artificial'? No Diebertian wishy-washy and convoluted responses...

In my view, and with that I glance to the Forum purpose at the top of the page, that has been the topic all along here and each of my posts a new attempt to address it. But if you think that so far my posts have been wishy-washy and convoluted, then I probably was not doing a very good job,

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Well, that is a good starting point: I come here to reorder that phrase. Or, being here, I find that the phrase needs to be rewritten, re-conceived. I accept something about it as a motto or as a declaration about intent. But I say that the phrase reflects and expresses a particular way, by a particular sort of person, with a particular inclination to use language (mathematical reasoning of a specific sort) toward the framing of a Vision. Essentially, it is in the phrase where an 'error' is encapsulated. The error needs to be corrected.

Therefor and obviously the question:

What's real Diebert, and what 'artificial'?

In respect to how a man orients himself and his understanding within this world become important question. How do you see it?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But I say that the phrase reflects and expresses a particular way, by a particular sort of person, with a particular inclination to use language (mathematical reasoning of a specific sort) toward the framing of a Vision. Essentially, it is in the phrase where an 'error' is encapsulated. The error needs to be corrected.

Sure, we can change it. But how do you mean "corrected"? So there's a more ultimate, more correct phrase which does not express a particular way, person or inclination towards framing? What would you suggest then as possible improvement? It's not that easy to condense.

Therefor and obviously the question:

What's real Diebert, and what 'artificial'?

In respect to how a man orients himself and his understanding within this world become important question. How do you see it?

Beyond saying that it's obviously an important question in terms of self-knowledge and understanding any relationship to the world and consciousness?

Even the question and the importance given to it assumes a few things. For example the idea that one can ask for a more fundamental question on orientation at all. And that some kind of answer is likely there, or desired. That very move is already showing a couple of fundamental assumptions. Which we can then inquire about too. At least, this is how I'd approach this. So this happens before we can talk about the world in more detail.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Well, I do not mean change it as in change the webpage, I mean that I think - and I am pretty sure that you know this already - that if enlightenment is going to be used as a term for some state of being or realization (I have said often: it is never defined), it should be connected to a cultural project. Therefor I'd ask this question: Is enlightenment a state of being that is universal? I mean naturally 'independent of cultural matrix'? Or, is enlightenment attained in relation to a cultural matrix?

You will capture, I am pretty sure, a couple of things just from the question. One is that there could only be an enlightenment of a specific person in a specific body in a specific culture at one specific time. Two that enlightenment is often conceived as a state which transcends all these conditional elements and this idea is, IMV, and as you might say, a seductive one that traps one mentally.

Therefor, to free enlightenment from this trap (as it were), it 1) has to be located in a specific person at a specific time and cultural matrix, 2) it has to connect to all elements of that matrix from mystical endeavor all the way down to the lower concerns and endeavors, and 3) it has to fuse with, and perhaps even explain and model, ethics and morality and effectively everything that relates to 'the polis'.

See, with that you have of course an explanation of my focus, and the irritating insistence on it: that quality we note in others which is so bothersome: we don't understand the premise and the tenets the other constructs their foundation on. I don't think I can change my viewpoint on this. Is this my Greek indoctrination? the essential tenets of classical Occidental liberal arts? What is the corrective?

As you know I accept enlightenment as 'enlightened attitude'. But I cannot accept it as a free-standing non-connected personal attainment. Can you?

Even the question and the importance given to it assumes a few things. For example the idea that one can ask for a more fundamental question on orientation at all. And that some kind of answer is likely there, or desired. That very move is already showing a couple of fundamental assumptions. Which we can then inquire about too. At least, this is how I'd approach this. So this happens before we can talk about the world in more detail.

Yes of course. How could it be otherwise? One speaks from a given platform and understanding. And one is informed by metaphysics. When the question of transcendentics is brought it, everything complicates rapidly. To simplify, one imagines it possible to eliminate transcendentals, and metaphysics, but this proves - does it not? - impossible. So then, are we to haggle endlessly over the 'ultimate definition' or are we, somehow, to solve the conundrum?

We know that we can ask more fundamentalizing questions. For example, if we could speak with a dog who only exists in his immediacy, we could ask questions that would cause him to cock his head in puzzlement. We can ask certain questions of people that cause them to self-ponder. We can - to turn back to PK Dick - also take lots of LSD and so confuse and convolute the entire question that our perception becomes a paranoid, damaged tool. But how do we orient ourselves so that we are seeing correctly, understanding well, and acting sanely?

[Russell Parr]

Is enlightenment a state of being that is universal? I mean naturally 'independent of cultural matrix'? Or, is enlightenment attained in relation to a cultural matrix?

You will capture, I am pretty sure, a couple of things just from the question. One is that there could only be an enlightenment of a specific person in a specific body in a specific culture at one specific time. Two that enlightenment is often conceived as a state which transcends all these conditional elements and this idea is, IMV, and as you might say, a seductive one that traps one mentally.

Therefor, to free enlightenment from this trap (as it were), it 1) has to be located in a specific person at a specific time and cultural matrix, 2) it has to connect to all elements of that matrix from mystical endeavor all the way down to the lower concerns and endeavors, and 3) it has to fuse with, and perhaps even explain and model, ethics and morality and effectively everything that relates to 'the polis'.

Enlightenment is indeed independent of the cultural matrix. Culture can certainly influence one to take on the path, the Hindu culture can be an example of this, but it results in an attachment to culture being left behind. This isn't to say that one drops all things like mannerisms or way of dressing, for example, but that there is no longer an emotional attachment to these. It isn't like a sage ends up talking like a robot and wears white t-shirts and blue jeans day after day, although this wouldn't bother him. This is due to a growing intimate relationship with the knowledge of the ever changing nature, as well as the illusory nature, of all things. One fosters a relationship to, and a love for nature as a whole, and not just to one's own environment and proximities. One's attitude becomes an acceptance, of all things, expressing no favoritism towards particular finites.

As far as ethics and morality go, these things, as with all decisions, are handled purely with logic. I'm sure that this answer will be a bit too simplistic for you, but perhaps we'll get into more details about this later.