Impossible to know with accuracy

[jupiviv]

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?

It is ad homines (you, Diebert, Russell and Beingof1), but not an argumentum. I'm not deriving my speculations (or as you say accusations) about these personalities from my judgment of their views. It is the other way around - I judged your views and opinions on their own merit, *then* speculated about the prejudices, motivations and so on that would lead to such views. This latter might be inappropriate (though not in this case because I'm not exposing anyone's personal details or insulting them for no reason), but it isn't a logical fallacy.

It's also ironic, and sadly unsurprising, that you ignored my actual arguments (before the portion of my reply you quoted) and went straight for the "cheese" as it were.

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?

It is human nature to imagine things and situations we desire, and block out - if possible - things we fear or despise. When such imagination intercourses with reason and conscience, you have notions of magical arbitration and necessarily unsuccessful attempts to justify it. Whether it is because he is a native English speaker or just more honest, Russell demonstrates these failed attempts more clearly than Diebert does.

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

Based on your posts, it's whatever makes you-accusative special.

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?

How do I couch my understanding? I think most people can tell when I'm being serious and when flippant or droll, and my serious expression of my views is clear enough. The problem is that some people want something *more*, something mysterious and *overwhelming* that puts a halt to their pesky thinking.

For example, what difference does it make to *you* if there is any other person except me who is Wise? None. You asked me that stupid question because you're trying to cook another "story", presumably slathered in dialectical cream of vole. In any case, I am very far from perfectly wise because I do and think plenty of unwise things everyday. However, I am at a point in my spiritual development where whatever little I have seen I cannot un-see barring - obviously - death or brain damage. If somebody pisses me off enough I'll most likely do something irrational, but I won't be able to trick myself into thinking that the irrational/immoral act is actually rational/moral.

But to answer your question, Kevin Solway is someone whom I consider to be Wise. And from appearances, far wiser than myself in terms of consistency in thought and deed. In fact, I think he might be one of the wisest people ever to have lived. It's a shame he seems to be spending his spare time on Youtube, but I guess he can't think of anything more worthwhile to do with his current means.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I did not deny I have researched this event and I posted a video.

You're a professional, habitual liar, Ken. Your claim was that you never mentioned 911 on this forum and challenged me to a search.

And then I provided evidence of not only posting a video but even posting a defence of the credibility of that 9/11 conspiracy video. Posting and defending a video on 9/11 conspiracy is for you, even after it has been pointed out, the same as "never mentioning" any 9/11. Which means you're not reliable to discuss even the simplest of things with! You just lie! To save face, to appear as something you're not!

Disgraceful. And you call your self a minister or son-of-one. You're the son of something al-right!

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.

In the many discussions with me, which you have all rewritten and forgotten in your mind, that's how it works for you, you actually have been defending your literal interpretation of scriptures, literal miracles and complete misuse of "logic". But it's all based of the same basic thing: your willingness to lie to make it possible to your mind. That's the basic operation here. And you twist my words here again. I wrote that I remember you as being into 9/11 conspiracies, prepping, evolution denial, major scientific illiteracy and other serious misinterpretations and abuse of texts, like most of modern Christianity. You make it about "mentioning 9/11" while leaving out the rest.

We have spent more time discussing it in this thread than in all my combined posts in archive.

We haven't discussed 9/11 at all in this thread. Just your lie of not having mentioned or defending the conspiracy theory around it here before.

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.

You're not able to verify if you're speaking any truth. And not willing any more. There lies indeed the issue.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But I cannot accept it as a free-standing non-connected personal attainment. Can you?

Everything points to enlightenment as being more connected to the idea of lets say the "transpersonal", which is exemplified by all those references to no-self and emptiness. It's impossible to "attain" anything in that light since it was already established before that nothing is or remains, simply because of conditions and the whole causality of it. Exactly because of all those rather obvious complications with relations to cultural matrix and how to see enlightenment of a specific person in a specific body in a specific culture at one specific time. Which becomes indeed hairy ("everything complicates rapidly") and impossible to assert as anything but some subjective affair, some personal experience. Those experiences are no argument and no subject for analysis. Well, you can make them so but it would be "reverse engineering" the whole of existence, ultimately, if you want to explain every aspect of some personal experience and all its causes. Therefore it's not the most obvious place to start in my view.

]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?

Well, we could solve it by establishing that you are not interested in the type of enlightenment aimed for at this forum, which must look as essentially reductive to you, if such a word could even be used. The idea is to take everything away: end up having nothing, knowing nothing, being no one. In many ways this is a complete disappearance. But really, that's the only conceivable option without introducing all sorts of magical non-connected attainments, disembodied from culture or metaphysical platforms. Of course such thing cannot exist! So the only truthful description is subtraction. A form of annihilation, if you will. And obviously that's going to look destructive, especially when some individuals are attracted to that destruction for a "desire not to be". Which is just a clever reversal of the (suppressed? forbidden?) desire to be. It's still the same thing. Emptiness, the absolute stillness, knows no desire and does not flee from anything. That's why it's called peace, not because of any lack of war or change.

But how do we orient ourselves so that we are seeing correctly, understanding well, and acting sanely?

Any imagined "state" of enlightenment has to be assumed to be in place, naturally and effortless. Which would mean that all seeing introduces illusions, all understanding introduces mistake and all acts introduces some insanity. All movement in the water causing ripple effect. But how can one exist without movement? What kind of existence is that? From the experimental point of view it would be truth: non-existence, you do not actually exist. From that truth some form of clarity can arise. Perception still happens but all perception distorts: this is the start of true self-knowledge. But it's not the knowledge which contains some inherent clarity. It just allows for depth and clarity, by simple curbing back, untangle, everything else that obstructs.

[Beingof1]

Beingof1 wrote:

I did not deny I have researched this event and I posted a video.

Diebert:
You're a professional, habitual liar, Ken. Your claim was that you never mentioned 911 on this forum and challenged me to a search.

OK Diebert, you really want to do this?


Now I am a "habitual liar"?

You are running away from yourself. You need to man up and live your life as you present it to be. Do you know how I know this? You do not present your own philosophy, you just spit out what you have read or learned from others. - you spend your time nit picking at others.

In martial arts, a black belt only means you have learned the basics and are now ready to develope your own style. You need to grow some wings.

I put it all on the line. I make what is considered by you as outlandish statements and I man up and back it up. Do you know the difference? You do not ever risk your self image of putting your own philosphy out there. Oh, you talk about enlightenment but it is still all theory with you because of fear.

You just slink in the shadows and pounce on others to be an internet bully by picking out insignificant little points that mean nothing and drone on and on and on about nothing. 9/11 means so much to all of us at this point - as if it is absolutely pivitol to what is true and what is not.

You are so stuck on 'getting me' you cannot see that if it was only one video, so what? But because you found a single video that we breifly discussed that turns me into a "habitual liar." Its laughable.

You are not yet illuminated enough enough to catch a liar and the reason is, you yourself are willing to lie, spin and doctor discussions. That means you are in darkness and have shut the door to the light - so dont whine because you are asking for this, the revealing light that is.

You lie by pretending to do philosophy and you make it all about little bitty perceived flaws in others while you risk nothing.

In the meantime; you want to make this all about 9/11 when anyone, with any common sense at all can do an archive search and plainly see - you are full - absolutely to the top - of insignifigant piddle paddle points that change no one or anything. You are afraid because you never risk it all - you only pick apart others and call that "philosophy" - its a crock dude.


Do you actually want to be crazy enough to change the world? You have to learn to risk it all in philosophy. You have to learn to put yourself out there holding nothing back and then - and only then - will you find your power and best self. That is one thing I highly respect about QRS - they put it all on the line and you are holding back.

And then I provided evidence of not only posting a video but even posting a defence of the credibility of that 9/11 video. Posting and defending a video on 9/11 is for you, even after it has been pointed out, the same as "never mentioning" any 9/11. Which means you're not reliable to discuss even the simplest of things with! You just lie! To save face, to appear as something you're not!

Disgraceful. And you call your self a minister or son-of-one. You're the son of something al-right!

OK - let me send you a big sidewinder pitch - you are right - I talked about 9/11 and I was wrong about never mentioning it.

Uncle - you win - I talked about it one time in twelve years - Oh my God.

I am undone.

In the many discussions with me, which you have all rewritten and forgotten in your mind, that's how it works for you, you actually have been defending your literal interpretation of scriptures,

And did I deny this? Nope

More spindle piddle paddle about nothing that means anything to anyone but you.

Why are you bringing this up?

You make it about "mentioning 9/11" while leaving out the rest.

You did that, not I. I addressed the other issues - look at the post. Another lie and spin coming from you.

I might not have remembered posting a video years ago but I was right about discussing the video only and never mentioned the conspiracy itself but you cannot recall the conversation from a few days ago. The reason your recall is failing is - you are willing to lie. Truth, and absolute devotion to it will clear out all of those cobwebs out of your mind.

I smell the fear coming from you and that is because you do not yet respect yourself. The reason you do not respect yourself first and foremost is because you are willing to lie and also because you are afraid to let go of who you want to be and believe yourself to be. Let it go - into the great wide open not knowing what will become of you.

Turn loose of your grip - its killing you.

You can choose to keep smashing yourself into illusion until you quite literally die from it or you could choose to be devoted to absolute nobility. That requires truth.

Instead of talking about everyone and others thought - and I have asked you this before - what does Diebert actually think, believe, live and understand. that would fascinate me and in all the years we have known each other, I am stunned you still need to be told this.

I know you have genius in you - I want to see it. Not what others think - what do you, honestly and truly, think and believe and I would be fascinated.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Beingof1, It was hard but finally you managed to realize that your initial claims were simply not true. At least we can agree now that you're capable of telling a lie or make some (honest) mistake and making things seem untrue? It's important to establish this first.

But you seem still to conveniently forget that you were the one challenging me to prove it. In case you didn't realize, I only mentioned 9/11 in passing as one of the many things I remember about you. Which you jumped on and made a splash out of it, forcing me to take you to the dryers to show the nonsense, all which is now confirmed by you. And still you are turning it into some "mentioning" while clearly you were and still are defending 9/11 conspiracy theories, creationism and god knows what.

This might seem like making an issue out of one little thing, one little white lie. But it starts here. You need to unravel the knot of lies. It cannot be done by some abstract disagreement on logic and the infinite, you just don't have the ability to have such discussion at this stage. So I'm challenging you on the smaller deception. Just to see what happens. And at least it got your attention!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"So I'm challenging you on the smaller deception. "

Why bother challenging? Sounds very serious.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"So I'm challenging you on the smaller deception. "

Why bother challenging? Sounds very serious.

Because he seems to be really in to it despite his denial. And I mean material realities, miracles, pseudo-science and so on. The man is not ready to even start examining reality. He's still drifting in emotion, which is pure sense-based, with object-consciousness (or: the objective self having subjective senses which act all as extensions and projection of self).

With you I'd provide a challenge on another level entirely. Like asking if you are challenging me or making a joke. Or just being bored with self?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"With you I'd provide a challenge on another level entirely. Like asking if you are challenging me or making a joke. Or just being bored with self?"

Not a big fan of challenges.
I like steak though.
Best thing about a cow is steak.

Do you eat steak?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

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 much, Russell, as you seem often to think that I do not understand enlightenment, or as you likely think am in willful opposition to it, it turns out to be very different. For example, in what you have just written here, my impression is that all you have done is explained the point of view you have arrived at. You make statements that you present as clear facts such as enlightenemnt 'is indeed' independent of the cultural matrix and other such statements which, as it would appear, have no support at all. All you are doing is sending them up. You have heard them, someone repeated them to you, they seem to make sense, and you merely repeat it. I say that you are remiss in this.

You are making - in fact - and your whole declarative stance is predicated on a specfic metaphysical platform. But it seems to me that you do not recognize it and cannot see it (nor see how it functions). You propose essentially a sort of Universal Mind into which a man rises up and joins. And what he must rise up out of is his specificity in time, in locale, in custom and in perception. Your Idea (your metaphysic) functions against both people of a time and place, and a people of a place, and thus reflects and expressess what I will suggest is a rather alarming lie: You take a metaphysical position against biological truth. That means in essence evolutionary advancement as we grasp it: the diversity of a specific genus or species which has struggled tremendously to achieve itself biologically. I will leave it to you to recognize the particulars here but I will say they could easily be spelled out.

In order to posit this Universal State (of enlightenment) there are numerous presuppositions that have to operate first. What allows this? I mean, what has created this as a possibility? This turns back again toward a definition of 'enlightenment' - which you do not have, and you cannot and do not ever explain what you are actually speaking of, and thus 'enlightenment' is an abstraction. When you speak of 'enlightenment', What the heck is being referred to? That is one aspect. But when you describe all that must be done away with, that is, what stands in the way of the realisation of 'enlightenment', it turns out to be The Self itself. That means numerous things, but the starting point is the biological person, the biological flesh-bound entity, and everything that makes him what he is and distinct from all others. Not only his evolved biological self as 'body' and 'brain', but his mind, his human accomplishments as a being having struggled through time, his language, his literature, his understanding (taken at the exalted level), and his transmission of these things to successive generations.

For these reasons - and this should be obvious and plain as day - you have performed and you are performing a destructive activity, and one that leads not to knowledge and 'scientia' but to nescience.

Time and time again I have said: You act like a willful child. Sure, this seems like a slap across the face of a snotty boy (and I have indeed couched it int his way, for effect). But what you cannot see is the gravity of what is actually at stake here. Your 'boyish arrogance' renders you unteachable. And your willfullness renders you a danger of sorts.

Ideas Have Consequences. The thoughts we think are not neutral. The concepts installed in us not irrelevant.

At a philsoophical leel, and with articulated and reason-based arguments, I have indicated here why I think you are off-track.

What is the corrective here? The corrective, IMV, is to 1) redefine what 'enlightenment' means and to offer a valid definition for it that can be defended, 2) undertand that what we are has a great deal of specificty in time and locale, and yet certain ideas have induced us to move away from seeing this 'specificity' clearly: recognizing, appreciating and defending it. Number 3 is to understand that we live in a biological/metaphysical matrix and, again, to understand what we are and what made us that, requires a peculiar application of non-dual vision: a reclaiming of self from dualistic abstraction (in which you seem, to me, to be steeped).

This is an outline of my 'oppositional stance' to a good deal of the ideological platform I see you as representing. 'Pimping' to put it a little harshly. Your thoughts on this are very welcome.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

^ Feel bad for this 'guy'. (Or should I say "stupid appearance" xD )

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Not a big fan of challenges.
I like steak though.
Best thing about a cow is steak.

Do you eat steak?

But can you kill it first? Straight between the eyes? Or do you visit a convenience market for your challenge-free product?

[Russell Parr]

(Gustav, I mistakenly replaced your post the following reply. I changed it back to your original post which could have undone any edits you might've added since.)

You are making - in fact - and your whole declarative stance is predicated on a specfic metaphysical platform. But it seems to me that you do not recognize it and cannot see it (nor see how it functions).

Not true. I've explained my metaphysical platform.

You take a metaphysical position against biological truth.

False. My metaphysical position is simply more fundamental than biological truth.

But when you describe all that must be done away with, that is, what stands in the way of the realisation of 'enlightenment', it turns out to be The Self itself. That means numerous things, but the starting point is the biological person, the biological flesh-bound entity, and everything that makes him what he is and distinct from all others. Not only his evolved biological self as 'body' and 'brain', but his mind, his human accomplishments as a being having struggled through time, his language, his literature, his understanding (taken at the exalted level), and his transmission of these things to successive generations.

This is all but a limited understanding of the True Self, or of No-Self. It is that which mortals are inclined to cling to. The wise instead cling to wisdom.

For these reasons - and this should be obvious and plain as day - you have performed and you are performing a destructive activity, and one that leads not to knowledge and 'scientia' but to nescience.

It is not self destruction. It is a seeing beyond one's own desires in order to accept God.

Scientia is not disregarded, but it also isn't placed on a pedestal.

Time and time again I have said: You act like a willful child. Sure, this seems like a slap across the face of a snotty boy (and I have indeed couched it int his way, for effect). But what you cannot see is the gravity of what is actually at stake here. Your 'boyish arrogance' renders you unteachable. And your willfullness renders you a danger of sorts.

Careful, you are reducing yourself to ad hominem, yet again. You can't help yourself, can you?

What is the corrective here? The corrective, IMV, is to 1) redefine what 'enlightenment' means and to offer a valid definition for it that can be defended, 2) undertand that what we are has a great deal of specificty in time and locale, and yet certain ideas have induced us to move away from seeing this 'specificity' clearly: recognizing, appreciating and defending it. Number 3 is to understand that we live in a biological/metaphysical matrix and, again, to understand what we are and what made us that, requires a peculiar application of non-dual vision: a reclaiming of self from dualistic abstraction (in which you seem, to me, to be steeped).

As you've only displayed your ongoing misunderstanding on the subject, your "correctives" remain irrelevant.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Not a big fan of challenges.
I like steak though.
Best thing about a cow is steak.

Do you eat steak?

But can you kill it first? Straight between the eyes? Or do you visit a convenience market for your challenge-free product?

Of course I can, I expect anybody could.

Except for maybe a midget xD

Doesn't sound like fun though, terrible way to spend your time, creepy suggestion altogether I think Diebert.

[Russell Parr]

Of course I can, I expect anybody could.

Talk is cheap though, isn't it?

Doesn't sound like fun though, terrible way to spend your time

Imagine that we all felt that way. Then there would be no forum to express your mockery.. how boring!

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Russell: That which 'mortals cling to'? Is it the no-self that the immortals instead cling to? To posit a 'mortal' requires the metaphysical distance I refer to. Yet you do not see it. If you, Russell, are not a mortal, and if you haven't revealed your identity, I think you have been remiss. Full discosure, please.

The wise cling to wisdom is a vague declaration. Good, perhaps, in speaking to a chorus of believers, yet to me it does not convert nor convince. It is something comparable to religious hot-air. (But this does not mean it could not be better defined, yet to do so would require more precise metaphysics).

You have offered an explanation of a potential definition of 'metaphysic' which was, I think, based on simply declaring it as such. I notice that most of your more important and necessary definitions are 'mere opinion'. In this you are - to be fair - not engaging philosophically. You are dealing in religious tenets and faith assertions.

What exactly is 'more fundamental than biological truth'? When you say this, what do you mean? What are you actually saying? It needs to be expressed, spelled out.

"Seeing beyond one's own desires' is an absurd statement, since the biolgical entity is essentially desire-incarnate. It is an instrument that functions within and through 'desire'. Food, assimilation, the need for influx and reflux. You are saying in so many words 'See beyond one's own existing'. You enter I think into strange contradictory paths. There are two ways out: 1) mystification and 2) to get fed up with the questioning and the questioner.

You have missed the point of 'scientia': Even your knowledge-system (this one, whatever it is your espouse and which I do not understand) is a 'scientia'. It requires a scientia to be able to think, categorize, visualize, and essentially everything we do. Your approach, because it is destructive to the self and to knowledge, is destructive to 'scientia', and thus is destructive to your own self (this is my opionion). It smacks of cannibalism: You have to have a strong mind to conceive in these ways, but the mind turns against the mind. It turns to 'no-mind' (whatever that is and obviously it could not ever be defined!) and collapses in a puddle of contradictions.

'Scientia not disregarded' is fluff. It means nothing. It implies though some non-mortal stance, and this is of course the stance you define for yourself (unless I am mistaken).

I did not employ an ad hominem when I referred to a way that I have indeed characterized this mode of knowledge. I illustrated what informs it. (I should better have explained this). I am not interested in that approach anymore though. 'It seems like a slap across the face' but in fact it is not: it is a reference to the gravity of the underlying questions.

It is not that I have displayed 'ongoing misunderstanding', it is in fact that I have displayed precise understanding of the platform of your vaguely presented and faith-based ideas (mystic assertions and no way to back them up), and I have explained too where these consequential ideas lead. What you term 'misunderstanding' is failure to have been converted to this vague, improperly founded, pseudo-philosophy.

I rather suggest that I am explaining it quite clearly. And the assertion that 'corrective' is necessary still stands. I do not mean that you have to apply it or do anything, but that I have resolved to get exactly clear about where things went off the rails, and as clear about how to get it back on the rails. This is how I define my 'task' here. Thus, all of this is useful to me. And deeply relevant (despite your statement): It has to do with defining Self, biological self, place, person, personality, knowledge and much else. Highly relevant.

[Russell Parr]

What exactly is 'more fundamental than biological truth'? When you say this, what do you mean? What are you actually saying? It needs to be expressed, spelled out.

The law of identity, or A=A, is more fundamental, and is indeed the fundamental aspect of existence. Biological truths, as with all matters of empiricism, proceed and are built upon this law.

[Beingof1]

Beingof1, It was hard but finally you managed to realize that your initial claims were simply not true. At least we can agree now that you're capable of telling a lie or make some (honest) mistake and making things seem untrue? It's important to establish this first.

But you seem still to conveniently forget that you were the one challenging me to prove it. In case you didn't realize, I only mentioned 9/11 in passing as one of the many things I remember about you. Which you jumped on and made a splash out of it, forcing me to take you to the dryers to show the nonsense, all which is now confirmed by you. And still you are turning it into some "mentioning" while clearly you were and still are defending 9/11 conspiracy theories, creationism and god knows what.

More hot air, spin, wanting to be right and insipid nit picking.

I did not make a dent did I?

This might seem like making an issue out of one little thing, one little white lie. But it starts here. You need to unravel the knot of lies. It cannot be done by some abstract disagreement on logic and the infinite, you just don't have the ability to have such discussion at this stage. So I'm challenging you on the smaller deception. Just to see what happens. And at least it got your attention!

I did not lie you moron.

You keep lying to prove I am a liar and that means you are sinking into insanity.

"So I'm challenging you on the smaller deception. "

Why bother challenging? Sounds very serious.

Because he seems to be really in to it despite his denial. And I mean material realities, miracles, pseudo-science and so on. The man is not ready to even start examining reality. He's still drifting in emotion, which is pure sense-based, with object-consciousness (or: the objective self having subjective senses which act all as extensions and projection of self).

With you I'd provide a challenge on another level entirely. Like asking if you are challenging me or making a joke. Or just being bored with self?

You are to committed to lies to talk to - good luck with your illusions of being right.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Russel: By 'biological truth' I meant, and referred to, existence in a body within this earth, a biological structure, and work and achievement as a human being. I also mean that one of the most significant things about this is the specificity of what is achieved, assembled, understood, recorded, and that language, knowledge and understanding have their root in this.

You say that there is a more fundamental 'truth' and this is the law of identity or A=A, and you say it is the fundamental aspect of existence.

I am not sure what bearing this has on the issue or fact (or assertion) of biological existence within specific bodies and if you can please explain. Except I'd assume that your intention is to link 'identity' to perception, intelligence and reason, and to suggest a platform for these. In other words: part of 'things existing' allows for 'identity' to function, and thus we share a common and existential perception-structure which allows communication (if not it would all be chaos).

Some of this I think I can understand and am reminded of Heidegger and his focus on 'the world worlding' and some sense of 'the nature of the place' itself as a primary mystery and the area to focus in (well, that is my take).

It would be easy - I was going to say 'just as easy' - to say that any number of things or events precede biological being, but I do not know what the value of this assertion would be in this specific conversation. Still the law of identity, here, has always had special emphasis.

What interests me is the question of enlightenment - the definition of it - and as well some statement about its value and purpose. So far, I assert that our existence: biological, in human form, in place and in context is foundational to all.

That predication is possible (A=A), when examined, may hold surprising 'mysteries' if you'll permit the term. But I do not see why in this instance you place as much empphasis on it.

What is one supposed to gather from it?

[Russell Parr]

It's all about knowledge of the Absolute. A=A is the starting place. From there we can gather that existence is merely that which is perceived, and that any further inferences about the perceived lies in the realm of empiricism, which introduces inherent uncertainties. Obviously, uncertainties and absolutes don't mix. The world of things is an empirical phenomenon. It may well be extremely convincing as anything else in the world to assume that consciousness emanates from the biological human body, and I certainly wouldn't suggest to behave as if otherwise, but the fact remains that this, in the end, is only seemingly true, in absolute terms.

What can we gain out of this? Well, meditating on what is absolute, and making it all important, allows us to relinquish our selfish desires and to cease clinging to temporalities, thus allowing us to give ourselves over to God, for the absolute is God. Only then does the saying "God is the doer of all things" have real meaning. "Human accomplishments" cease to be of substantial importance. This removes the grounds for the lust for power and greed to take hold. Indeed, all forms of egotistical selfishness are gradually weakened until all that is left is clear, logical consciousness.

[Beingof1]

Gustav Bjornstrand:

That predication is possible (A=A), when examined, may hold surprising 'mysteries' if you'll permit the term. But I do not see why in this instance you place as much empphasis on it.

What is one supposed to gather from it?

The three laws of thought or A=A allows us to determine if we are in delusion or our perception is accurate. A=A or logic can rid us of all delusion but it is limited in that it needs a clearly identifiable finite thing.

Illumination is a state of awareness that transcends all finite states in that it clarifies that which is perceived from the perceiver.

Your series of questions leads to that state of awareness but one must make the leap into the infinite.

[Beingof1]

It's all about knowledge of the Absolute. A=A is the starting place. From there we can gather that existence is merely that which is perceived, and that any further inferences about the perceived lies in the realm of empiricism, which introduces inherent uncertainties. Obviously, uncertainties and absolutes don't mix. The world of things is an empirical phenomenon. It may well be extremely convincing as anything else in the world to assume that consciousness emanates from the biological human body, and I certainly wouldn't suggest to behave as if otherwise, but the fact remains that this, in the end, is only seemingly true, in absolute terms.

What can we gain out of this? Well, meditating on what is absolute, and making it all important, allows us to relinquish our selfish desires and to cease clinging to temporalities, thus allowing us to give ourselves over to God, for the absolute is God. Only then does the saying "God is the doer of all things" have real meaning. "Human accomplishments" cease to be of substantial importance. This removes the grounds for the lust for power and greed to take hold. Indeed, all forms of egotistical selfishness are gradually weakened until all that is left is clear, logical consciousness.

I enjoyed reading this.

One question; if all things are empirical what is aware of that?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Russell: You have, naturally, predicatably, and yet necessarily, avoided the momentum of all my assertions here. It is inevitable and predicatable that you do this: it follows from your core predicates. These predicates have little, and possibly no, basis in 'tangible reality' but are the tenets of an ideological interpretation of 'reality'. It requires the ideaological platform first, and then you can of course lay over it the various ethical postulates. But to my ears, and I hope to at least some reading, you are merely tauting a rather spaced-out True Believer's platform. I say 'spaced-out' because by your own definitions you cannot value what you necessarily define as the mutable world. Effectively, this means everything. Thus this platform, this ethic, and the philosophy that supports it (it is not philosophy, but rather religious sentiment presented in philosophical terms and dressed up to 'sound serious'), is destructive to relationship of self-to-self and self-to-culture. In this, it is ripe to combine with nihilistic currents, and it has been my impression that it is itself more of a nihilistic current overall. The reasons are quite obvious and not so hard to define.

What I notice is that you have, by fiat of sorts, claimed to define God. I see this declaration as rather bizarre as it is a non-theistic sort of god that is posited, and therefor really a 'god'. You go forward with a further definition and speak of an 'Absolute' god, as if this stament or definition has some special meaning, but the sound of it is outlandish, unreal, imagined, nearly preposterous. You require no definition of God, god or 'god' to make your statements, and in fact you'd be far better off without any statement. It is totally confusing to the issue. But - and this compaunds things - you, Seeker, David, Dan and Kevin (each participant in a shared definition-system) all have a unique definition of this 'god'. It becomes, more or less, unreal. Almost hallucinatory. And an hermeneutic project in itself to get to the bottom of what you mean.

By turning 'god' into a mechanism effectively, you have voided all sense of god but absconded with the terminlogy. Yet a god of this sort, as mechanism, as whatever you wish it to be, as something, as nothing, as a magnificent everything, a totality, is a backbone in a real sense of an ideological platform where you totally diminish what is real and substantial, and within the realm of mutable life as we must live it, by utterly devaluating it. You perform a unique sleight-of-hand which sound impressive (I reckon it must to you) but which is actually, upon examination and interrogation, various streams of vapor.

And what is nearly incredible - and astoundingly arrogant to my ears - is such a declaration as you make about "human accomplishments". With a dismissive movement of an imperious hand you wipe away what you do not now understand, and what you will likely not ever be able to understand. This is a tragedy of real proportion. You perform a switcheroo: you interpose an abstraction, dressed up as a capitalized Absolute, for the genuine within an admittedly imperfect and mutable world, and you suppose that you have done something bold, masculine and creative. But no, in fact you demonstrate (what I understand as) the ethic of a coward-of-sorts. To face things as they are and to work with things as they are requires a fortitude greater than that which you define as requiring 'great strength'.

Once you have arrived at 'clear, logical consciousness' the next question is What now? It would be more logical if you were to simply evaporate - poof!

Funny, we run through the whole mental game once more but more slowly, more concertedly, and it is exactly the same thing that I noticed years ago that shines weakly out.

Your series of questions leads to that state of awareness but one must make the leap into the infinite.

Well as you see I am none-too-favorable to this viewstructure. And that is how I see it: an imposing structure of view. And while I might be influenced toward leaps of different sorts, I am not interested in this particular leap. Catch me on the next round...

It is not exactly the definitions offered that I am opposed to (thought they seem suspect and I believe this cane be described), but rather the ethical choices proposed in relation to all this which I feel is simply incorrect. I've read your definitions of illumination, and I certainly understand them, and indeed have experienced such states to some degree. I am simply unmoved by them in that 'floating' context.

[Beingof1]

Beingof1:
Your series of questions leads to that state of awareness but one must make the leap into the infinite.

Gustav Bjornstrand:
Well as you see I am none-too-favorable to this viewstructure. And that is how I see it: an imposing structure of view. And while I might be influenced toward leaps of different sorts, I am not interested in this particular leap. Catch me on the next round...

It is unavoidable - the illusion is that one can hang onto something that is concrete as the infinite has no structure of view.

It clarifies awareness however in that you begin to act accordingly which you make a priority and I agree.

It is not exactly the definitions offered that I am opposed to (thought they seem suspect and I believe this cane be described), but rather the ethical choices proposed in relation to all this which I feel is simply incorrect. I've read your definitions of illumination, and I certainly understand them, and indeed have experienced such states to some degree. I am simply unmoved by them in that 'floating' context.

My explanation of enlightenment has nothing to do with sensation or floating. That was a method to induce clarity not the definition.

The explanation of illumination is clarity of awareness.
Some of the signs of it are to be void of envy, appreciation for all of life, agape/compassion (tho you might disagree with my methods), self honesty, self respect, humility, a master of forgiveness and balance in all things.

My question to you, what or who are you?
If the voice in your head is you, who or what is listening?

[Russell Parr]

Russell: You have, naturally, predicatably, and yet necessarily, avoided the momentum of all my assertions here.

That post was little more than accusations based on your misunderstandings. Instead of wasting both of our time disputing it point by point, I decided it would be more productive to just respond to the question at the end. I'll entertain you with a more thorough response this time.

It is inevitable and predicatable that you do this: it follows from your core predicates.

Core predicates? Not sure I've heard that one. Regardless, God is both the subject and the predicate. What we are as sentient beings is caught up somewhere in the mix.

by your own definitions you cannot value what you necessarily define as the mutable world.

It's not so much that I do not value the "mutable world" as it is that I simply place God above all else. I still do what needs to be done, eat when I need to, sleep when I need to, work as much as needed, etc. I don't take in personal pride in any of it though, and it seems this is what you have an issue with.

Thus this platform, this ethic, and the philosophy that supports it (it is not philosophy, but rather religious sentiment presented in philosophical terms and dressed up to 'sound serious'), is destructive to relationship of self-to-self and self-to-culture.

I take the bolded to mean "love of self" and "love of culture". You're right, I find these to be delusional and thus evil.

What I notice is that you have, by fiat of sorts, claimed to define God. I see this declaration as rather bizarre as it is a non-theistic sort of god that is posited, and therefor really a 'god'.

Why are you so opposed to a pantheistic interpretation of God? Why must God necessarily be something or someone separate from yourself?

You require no definition of God, god or 'god' to make your statements, and in fact you'd be far better off without any statement. It is totally confusing to the issue.

Someone is confused alright. Obviously I equate God to Nature, or the Infinite.

It's interesting to see you revisit this point over and over. It's like you have a mental block that shuts out any possibility of working with any definition of God that differs from yours.

And what is nearly incredible - and astoundingly arrogant to my ears - is such a declaration as you make about "human accomplishments".

The only human accomplishment that is noteworthy to me is Enlightenment. That you wish to place humans upon some special pedestal, above Nature as it seems, is the real tragedy. But alas, this is the way of the world. You are free to believe what you wish, but leave me out of it!

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

That post was little more than accusations based on your misunderstandings.

It was accusatory, of that there is no doubt. Yet it was based on an understanding (my opinion if you wish) of the consequences of the ideas that inform your 'core predicates'. We are by no means in 'absolute disagreement', and this is the peculiarity of my relationship to the QRS-tian enunciation generally: As I say it requires a corrective. I do not expect you to understand this - you could not and in a sense should not given the predicates you establish! - but I prefer to imagine that my view can subsume yours into it. I see you as a 'monk', a renunciant. But very young and not time-tested. I have said this to Pam numerous times (though she is not young yet is a reninciant).

But just as such a path must articulate, as you do, an 'exposition of the infinite', so it must also operate in the other direction: down into the contingent. My orientation - perhaps I could say my training - is essentially Greek and not Hindu or Buddhist (or whatever is yours which, as I say, I do not understand). I am by responsible decision, and by life-course, as well as by training, inclined to understand spiritual life as, essentially, service. If it is not service, it is not spiritual life. But in the 'polis' I would describe there surely is a place for the renunciant.