Impossible to know with accuracy

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

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

They are empty and meaningless ...
I talk, God speaks
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Pam Seeback »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:I have no power over the nature of the world. In this sense 'we have to work with it as it is'.
How can one 'work with it as it is' if one has no power over the nature of what it is 'working with?' You have declared yourself the Master Metaphysician - a Master with no power?
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Clearly we have ourselves to work with. We are that field.

PS: We require a master metaphysian to understand our present. Different from self-declaration as one.
I talk, God speaks
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Pam Seeback »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Clearly we have ourselves to work with. We are that field.

PS: We require a master metaphysian to understand our present. Different from self-declaration as one.
You threw your master metaphysician hat into the ring in this very thread:
Here is the essence: to locate the core premise that operates among so many of 'you' requires the aid of a 'master metaphysician' and since no master metaphysician is available one has to assume the role. And what that means is someone with the breadth and depth to be able to see, from some point above, what it is that 'you' are doing, and then, secondarily but no less importantly, why you do it. The third position is to become skilled in opposing it, but not in opposing you but only the endeavour; in laying bare its fallacious, ineffective postulates.
Since you see yourself as standing at that vantage point above giving you clear sight into what 'we' are doing and why we are doing it, then you will have no problem identifying the metaphysical nature of the field of which you speak that is 'ourselves' that we 'have to work with'.

Self-appointed master metaphysician at the top of the mountain, you should have no problem enlightening me as to:

1. The nature of the field of 'ourselves'

2. How we work with this field of 'ourselves'

3. Why we work with this field of 'ourselves'
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by jupiviv »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:PS: We require a master metaphysian to understand our present.
Yeah, and these dolts don't even think the present *exists*! Like in the newest season of Game of Thrones, war is coming. Quite apart from the actual front lines (if such a thing even means anything or can exist in modern warfare), the most important battle will be fought for the Foals of Men. Those are the pieces of the Rheingold which must return to the depths so that the world can end in fire and flood and then arise anew! The only hope for life *and* death (which grimy little Niblungs like Diebert and Russell want to replace with oblivion) is the brave and innocent fool, Alexfried. I, of course, am Alexfried's auntie and lover, Bruenniviv. Together, we shall bring about the downfall of QRShall!

Farewell, QRShall’s light-giving world!
Thy stately towers let fall in dust!
Farewell, glittering pomp of gods!
End in bliss, o eternal host!
Now rend, ye Norns, your rope of runes!
Dusk of gods in darkness arise!
Night of their downfall dawn in mist!
Now streams toward me Alexfried’s star:
he is forever, is for aye
my wealth and world, my one and all:

Light of loving, laughing death!
Light of loving, laughing death:
light of loving, laughing death!


(Actual last lines of the opera being referenced...the influence of Wagner in the poetic (not philosophical) aspect of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" is unmistakeable. Nietzsche was a better Wagnerian than Wagner himself.)
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Pam wrote:You threw your master metaphysician hat into the ring in this very thread:
  • GB: "Here is the essence: to locate the core premise that operates among so many of 'you' requires the aid of a 'master metaphysician' and since no master metaphysician is available one has to assume the role."
Since you see yourself as standing at that vantage point above giving you clear sight into what 'we' are doing and why we are doing it, then you will have no problem identifying the metaphysical nature of the field of which you speak that is 'ourselves' that we 'have to work with'.

Self-appointed master metaphysician at the top of the mountain, you should have no problem enlightening me as to:

1. The nature of the field of 'ourselves'

2. How we work with this field of 'ourselves'

3. Why we work with this field of 'ourselves'
Self-appointed metaphysician at the bottom of the sea!

To clarify: It was Basil Willey in 'Nineteenth Century Studies' who said we require recourse to a master metaphysician to understand how we are controlled and dominated by certain Views. Since I am not that 'master metaphysician' (it is an interesting question to ask: Who is? Who is capable? And what does that mean?) I am forced to assume the role, as it were: That means I see the need for that sort of work and I will struggle to carry it out, somehow.

I feel that I have a certain vantage point, yes, but then by definition so does everyone. We exist in our 'vantage-point'. I make the suggestion that you, me and the next fellow can benefit by coming to a stop, as it were, and analysing the predicates we function out of. It is simple advice but good advice.

I have no problem making statements and suggestions about 1, 2 and 3, and I say that the first order of focus and understanding must be 1) Our biological self, our persons, in the immediate realm, as well as awareness and responsibility to our lineage, our cultural heritage, and to focus on cooperation with and understanding of 'civilisation', and 2) seriousness in regards to our cultural and knowledge-inheritance which, as it happens, has links to everything about number 1 in a basic sense. Perhaps in the only sense worth talking about?

'The nature and field of ourselves' is a rather intricate question. It is, from you, more of a statement. So I suggest that you develop it. Then I'll understand better what you intend with it.

I have already written extensively about the areas of focus I value (and defend rationally).
I talk, God speaks
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Beingof1 »

movingalways wrote:No, because enlightening is for the giver as well as the receiver.
Wisdom
Russell Parr wrote:I find it highly ironic that you, jupiviv, who greatly admires K.Solway, are now comfortable with aligning yourself with Alex, who had been trashing Solway's work for around a decade now.
This is a problem and why this forum very largely remains deluded.

Us against them mentality.

It is not ultimate Truth that is discussed - its who is on the right side?
Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:(Since before time began.)

Kevin will soon invite me to golf with him.

Except I've been shooting pearls at you so consistently there's a dent in your forehead. How do you explain that?

They are empty and meaningless ...
LOL
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Pam Seeback »

Alex:
To clarify: It was Basil Willey in 'Nineteenth Century Studies' who said we require recourse to a master metaphysician to understand how we are controlled and dominated by certain Views.
If we don't know how we are controlled and dominated by certain views, how then can we 'recourse to a master metaphysician' who does? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?
Since I am not that 'master metaphysician' (it is an interesting question to ask: Who is? Who is capable? And what does that mean?) I am forced to assume the role, as it were: That means I see the need for that sort of work and I will struggle to carry it out, somehow.

You say you are not that master metaphysician but have assumed the role. Isn't that like saying I'm not really an MD, but I've assumed the role, so lie down and let me struggle to take your appendix out?
I feel that I have a certain vantage point, yes, but then by definition so does everyone. We exist in our 'vantage-point'. I make the suggestion that you, me and the next fellow can benefit by coming to a stop, as it were, and analysing the predicates we function out of. It is simple advice but good advice.
I agree. Which leaves the logical conclusion that the only predicate that is of value to everyone is the predicate that speaks of the subject in terms of 'being of all views' and of course, no such predicate exists. Houston, we have a problem. :-)
I have no problem making statements and suggestions about 1, 2 and 3, and I say that the first order of focus and understanding must be 1) Our biological self, our persons, in the immediate realm, as well as awareness and responsibility to our lineage, our cultural heritage, and to focus on cooperation with and understanding of 'civilisation',
Okay, our first order of focus. But this board is not about this first order of focus. There are thousands of boards on the internet focusing on biology and culture and lineage -- am I missing something?
and 2) seriousness in regards to our cultural and knowledge-inheritance which, as it happens, has links to everything about number 1 in a basic sense. Perhaps in the only sense worth talking about?
Can't have number 1, your first order, without zero, THE order. I understand you believe that number 1 is the only sense worth talking about, but again, this is not the case for most members of this board.
'The nature and field of ourselves' is a rather intricate question. It is, from you, more of a statement. So I suggest that you develop it. Then I'll understand better what you intend with it.

I already have, it is the subjective-relativist view, the view that causes suffering of having a view. I was hoping to hear your actual metaphysic of culture, of lineage, of the biological self, how it appears and its effects on the world-as-a-whole.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:Us against them mentality.

It is not ultimate Truth that is discussed - its who is on the right side?
Making clear distinctions, "separates the sheep from the goats", truth as a dividing sword all would witness a desire to be on side of "right" in a discussion. This would be a feature of most discussions beyond those about the weather. You have an opinion ("board is deluded" and so on) which turns the one you just called deluded into "them" as you put them on a "wrong" side (I hope you noticed). But where I agree with is the implication of group forming. Better to stand on ones own. For example I have no allies, I differ with everyone on important points but it does not have to mean lack of cooperation. It's not like I'm preaching a thing or state others do not have and need to learn. What needs to be done is unlearn, to reject whatever the particular nonsense is that came in between in the first place. To find the source of all you do, the good, bad and ugly. There is no other true purpose.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:Us against them mentality.

It is not ultimate Truth that is discussed - its who is on the right side?
Making clear distinctions, "separates the sheep from the goats", truth as a dividing sword all would witness a desire to be on side of "right" in a discussion. This would be a feature of most discussions beyond those about the weather. You have an opinion ("board is deluded" and so on) which turns the one you just called deluded into "them" as you put them on a "wrong" side (I hope you noticed). But where I agree with is the implication of group forming. Better to stand on ones own. For example I have no allies, I differ with everyone on important points but it does not have to mean lack of cooperation. It's not like I'm preaching a thing or state others do not have and need to learn. What needs to be done is unlearn, to reject whatever the particular nonsense is that came in between in the first place. To find the source of all you do, the good, bad and ugly. There is no other true purpose.
My point was, where do you draw the line?

If I agree with someone on 9 out of 10 points I declare "I am on your team."

If I agree with 3 out of 10 points I declare " You are my enemy and need an exorcism"?

I am the enemy of dishonesty and the 'side' I am on is truth. It does not matter if we agree or disagree. What really matters is we are clear about what we disagree and agree on.

Lies are crippling - but most everyone thinks "the end justifies the means" and it is a sickness so deep, it is a disease and the cause for - all delusion.

I will repeat - deception and lies are the one cause for all - no exceptions - delusion.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:My point was, where do you draw the line?

If I agree with someone on 9 out of 10 points I declare "I am on your team."

If I agree with 3 out of 10 points I declare " You are my enemy and need an exorcism"?
I don't know. Who did that declaration? Perhaps you're reading a bit too much into Russell referring to Jupiviv's "enemies" which he called up on "re-evaluating" in other words: wondering in how far they are really opponents at all in terms of what's being debated. Or at least reconsidering what one perceives to be their position. Or did I read something else than you did here?
I am the enemy of dishonesty and the 'side' I am on is truth. It does not matter if we agree or disagree. What really matters is we are clear about what we disagree and agree on.
Hmmm. There's your answer then. The moment you'd perceive dishonesty "at the other side" you'd have created an enemy, not?
I will repeat - deception and lies are the one cause for all - no exceptions - delusion.
It's also true that delusions (eg taking illusions as reality, allowing contradictions to stand, preventing them to fall) lead necessarily to deception and lie. This is because it takes effort to keep lies intact. Or making them appear intact. It needs maintaining. The truth however doesn't need anything at all.

To me the words end up being interchangeable: delusion, ignorance, lie and deception. Since I don't believe in any inherent self, I often go with "ignorance".
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

A 'master metaphysician', as it was intended by Basil Willey, refers to a person with an earned viewpoint about the shift in perspectives from the Mediaeval to the Modern perspective (and we are very much still in this). His idea is that what we assume to be 'right - what feels right - is the indicator of operating from a specific metaphysical perspective. I can direct you to his work so you can see what he means.

As I meant it, or as I am using the idea, I notice that *here* on GF many of the hardcore neo-Buddhists have adopted a Viewstructure which, at least in some instances, derives from discipleship to Kevin Solway. A metaphysical vision is defined and this vision is purveyed to the neophyte. Russell is a perfect example of this. I suggest that the metaphysic thus represented, with its corresponding ethical edicts, can be looked into, examined, picked apart, thought about, challenged, as well as assented to (as one is inclined).

By saying this, and by undertaking it, I am 'assuming the role of metaphysician'.

As to the doctor analogy: I may not be a doctor but I can access a Doctor and refer to his medical study. In a medical emergency I could open up his book and find a recommendation that might (to push on your metaphor) save a life.

But I do appreciate where you go with this: Every man must be his own 'doctor', or he must find one and submit to him. If we do not know what ails us we likely will have trouble finding the right specialist. And the advice given by various specialists may be imprecise, may not really be a cure, and may make us worse not better.

If I refer to a 'first order of focus' and define it as primary, then it becomes necessary to defend that view. This is what I do. You ask 'Am I missing something?' I would say yes.

I see ideas as functioning in a continuum, and as I have said I notice 'nihilism' in the philosophical and spiritual view put forward by some here. I am working to counter this nihilism and to seek 'remedies'. As an example (though not immediately relevant to this point in the conversation) I have been reading Lothrop Stoddard who defines a notion of 'revolt against civilization'. I have clearly noticed such a trend in both Seeker and Russell, and I also see something quite similar functioning in Diebert (though he is super-tricky and quite slippery).

I use this forum as a learning and research opportunity.

Image

In my developing view, I think we have to incorporate new understanding of things into old understandings of things. It is an involved conversation but I would not place it outside of the question and issue of 'spirituality' or illumination.
I talk, God speaks
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:My point was, where do you draw the line?

If I agree with someone on 9 out of 10 points I declare "I am on your team."

If I agree with 3 out of 10 points I declare " You are my enemy and need an exorcism"?
Diebert:
I don't know. Who did that declaration? Perhaps you're reading a bit too much into Russell referring to Jupiviv's "enemies" which he called up on "re-evaluating" in other words: wondering in how far they are really opponents at all in terms of what's being debated. Or at least reconsidering what one perceives to be their position. Or did I read something else than you did here?

The above was a metaphor Diebert.

I do not think I read into Russell's statement at all. He stated it categorically. He demanded a choosing of sides - like a cult of personality. THAT IS THE TRUTH.

Being:
I am the enemy of dishonesty and the 'side' I am on is truth. It does not matter if we agree or disagree. What really matters is we are clear about what we disagree and agree on.

Diebert:
Hmmm. There's your answer then. The moment you'd perceive dishonesty "at the other side" you'd have created an enemy, not?
The difference - and it is as wide as the universe is - I attack ideas rather than the person.

The exception is, when there is dishonesty I unleash on the persons ego. I have no mercy on a deceiving ego.
Being:
I will repeat - deception and lies are the one cause for all - no exceptions - delusion.

Diebert:
It's also true that delusions (eg taking illusions as reality, allowing contradictions to stand, preventing them to fall) lead necessarily to deception and lie. This is because it takes effort to keep lies intact. Or making them appear intact. It needs maintaining. The truth however doesn't need anything at all.

To me the words end up being interchangeable: delusion, ignorance, lie and deception. Since I don't believe in any inherent self, I often go with "ignorance".
The difference is you think getting the facts wrong or the wrong concept is delusion, ignorance etc.

I know that is not the case at all.

I am talking about insanity vs sanity.

The purpose of enlightenment is sanity.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:I do not think I read into Russell's statement at all. He stated it categorically. He demanded a choosing of sides - like a cult of personality. THAT IS THE TRUTH.
You have a very particular way of reading other people's sentences. And claim it as some capital truth. It's not a sign of what I'd call a healthy mind.
Hmmm. There's your answer then. The moment you'd perceive dishonesty "at the other side" you'd have created an enemy, not?
The difference - and it is as wide as the universe is - I attack ideas rather than the person.

The exception is, when there is dishonesty I unleash on the persons ego. I have no mercy on a deceiving ego.
Yeah, that's what I just said. So what was your problem with Russell's remark on enemies again? Jeesh!

It's not that I disagree with you Ken. In the gray past we had disagreement. At the moment I just find your mind severely disorganized.
The purpose of enlightenment is sanity.
And what do you think is the purpose of sanity?
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert:
You have a very particular way of reading other people's sentences. And claim it as some capital truth. It's not a sign of what I'd call a healthy mind.
And I have known you to be oblivious to things you do not like.

Russell said:
I find it highly ironic that you, jupiviv, who greatly admires K.Solway, are now comfortable with aligning yourself with Alex, who had been trashing Solway's work for around a decade now.
Any rational thinking human being would agree Russell is without a doubt, with no uncertainty, was all for taking a 'side'.

He even gave the cult of personality 'sides'.

Its like the burning bush from on high "Choose ye this day whom ye shall align thyself with K. Solway or Alex. For thus I say unto thee one is good and the other evil and in need of exorcism."

But its me again Mr. Oblivious?
It's not that I disagree with you Ken. In the gray past we had disagreement. At the moment I just find your mind severely disorganized.
In the thread on consciousness I am hurried at times but the lions share has been precise.

It is emotion you are seeing and I am attempting the seeming impossible and it is not related to this board and I will not discuss it.

But yes, I am more emotional than I have been in years. I think that is what you are seeing.
And what do you think is the purpose of sanity?
The highest quality of life rather than crisis survival mode.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:It is emotion you are seeing and I am attempting the seeming impossible and it is not related to this board and I will not discuss it.

But yes, I am more emotional than I have been in years. I think that is what you are seeing.
Fair enough. Nowadays I'm already happy when I sense self-reflection.
And what do you think is the purpose of sanity?
The highest quality of life rather than crisis survival mode.
Could you give some indication on what you consider quality here? Experiencing with a certain intensity or fulfilment? Ease?
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:It is emotion you are seeing and I am attempting the seeming impossible and it is not related to this board and I will not discuss it.

But yes, I am more emotional than I have been in years. I think that is what you are seeing.
Fair enough. Nowadays I'm already happy when I sense self-reflection.
And what do you think is the purpose of sanity?
The highest quality of life rather than crisis survival mode.
Could you give some indication on what you consider quality here? Experiencing with a certain intensity or fulfilment? Ease?
The clarity of ones awareness is directly proportional to ones commitment to truth. In this there can be no compromise as it leads to a diffusion of perceptual skills and results in a state of atrophy and insanity.

To be OK with simple being as opposed to angst.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Russell Parr »

Beingof1 wrote:The clarity of ones awareness is directly proportional to ones commitment to truth. In this there can be no compromise as it leads to a diffusion of perceptual skills and results in a state of atrophy and insanity.
Great point. In all honesty, though, I don't see a lot of coherency in your posts lately. Perhaps dealing with stress from your other project(s), or in dealing with perceived stubbornness from some of us? Whatever it may be, maybe it would be a good idea for you to take a step back from the forum to some degree?
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Beingof1 »

Cause and effect made me do this
Last edited by Beingof1 on Sat May 07, 2016 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:I will tell you a small bit since you and Diebert seem genuinely concerned.

I have a large circle of friends and we have all been on the spiritual/philosophical journey together for over 40 years. Several theologians (some of the foremost in the USA), scientists, mathematicians, Buddhist monk, Christian ministers and mystics. Most of us went to high school together and have stayed a close nit group and have all kept each other accountable for staying on the path. I was considered the Buddha, illuminated one by about 30 people in this group. This is not ego, I am explaining the pain.

I was recently betrayed by many I have known most of my life that were like family in the most brutal and deceptive manner one could imagine. I have been in a literal war with certain groups of the elite ruling class for over 20 years - chronic stress and I cannot say to much but it has been deadly serious. The conflict that began over 20 years ago was about me shedding to much light to the masses and I am an anomaly to them for many different reasons. I was fine with life and death on the line for truth and had become accustomed to it but one of my former 'brothers' of the spiritual way (who had sworn an oath to protect me) sold out and was swallowed by the dark side. He dragged several others with him in the circle and suddenly my most trusted inner circle had become a dangerous game of life and death.

Believe it or not, it is not my life that matters but the sacred trust is shattered and it effected me like nothing has ever. I am used to the path of truth being much more real than most can imagine.

As far as my thoughts in the discussions go, except for a couple of hurried posts they are intact with logic.
Thanks for that explanation Ken. But did you ever ask the question if perhaps it was indeed "ego" and "your life" which were at stake here? That you have identified with that role too much, your role as group Yoda battling a supposed dark enemy? What if there were delusional elements mixed with some truth? What if some of it is now falling away? As sooner or later everything will, physically, mentally, bit by bit or all at once.

Close nit groups have this problem, always and everywhere, including this forum of course, of fortification, of mutual blind spots, of reinforcing certain tendencies with each other without any possibility of a critical, outside perspective coming in. Someone like Gustav has been warning for this endlessly at this forum although in his case I think he never realized who his prime target audience really was, ultimately.

Anyway, I don't want to upset you further while you're in the process of some kind of disintegration. Your sagely warrior path I do respect although I probably do not agree with the way you crafted out an enemy. Betrayal however is a fundamental occurrence in this world. Some have linked this with mythical themes like Jesus/Judas or Able/Cain. It's linked to death, the final "betrayal" of life to its believers. But also ego death and therefore again: life.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert:
Thanks for that explanation Ken. But did you ever ask the question if perhaps it was indeed "ego" and "your life" which were at stake here? That you have identified with that role too much, your role as group Yoda battling a supposed dark enemy? What if there were delusional elements mixed with some truth?
I should have known better you pompous ass.

Oh no Diebert - in 20 years no one had the good sense to ever question whether this was really going on or delusion and out of dozens that were directly involved - not one - had asked the questions you did.

You are thick as a brick.

This is why I have rarely spoke about my life. Your itty bitty narrow world could never except what actually goes on in the grown up world.

You mean to tell me, you think you are the only one that could possibly question the perception of what was really going on in over 20 years?
What if some of it is now falling away? As sooner or later everything will, physically, mentally, bit by bit or all at once.
It just has to be delusion on my part - it could not be just the way I told it.

The truth is - you are the one that is delusional - full - up to your neck, you are drowning in it. Anything that conflicts with your tidy neat little world - you reject as delusion - that is delusion.

You reject reality in favour of your compartmentalized world view - delusion. Instead of allowing reality to shape your views - its the other way around with you. You superimpose your narrow world view over reality - more delusion.
Close nit groups have this problem, always and everywhere, including this forum of course, of fortification, of mutual blind spots, of reinforcing certain tendencies with each other without any possibility of a critical, outside perspective coming in. Someone like Gustav has been warning for this endlessly at this forum although in his case I think he never realized who his prime target audience really was, ultimately.
But Diebert never has this problem does he?

Nope - its always someone else. The ones that are not delusional are the ones that agree with everything Diebert says - they are never delusional.

The only ones that are delusional are the ones that do not agree with Diebert - all of Dieberts facts and the way Diebert sees things. If you agree with Dieberts philosophy, you are clearly enlightened - if you disagree with Diebert, you are Delusional. It has nothing to do with actual perception, truth or logic - its all about agreeing with Diebert.

Therefore the very definition of delusion is disagreeing with Diebert. Look it up - its right there in the enlightenment dictionary.
Anyway, I don't want to upset you further while you're in the process of some kind of disintegration. Your sagely warrior path I do respect although I probably do not agree with the way you crafted out an enemy. Betrayal however is a fundamental occurrence in this world. Some have linked this with mythical themes like Jesus/Judas or Able/Cain. It's linked to death, the final "betrayal" of life to its believers. But also ego death and therefore again: life.
You can shove your dishonest tripe.

I am deleting my post for the very first time as I have never deleted a post before.

I should have known - you are not mature enough to talk to about the real world because God forbid something happen that does not fit into your brain.

Alex is right - this forum is not about truth and the path to illumination - its a mutual group therapy for wanting validation. I will leave you to it. You are not mature enough to talk to about real life.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »


Good luck with letting go, Ken.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Pam Seeback »

Grief settles thick in the throat and lungs:
thousands of sorrows being suffered, clouds of cruelty,
all somehow from love.

Wail and be thirsty for your own blood.
Climb to the execution place. It is time.

The Nile flows red. The Nile flows pure.
Dry thorns and aloe woods are the same,
until fire touches.

A warrior and a mean coward stand here similar,
until arrows rain.

Warriors love battle. A subtle lion with strategy
gets the prey to run toward him saying, Kill me again.

Dead eyes look into living eyes.
Do not try to figure this out.

Love's work looks absurd,
but trying to find a meaning will hide it more.
Silence.

*

You have fallen into mouths.
People are chewing you.
You are delicious well-baked bread.

~ Rumi
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Diebert wrote:Close nit groups have this problem, always and everywhere, including this forum of course, of fortification, of mutual blind spots, of reinforcing certain tendencies with each other without any possibility of a critical, outside perspective coming in. Someone like Gustav has been warning for this endlessly at this forum although in his case I think he never realized who his prime target audience really was, ultimately.
For the record: It should be 'knit' and not 'nit'. As in 'to knit': "Old English cnyttan, of West Germanic origin; related to German dialect knütten, also to knot. The original sense was ‘tie in or with a knot’, hence ‘join, unite’ (sense 2 of the verb); an obsolete Middle English sense ‘knot string to make a net’ gave rise to sense 1 of the verb."

'Someone like Gustav', but not quite Gustav himself, or perhaps an even more solid version of Gustav? is said to have many many different opinions about knitting and knotting and grouping. Yet his first order of observation is simply to point out that the one 'like Diebert', or most like Diebert, or the one acting here as Diebert, indicates a man working hard on many different levels to establish a managed space. 'Managed intellectual space' would therefor be the topic the one like Gustav would focus on, and he would say a few things about that. Or he would open a conversation on the topic by asking What goes on here? What has been happening? And what are its ends? One like Gustav and yet not quite identical to him would talk about 'power' in forum dynamics and he would note that power-dynamics can be said to operate against open discovery or open-ended philosophical inquiry. He would also ask Is philosophical discovery actually desired? Was it ever? He would then mention - just mention - that as with the last display enacted by the one similar to Diebert, and yet either not quite Diebert or perhaps Diebert 1.5, one notices quite strongly the Psychological Player, the Knot Tier (tyer?), and then he might call forth again the image of Spider Web and Spider as knotty tier of knots, and a roping-off of a psychic-intellectual-psychological area, a domain, a 'little fiefdom', a Game Board where the Croupier always seems to take in the Winnings ... The House always wins, and the Spider works both in overstructure and understructure to see that this happens. Spider rushes up, Spider rushes down, Spider mends a break here, then there. Spider pervades ...

At the end of the day, and if I were to make some Ultimate Statement, I would be forced to mention that 'the board' as Pam describes it, is one under the rulership of a religiously-minded group of persons, and thus the conversation is constrained by the set of aprioris that define that religious approach. I was doing a little research into George Sorel and came across this:
  • [Sorel] dismissed science as "a system of idealised entities: atoms, electric charges, mass, energy and the like – fictions compounded out of observed uniformities ... deliberately adapted to mathematical treatment that enable men to identify some of the furniture of the universe, and to predict and ... control parts of it." He regarded science more as "an achievement of the creative imagination, not an accurate reproduction of the structure of reality, not a map, still less a picture, of what there was. Outside of this set of formulas, of imaginary entities and mathematical relationships in terms of which the system was constructed, there was ‘natural’ nature – the real thing…" He regarded such a [scientistic] view as "an odious insult to human dignity, a mockery of the proper ends of men", and ultimately constructed by "fanatical pedants", out of "abstractions into which men escape to avoid facing the chaos of reality."
Now, 'Gustav' or the one who is here appearing in Gustav's garb, merely wishes to suggest that The System which seems to be presented by some who seem to post here on these pages seems to look like 'a system of idealized entity' ... fictions compounded out of conceptualized uniformities and which are turned into a sort of forum-furnishing. Yet this has very little to do with 'reality' but more to a spidery management of a specific mental space, and one whose webbish walls are closing in with each passing week. The first severe control episode only leads to another and another and another. It is simply a 'curious observation', more of a question really, about how the 'creative imagination' functions, or perhap more precisely to what a sterile and controlled imagination will tend when spinning its knots.

Pam's Rumi poem now becomes even more terrible than it first seemed.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Impossible to know with accuracy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:
Diebert wrote:Close nit groups have this problem, always and everywhere, including this forum of course, of fortification, of mutual blind spots, of reinforcing certain tendencies with each other without any possibility of a critical, outside perspective coming in. Someone like Gustav has been warning for this endlessly at this forum although in his case I think he never realized who his prime target audience really was, ultimately.
For the record: It should be 'knit' and not 'nit'.
Nice try but I exactly quoted your sickly paranoid friend's phrasing. It was to be expected your started to knit pick at that. The word nit is really fitting.
Locked