Re: Impossible to know with accuracy
Posted: Thu May 05, 2016 1:20 am
They are empty and meaningless ...
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
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?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'.
You threw your master metaphysician hat into the ring in this very thread: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.
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'.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.
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!Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:PS: We require a master metaphysian to understand our present.
Self-appointed metaphysician at the bottom of the sea!Pam wrote:You threw your master metaphysician hat into the ring in this very thread:
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'.
- 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."
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'
Wisdommovingalways wrote:No, because enlightening is for the giver as well as the receiver.
This is a problem and why this forum very largely remains deluded.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.
LOLGustav 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 ...
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?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 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 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.
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?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',
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.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.
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 wrote:Us against them mentality.
It is not ultimate Truth that is discussed - its who is on the right side?
My point was, where do you draw the line?Diebert van Rhijn wrote: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 wrote:Us against them mentality.
It is not ultimate Truth that is discussed - its who is on the right side?
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?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"?
Hmmm. There's your answer then. The moment you'd perceive dishonesty "at the other side" you'd have created an enemy, not?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.
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.I will repeat - deception and lies are the one cause for all - no exceptions - delusion.
Diebert: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"?
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 difference - and it is as wide as the universe is - I attack ideas rather than the person.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 is you think getting the facts wrong or the wrong concept is delusion, ignorance etc.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".
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.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.
Yeah, that's what I just said. So what was your problem with Russell's remark on enemies again? Jeesh!The difference - and it is as wide as the universe is - I attack ideas rather than the person.Hmmm. There's your answer then. The moment you'd perceive dishonesty "at the other side" you'd have created an enemy, not?
The exception is, when there is dishonesty I unleash on the persons ego. I have no mercy on a deceiving ego.
And what do you think is the purpose of sanity?The purpose of enlightenment is sanity.
And I have known you to be oblivious to things you do not like.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.
Any rational thinking human being would agree Russell is without a doubt, with no uncertainty, was all for taking a 'side'.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.
In the thread on consciousness I am hurried at times but the lions share has been precise.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 highest quality of life rather than crisis survival mode.And what do you think is the purpose of sanity?
Fair enough. Nowadays I'm already happy when I sense self-reflection.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.
Could you give some indication on what you consider quality here? Experiencing with a certain intensity or fulfilment? Ease?The highest quality of life rather than crisis survival mode.And what do you think is the purpose of sanity?
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.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Fair enough. Nowadays I'm already happy when I sense self-reflection.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.
Could you give some indication on what you consider quality here? Experiencing with a certain intensity or fulfilment? Ease?The highest quality of life rather than crisis survival mode.And what do you think is the purpose of sanity?
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 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.
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.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.
I should have known better you pompous ass.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?
It just has to be delusion on my part - it could not be just the way I told it.What if some of it is now falling away? As sooner or later everything will, physically, mentally, bit by bit or all at once.
But Diebert never has this problem does he?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.
You can shove your dishonest tripe.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.
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."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.
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.Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:For the record: It should be 'knit' and not 'nit'.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.