What I've learned thus far

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

What I've learned thus far

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:44 am

What I've learned thus far is that no one can say anything about what is permanent of existence. After all, anything said about permanence is made of thought and thought, like the leaves on a tree, lasts no longer than its hidden reason or its sight-and-sound season.

What I've also learned thus far is that all that can be reflected upon truthfully is the impermanence of things. A few of my reflections:

1. That wishing things to be permanent or believing what is impermanent is permanent causes ignorance, grief and suffering.

2. That reflecting on things loved and known without wishing them to be permanent causes wisdom, happiness and peace of mind. In a nutshell, moments of reflection are the joy-attachments of now.

"The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough." - Rabindranath Tagore

"Nothing in the world is permanent, and we're foolish when we ask anything to last, but surely we're more foolish not to take delight in it while we have it." - W. Somerset Maugham

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:18 am

What you've learned so far is as far a woman usually goes, because of her feminine way of looking at things. That means, the relative as absolute: things being relative to you are found to be not permanent to you. And that's as wise as it gets. But it's not what at stake really, to conceive of that one first has to become "Man" in the larger sense. A notion you have opposed at times, since it must feel alien to you. Understanding can not be demanded but it can be explained so it can be rejected according to ones own nature. It grows that way as it cannot be opposed.

There's no problem at all with "wishing things to be permanent" or trying to establish or chasing the idea of it. Fundamentally it's how our minds are geared, it's how things are invented and built. That's why we're living technically in a "man's world", one of his making, one of his idealizing, of chasing some immortality, some objectivity, some absolute outside of himself. Crafting it, calling, daring it into existence.

A man, unlike the homosexual musing of a Maugham, is all about "asking anything to last" and surely not aiming to "take delight".

A man, fulfilling his journey on idealizing and chasing some immortality, some perfection, including his vision of his "woman" might on one good day realize his own emptiness while revelling in the absoluteness of nature. But what always will remain alien to him is getting caught into the absolute as some inner truth with a fleeting world as the relative all spinning around her. He's not capable of such notion, only in the abstract.
After all, anything said about permanence is made of thought and thought, like the leaves on a tree, lasts no longer than its hidden reason or its sight-and-sound season.
Some thoughts are more like the roots of trees, connected out of sight, spanning the centuries. A man, trying to last, following his nature, will dig his roots as deep as he can. It's not even thought any more. The thoughts stretch out, beyond senses, beyond his intuitions even. They arise out of nature itself, undisturbed, unhindered like the whisper of the leaves, always in motion, hardly audible and deceiving the ignorant on where all the juice comes from.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:09 pm

Diebert: What you've learned so far is as far a woman usually goes, because of her feminine way of looking at things.
This dusty old cop out? I suggest it is you who has failed to see my masculine in my feminine.
That means, the relative as absolute: things being relative to you are found to be not permanent to you. And that's as wise as it gets. But it's not what at stake really, to conceive of that one first has to become "Man" in the larger sense. A notion you have opposed at times, since it must feel alien to you.
How is knowledge of impermanence a failure to become "Man" in the larger sense?
Understanding can not be demanded but it can be explained so it can be rejected according to ones own nature. It grows that way as it cannot be opposed.
Sounds reasonable to me.
There's no problem at all with "wishing things to be permanent" or trying to establish or chasing the idea of it.
If you truly believe things are permanent rather than understanding you are chasing or trying to establish (key word here is 'trying') the idea of permanence, then there indeed is a problem, the problem of delusion.
Fundamentally it's how our minds are geared, it's how things are invented and built. That's why we're living technically in a "man's world", one of his making, one of his idealizing, of chasing some immortality, some objectivity, some absolute outside of himself. Crafting it, calling, daring it into existence.
Crafting 'it', daring 'it' into an objective or absolute existence does not make it objective or absolute. Again there is a difference between realizing things are not actually permanent and believing they are. It sounds to me is if you are promoting magical thinking.

Perhaps it is true that our minds are fundamentally geared toward seeking for the absolute in the relative, but that does not mean we have to remain fundamentalists. :-)
A man, unlike the homosexual musing of a Maugham, is all about "asking anything to last" and surely not aiming to "take delight".
A wise man does not aim to take delight, delight takes him.

In the quote by Maugham, I do not interpret that he is saying that delighting in things is the only way to think, just that to deny delighting in things is foolish. It is my experience that the stalwart "man of the absolute" is attempting to do this very thing, as if enjoying the dance of impermanence is an evil or sinful thing. In using your feminine vs. masculine reference, why can't Man be both? When causing things 'that last' is on his mind, Man causes thing 'that last'. When causing things 'that last' is not on his mind, delighting in the impermanence of things is a possible option.
A man, fulfilling his journey on idealizing and chasing some immortality, some perfection, including his vision of his "woman" might on one good day realize his own emptiness while revelling in the absoluteness of nature. But what always will remain alien to him is getting caught into the absolute as some inner truth with a fleeting world as the relative all spinning around her. He's not capable of such notion, only in the abstract.
"Spinning around?" "Fleeting?" Holy preconceived notions Batman! Neither of these mental states pertain to the meaning of my original post. What I was going for is to express that to have knowledge of impermanence is to stand (psychologically) still in impermanence even though you know things are movingalways. :-)
Some thoughts are more like the roots of trees, connected out of sight, spanning the centuries.
'Spanning the centuries' does not an objective, absolute thought reality make. A solid brick house of reoccurring wisdom, yes, but that is not the same thing as creating an actual immortality/permanence of thought.
A man, trying to last, following his nature, will dig his roots as deep as he can. It's not even thought any more. The thoughts stretch out, beyond senses, beyond his intuitions even. They arise out of nature itself, undisturbed, unhindered like the whisper of the leaves, always in motion, hardly audible and deceiving the ignorant on where all the juice comes from.
Your man that is 'trying to last' sounds very similar to my man (or woman) who knows things are impermanent but speaks them and acts on them as if they are not.

Good grief man, are you suggesting that the man pursuing the relative as if it is the absolute is doing so 24/7? Surely during his day he takes a break or two to experience things as they truly are? In my scenario, Man meets Woman, they are One.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:43 pm

It occurred to me that what we have in common is the idea and experience of stillness, of being undisturbed and certain in our respective ideas of what it means to be wise. As unmoving as you appear to be on your vision of Man being on a journey of becoming absolute (things), I am as unmoving on my vision of Man being on a journey of discovering what is absolutely true of things and standing on this truth, that is, that while things appear to have boundaries suggesting permanence, ultimately they do not. And that to be wise means knowing both things about things and living of this knowledge.

If I have misrepresented your vision for Man, please set me straight.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:26 am

movingalways wrote:How is knowledge of impermanence a failure to become "Man" in the larger sense?
Knowing things are impermanent only solidifies a new category of "fleeting' items. The failure lies in understanding desire is fundamental to the creation of anything, even for the tiniest of moments and the shortest of duration. Your desire or the desire of others before or next to you. You can become subject (desiring) or object (desired) but in any case the thing is born. "Ever lasting" in its own moment. That's why impermanence as feature of things counters the very act of man: to cast his desire of permanency. Which in the highest form will lead to wisdom of the absolute.
Crafting 'it', daring 'it' into an objective or absolute existence does not make it objective or absolute. Again there is a difference between realizing things are not actually permanent and believing they are. It sounds to me is if you are promoting magical thinking.
You are still thinking in terms of permanent things (false) versus impermanent things (true). But that's not going to the fundamentals. To have a thing at all, desire has already been applied, as well permanency. To have a thing, it comes natural to desire it (or fear it) depending on how much a "thing" it is to you. It cannot be avoided since the nature of the thing is desire in the first place and not just a set of unknown causes. To then in such situation add that it's not really permanent is only masking the issue. There's no substantial difference between a fleeing and a constant thing. From your relative short existence the distinction would be immaterial and useless to make in any practical situation. Knowing the sun is not going too last forever is immaterial. If it somehow would, it wouldn't change you.
Perhaps it is true that our minds are fundamentally geared toward seeking for the absolute in the relative, but that does not mean we have to remain fundamentalists. :-)
You just want to have things while eating them too ;)
In the quote by Maugham, I do not interpret that he is saying that delighting in things is the only way to think, just that to deny delighting in things is foolish. It is my experience that the stalwart "man of the absolute" is attempting to do this very thing, as if enjoying the dance of impermanence is an evil or sinful thing. In using your feminine vs. masculine reference, why can't Man be both? When causing things 'that last' is on his mind, Man causes thing 'that last'. When causing things 'that last' is not on his mind, delighting in the impermanence of things is a possible option.
The wise man can also be "taken by not-taking delight"! But delight is not the issue here but the ignorance of having things in the first place, fleeting or not. Maugham is still playing with things, fleeting or impermanent as they might appear to him. Generally people suffer when things are taken away or dissolve unless emptiness is seen as fulfilment.
What I was going for is to express that to have knowledge of impermanence is to stand (psychologically) still in impermanence even though you know things are movingalways. :-)
Yes, that illusion to know a thing or two....
Good grief man, are you suggesting that the man pursuing the relative as if it is the absolute is doing so 24/7? Surely during his day he takes a break or two to experience things as they truly are? In my scenario, Man meets Woman, they are One.
Of course the female would suggest unification here. The man stands awkardly apart, otherwise, what would be masculine about him? To be able to create some thought, some thing, some desire. It's where he "exists", where he's at. But Man and Woman will never meet and not even in the mind where only what we imagine to be the opposite joins. Yet it would just destroy both and chaos and confusion (not emptiness) would be the result. Of course, destruction can be desired too.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:50 am

movingalways wrote:
How is knowledge of impermanence a failure to become "Man" in the larger sense?
Knowing things are impermanent only solidifies a new category of "fleeting' items.
By using the word 'knowing', you appear to be acknowledging that things are indeed impermanent. Whatever category the truth of impermanence solidifies is a definition applied by the individual. Where you see 'fleeting' I see 'for a time.'
The failure lies in understanding desire is fundamental to the creation of anything, even for the tiniest of moments and the shortest of duration. Your desire or the desire of others before or next to you. You can become subject (desiring) or object (desired) but in any case the thing is born.
How am I denying desiring by acknowledging the truth of impermanence? For example, desiring to build the Taj Mahal or or paint a picture does not change the truth that ultimately, both things are dependently originated and impermanent.
"Ever lasting" in its own moment.
Nice poetry, but a moment is not ever-lasting.
That's why impermanence as feature of things counters the very act of man: to cast his desire of permanency. Which in the highest form will lead to wisdom of the absolute.
Again, man's desire of permanency does not permanency make so no matter how hard he tries to cast a thing in a mold that never breaks, his desire will not keep it from breaking. I do not see how ignoring the truth that things do not last forever leads to wisdom of any kind.

I don't know how you conceptualize permanency, but when I conceptualize permanency, I conceptualize stagnation, fixedness - no change of experience. For example, if cat is permanent and one desired cat, cat would appear and never leave. There would be no room for dog, tree, rock, underwear or building the Pyramids, just CAT, only CAT.
Quote:
Crafting 'it', daring 'it' into an objective or absolute existence does not make it objective or absolute. Again there is a difference between realizing things are not actually permanent and believing they are. It sounds to me is if you are promoting magical thinking.
You are still thinking in terms of permanent things (false) versus impermanent things (true). But that's not going to the fundamentals.
No, you think I am thinking in terms of permanent things (false) versus impermanent things (true). Instead I'm thinking in terms of permanent things (ignorance) and impermanent things (wisdom).
To have a thing at all, desire has already been applied, as well permanency.

This is where I lose you. I absolutely do not need to apply permanency to a thing in order to desire it or love it (enjoy it).
To have a thing, it comes natural to desire it (or fear it) depending on how much a "thing" it is to you. It cannot be avoided since the nature of the thing is desire in the first place and not just a set of unknown causes. To then in such situation add that it's not really permanent is only masking the issue. There's no substantial difference between a fleeing and a constant thing. From your relative short existence the distinction would be immaterial and useless to make in any practical situation. Knowing the sun is not going too last forever is immaterial. If it somehow would, it wouldn't change you.
There you go speaking for me again. Knowing the sun is not going to last forever has changed me and not only a little bit, but drastically. Knowing things are not permanent allows desire without clinging and fear that can be transcended so logic can kick in. I suppose it could be said that the truth of impermanence is the permanent 'object' being sought.

Even if it is true that the nature of a thing is desire (I can see that vision), that does not change the truth that the desired thing is not permanent.
Quote:
Perhaps it is true that our minds are fundamentally geared toward seeking for the absolute in the relative, but that does not mean we have to remain fundamentalists. :-)
You just want to have things while eating them too ;)
Nope, tasting is fine :-)
The wise man can also be "taken by not-taking delight"! But delight is not the issue here but the ignorance of having things in the first place, fleeting or not. Maugham is still playing with things, fleeting or impermanent as they might appear to him. Generally people suffer when things are taken away or dissolve unless emptiness is seen as fulfilment.
We agree on your last statement. But I don't believe we agree on its mechanics. For me, people suffer when things are taken away because they desire them to be permanent and suffer when this desire cannot be fulfilled. I see no contradiction between emptiness as fulfillment and knowledge of impermanence.
Quote:
What I was going for is to express that to have knowledge of impermanence is to stand (psychologically) still in impermanence even though you know things are movingalways. :-)
Yes, that illusion to know a thing or two....
Not an illusion, and it is to know everything (of its moment).
Quote:
Good grief man, are you suggesting that the man pursuing the relative as if it is the absolute is doing so 24/7? Surely during his day he takes a break or two to experience things as they truly are? In my scenario, Man meets Woman, they are One.
Of course the female would suggest unification here. The man stands apart, otherwise, what would be man about him? To be able to create some thought, some thing, some desire. It's where he "exists", where he's at. Man and Woman will never meet and not even in the mind where such "forces" are imagined to unite. It would just destroy both and chaos and confusion (not emptiness) would be the result. Of course, destruction can be desired too.
As I see it, my vision of creating things (Man) and enjoying the process (Woman) is the more complete and honest vision. Surely Man is not desiring things without reason, and is not the most obvious reasons, enjoyment of the thing?

'Meeting' was meant to be a metaphor, not an actuality. A man or woman errs when they look outside for completion, everything is 'already' here. 'Man' and 'Woman' are not "forces", they are metaphors for principles of creating.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:11 am

Diebert,I suggest that whether viewed as permanent or impermanent, thought-desire, in concert with thought-desire-reflection is what we are.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:30 pm

movingalways wrote:Diebert,I suggest that whether viewed as permanent or impermanent, thought-desire, in concert with thought-desire-reflection is what we are.
Anything what "is" or appears to be can be traced to a triangle like "sense-desire-reflection".

The reason I used the word "desire" is to remain compatible with a known Buddhist notion which seems to me good enough but is also often misunderstood. Desire in terms of attraction, underlying chase and greed - some "dance around the cow" - would only be the superficial version. Rarely is it applied to the underlying projection of ultimate ideals or in simplest terms: "craving for existence". And for that it doesn't matter if anything exists in the moment, for ages or even for eternity. The "moment" is here already a version of eternity in a nutshell. The "now" as another instantiation of forever even when we all say we know it's gone and cannot be held or continued despite all attempts at repetition: to string moments together to enable some reappearance. However it was the moment itself, the event, the thing, which was already illusionary in the first place. Witnessing contemporary things drift by or to desire a repeat or desire to stop: it's all still based on the same ignorance that whatever one thought to have in the "present": some form of existence or experience thereof. Causality shows one cannot know what is being experienced and certainly the "experiencer" will fall into causal pieces spread all over. This is why the desired transformation could be called "calamity" or the end of the world. And it's not a metaphor.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:49 am

Diebert: The reason I used the word "desire" is to remain compatible with a known Buddhist notion which seems to me good enough but is also often misunderstood. Desire in terms of attraction, underlying chase and greed - some "dance around the cow" - would only be the superficial version. Rarely is it applied to the underlying projection of ultimate ideals or in simplest terms: "craving for existence".
I'm glad you brought this up as the difference between the two was, for me, a long process of 'sorting out.' What is interesting is that until the first kind of desire is experienced, the superficial kind, the second kind, the underlying kind, cannot be experienced. Back to my original thoughts about the enjoyment of things: I do not envision this experience as belonging to the superficial kind of desire. There is no chase or greed or dancing around the cow, there is only the experience of "it is good." All thought, whether it is a projection of ideals or a reflecting upon existence as good is ultimately of this craving of which you speak, this "fire to be", the Logos. For me, "delighting in existence" is also a reaction to Buddhist thought, specifically the concept of nonattachment. After all, the very definition of Nirvana is "to blow out (the flame of desire)."
Causality shows one cannot know what is being experienced and certainly the "experiencer" will fall into causal pieces spread all over. This is why the desired transformation could be called "calamity" or the end of the world. And it's not a metaphor.
The death of the idea of a self as controller of experience. It would seem that at first it is necessary to conceptualize a softer landing for 'one's causal pieces', ergo the projection of ideas such as "God is love", "Higher Self," etc. Truth is a knife, but in the early stages of transformation, the sheath is (thankfully) kept on. :-)

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:52 pm

movingalways wrote:Back to my original thoughts about the enjoyment of things: I do not envision this experience as belonging to the superficial kind of desire. There is no chase or greed or dancing around the cow, there is only the experience of "it is good." All thought, whether it is a projection of ideals or a reflecting upon existence as good is ultimately of this craving of which you speak, this "fire to be", the Logos. For me, "delighting in existence" is also a reaction to Buddhist thought, specifically the concept of non-attachment. After all, the very definition of Nirvana is "to blow out (the flame of desire)."
Here "it is good" would mean, following Genesis 1 perhaps, as something fundamentally appropriate and becoming. It could be described as peace since there's no opposition against it. Heraclitus, who also talked about Logos, remarked that all things come into being by conflict of opposites, by strife. If peace would indeed be the opposite of strife, it would mean in this context any state or perspective where things do not come into being. If we say that creation, the "world' -- including our own being -- is based on contradictions, then peace must arise when there's no contradiction possible. But that would mean all-inclusive and embracing, with no room for contradiction, meaning no room for anything to arise, to exist or to be in the sense that we were used to. That kind of peace would be extremely upsetting to some. It should not be confused with sedate states of calmness as such state would be composed of opposites, it would only be possible as some period of de-tension after tension. Or by inhibiting one, displacing over time the other. But it might help us to remind us of the peace of completion.
the of the idea of a self as controller of experience. It would seem that at first it is necessary to conceptualize a softer landing for 'one's causal pieces', ergo the projection of ideas such as "God is love", "Higher Self," etc. Truth is a knife, but in the early stages of transformation, the sheath is (thankfully) kept on.
This is all well covered by the principle of causality. Here we don't deny origination or a world but realize its multiple causes, all the still unknown forces above and beyond crafting each and every detail. Also our own actions, going back far into our "past". As Nietzsche wrote: "with the same awe which he, looking back, sanctifies the whole of destiny, he has to sanctify himself". This is how we can, at least in thought, already arrive at "it is good" which means to sanctity and justify. And all we ever wanted is to justify, our selves, the world, all the evil, error, waste and sacrifices made. And this flows out of the truth that untenable contradiction is how our self, the world, the evil and the sacrificial came into being in the first place.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:53 pm

Some more thought on the usage of desire when it comes to existence, this fragile establishment or ideation, ideal and thing. It might be interesting for some to compare with Schopenhauer's world as will and representation, where it's argued that all nature, including man, is the expression of an "insatiable will to life". And where the origin of this will is seen a manifestation of the noumenal "realm". There's here still a Kantian thing-in-itselfness going on, the erection of a thing so large and encompassing that it would become another god to us. But fundamentally it appears like the correct discrimination, very much compatible with Buddhism: asserting desire or will and then appearances or "representations".

One can see in Nietzsche this going a bit further when he starts with Schopenhauer and arrives at will to power, as experimental semi-metaphysical concept giving rise to the world and all ideas of objects or particles. And yet Nietzsche always would recoil from metaphysical concepts, them being eternally contradicting and also "things" with much left desired. In other words: something to be refuted! As to understand and conquer his world, men will device his things: theories, particles, formulas and schematics with all the rigorous proof! A "good" or natural thing perhaps, when seen as yet another manifestation of the will to power. And yet its only real evidence lies in the fulfilment of a hidden starting point: does it increase power? Hence the lust for power underlying all reason and even science, no matter if one would accept materialism: any attempt to prove or value would necessarily have to define usage or gain. When for example some value is at the very start put on growth, health, lack of decline, lack of conflict or decrease of "error". These are all of course power principles, all metaphysical underpinnings. Most interpretations limit this to mean the "psychological" but that seems more like a clever trick to avoid the inherent contradictions, the ones all representation suffers from.

The issue of suffering, will and desire is therefore never fully addressed when only seen in a psychological context. And yet that is exactly the state of modern philosophy and its decline into something internalized, navel gazing and inbred. Or powerless -- with little life left.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:22 am

Diebert: Here "it is good" would mean, following Genesis 1 perhaps, as something fundamentally appropriate and becoming. It could be described as peace since there's no opposition against it.
The realization that God of the All cannot logically oppose 'Its' Allness.
Heraclitus, who also talked about Logos, remarked that all things come into being by conflict of opposites, by strife.
Returning to the Genesis 1 reference, since God of the All (the Father) cannot logically oppose himself (the All), then logically, things do not come into being by way of opposites, by strife. And then, of course, along comes the illogical God of Genesis 2, the arrival of opposite/opposing genders and opposite/opposing values. Where "God screws with, and screws up, God." :-)
If peace would indeed be the opposite of strife, it would mean in this context any state or perspective where things do not come into being. If we say that creation, the "world' -- including our own being -- is based on contradictions, then peace must arise when there's no contradiction possible. But that would mean all-inclusive and embracing, with no room for contradiction, meaning no room for anything to arise, to exist or to be in the sense that we were used to. That kind of peace would be extremely upsetting to some.
The bare bones of the Buddha’s doctrine was to eliminate stress, to end that self-sense of bringing things into creation by way of opposites. Which is why he never entertained dialogues about the supernatural or the metaphysical. To do so would only serve to preserve the sense of an oppositional creation, of a spiritual creation and/versus a natural creation. And yes, the end of the idea of strife is extremely upsetting to some. I remember saying to someone who suggested the possibility of such a reality of peace that "it would be boring." Which takes us to:
It should not be confused with sedate states of calmness as such state would be composed of opposites, it would only be possible as some period of de-tension after tension. Or by inhibiting one, displacing over time the other. But it might help us to remind us of the peace of completion.
To ‘be calm’ of course is a reaction to ‘being agitated’, both thoughts originating from thoughts of (the fictional) self. The peace addressed above is an energetic stillness rather than a calmness of mind.
movingalways: the of the idea of a self as controller of experience. It would seem that at first it is necessary to conceptualize a softer landing for 'one's causal pieces', ergo the projection of ideas such as "God is love", "Higher Self," etc. Truth is a knife, but in the early stages of transformation, the sheath is (thankfully) kept on.
Diebert: This is all well covered by the principle of causality. Here we don't deny origination or a world but realize its multiple causes, all the still unknown forces above and beyond crafting each and every detail. Also our own actions, going back far into our "past". As Nietzsche wrote: "with the same awe which he, looking back, sanctifies the whole of destiny, he has to sanctify himself". This is how we can, at least in thought, already arrive at "it is good" which means to sanctity and justify. And all we ever wanted is to justify, our selves, the world, all the evil, error, waste and sacrifices made. And this flows out of the truth that untenable contradiction is how our self, the world, the evil and the sacrificial came into being in the first place.
The idea of the causality-wise as the reconcilers of the world, “to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”
Some more thought on the usage of desire when it comes to existence, this fragile establishment or ideation, ideal and thing. It might be interesting for some to compare with Schopenhauer's world as will and representation, where it's argued that all nature, including man, is the expression of an "insatiable will to life". And where the origin of this will is seen a manifestation of the noumenal "realm". There's here still a Kantian thing-in-itselfness going on, the erection of a thing so large and encompassing that it would become another god to us. But fundamentally it appears like the correct discrimination, very much compatible with Buddhism: asserting desire or will and then appearances or "representations".

One can see in Nietzsche this going a bit further when he starts with Schopenhauer and arrives at will to power, as experimental semi-metaphysical concept giving rise to the world and all ideas of objects or particles. And yet Nietzsche always would recoil from metaphysical concepts, them being eternally contradicting and also "things" with much left desired. In other words: something to be refuted! As to understand and conquer his world, men will device his things: theories, particles, formulas and schematics with all the rigorous proof! A "good" or natural thing perhaps, when seen as yet another manifestation of the will to power.

And yet its only real evidence lies in the fulfilment of a hidden starting point: does it increase power? Hence the lust for power underlying all reason and even science, no matter if one would accept materialism: any attempt to prove or value would necessarily have to define usage or gain. When for example some value is at the very start put on growth, health, lack of decline, lack of conflict or decrease of "error". These are all of course power principles, all metaphysical underpinnings. Most interpretations limit this to mean the "psychological" but that seems more like a clever trick to avoid the inherent contradictions, the ones all representation suffers from.

The issue of suffering, will and desire is therefore never fully addressed when only seen in a psychological context. And yet that is exactly the state of modern philosophy and its decline into something internalized, navel gazing and inbred. Or powerless -- with little life left.
The issue of suffering, the existential experience of what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the tension at the heart of the universe” is only cured when the idea of finite self as cause is realized to be a false idea. The problem with psychology then is that it begins with this deluded idea of self which naturally leads to the deluded premise of selves in relationship with other selves. Essentially, psychology cuts the universe in two and because of its ignorance that it has done so, mental illness, the very thing it claims to cure, continues to grow exponentially to its continuing ignorance.

By my definition of the ultimate reason for the failing of psychology to resolve suffering to be wrong view of self as cause, your connection of it to modern philosophy would mean that modern philosophy fails for the same reason. This is why all doctrines that place finite self as cause lack life: how can that which is finite hope to be endowed with the enduring nature of (infinite) life itself? In this context, I understand why you resist the idea of impermanence and suggest that the wise man seeks permanence.

Out of curiosity, can you give me some examples of modern philosophers?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Oct 16, 2016 7:24 pm

movingalways wrote:To ‘be calm’ of course is a reaction to ‘being agitated’, both thoughts originating from thoughts of (the fictional) self. The peace addressed above is an energetic stillness rather than a calmness of mind.
The term "energetic stillness" appears as rather enigmatic to me. What kind of energies are we talking about? Metaphysical or physical? Even energy is defined as a (potential) flow from one place to another, that's how its nature is. Peace as described earlier can only arise when there's nothing in existence. Which means it always is the case and "nothing is left to be done". However this has to remain meaningless beyond the experiential or existential. Otherwise we'd start contradiction again, strife, ignorance and suffering.
Essentially, psychology cuts the universe in two and because of its ignorance that it has done so, mental illness, the very thing it claims to cure, continues to grow exponentially to its continuing ignorance.
There's no actual problem here if that universe is what was being desired in the first place. So realization of what is being desired is key.
I understand why you resist the idea of impermanence and suggest that the wise man seeks permanence.
It should become clear that all seeking is like that. But without seeking, a way and a wisdom - a nature of the way - will never be encountered.
Out of curiosity, can you give me some examples of modern philosophers?
I think that there is no "modern philosophy" as such. Our discussion is, as example, perhaps the nearest thing. Thinkers, writers attempting to integrate, to address "it all" are very 19th century. Beyond that the great splintering started in our cultural and conceptual understanding. Nobody is going to put Humpty Dumpty back together again in some conceptual way. Perhaps Marxism was the last attempt and in post-Marxism one could find wisdom displayed more as vultures picking a carcass. One could pick up a Guy Debord, a Jean Baudrillard, but all they do is picking apart modernity, its spectacle, its mirrors and the maze formed by its very inhabitants, each a maze to itself. And trying to conceive beyond ones own modern deformation is a hopeless desire. For that a new truth-illusion might be needed beyond the confines of our current culture and system of language and symbols surrounding and carrying it.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:06 am

movingalways wrote:
To ‘be calm’ of course is a reaction to ‘being agitated’, both thoughts originating from thoughts of (the fictional) self. The peace addressed above is an energetic stillness rather than a calmness of mind.
Diebert: The term "energetic stillness" appears as rather enigmatic to me. What kind of energies are we talking about? Metaphysical or physical? Even energy is defined as a (potential) flow from one place to another, that's how its nature is. Peace as described earlier can only arise when there's nothing in existence. Which means it always is the case and "nothing is left to be done". However this has to remain meaningless beyond the experiential or existential. Otherwise we'd start contradiction again, strife, ignorance and suffering.
As I experience it, the goal of enlightenment (perhaps wisdom is a better term) is to recognize, acknowledge and finally live of one's existential causality. In this context, "energetic stillness" would be to live of the "flow" you mentioned above. It is the living of existence that makes meaningless anything that is not of this living. For example, another's opinion about one's existential causality.

Of existence, there "is nothing to be done", only the movement of desire toward an object to be realized, this is how (conceptual) nature is.
Quote:
Essentially, psychology cuts the universe in two and because of its ignorance that it has done so, mental illness, the very thing it claims to cure, continues to grow exponentially to its continuing ignorance.
There's no actual problem here if that universe is what was being desired in the first place. So realization of what is being desired is key.
I believe I see what you are saying here. That if one is experiencing the suffering of relativism, whether they are conscious of why they are suffering or not, an unconditional desire to find the cause of their suffering is needed in order to bring about its ending. This unconditional desire can cause one to explore many avenues of seeking with psychology being one example. The key then to ending one's sense of having 'a split personality' is the desire to know why one suffers the sense of 'being divided in two.'
Quote:
I understand why you resist the idea of impermanence and suggest that the wise man seeks permanence.
It should become clear that all seeking is like that. But without seeking, a way and a wisdom - a nature of the way - will never be encountered.
Ultimately, things are not permanent or impermanent, they are what they are. Existence is reality.
Quote:
Out of curiosity, can you give me some examples of modern philosophers?
I think that there is no "modern philosophy" as such. Our discussion is, as example, perhaps the nearest thing. Thinkers, writers attempting to integrate, to address "it all" are very 19th century. Beyond that the great splintering started in our cultural and conceptual understanding. Nobody is going to put Humpty Dumpty back together again in some conceptual way. Perhaps Marxism was the last attempt and in post-Marxism one could find wisdom displayed more as vultures picking a carcass. One could pick up a Guy Debord, a Jean Baudrillard, but all they do is picking apart modernity, its spectacle, its mirrors and the maze formed by its very inhabitants, each a maze to itself. And trying to conceive beyond ones own modern deformation is a hopeless desire. For that a new truth-illusion might be needed beyond the confines of our current culture and system of language and symbols surrounding and carrying it.
What I have discovered is that once one 'discovers' their existential causal will or flow that they also discover their conscience, the seeking and then knowing of what will cause the existence of suffering and what will cause the existence of expansion. Which is why the world of morality and ethics does not influence the existential, causal Man (of conscience). The difference between the two ways of thinking is that where morality and ethics (relativism/contradiction) band-aid suffering (try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again), conscience understands the why of suffering (relativism/contradiction), therefore, can actualize its ending.

User avatar
the discourse
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:46 am

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by the discourse » Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:00 am

Ah, impermanence and permanences, masculine and feminine.

There is permanence. Permanence of memes.
The more zoomed out, the more blur, the more structure.
When zoomed in, we zoom into chaos. Waves of unordered molecules. Nothing looks the same, we claim it is meaningless, impermanent, all variety.
At medium zoom, there is some repition, but everything is different. Each soup, each cracker, tastes a little bit different, a "masterpiece" that must be grabbed instead of it's slightly different cousin.
When we zoom out, the fuzzier it becomes, the clearer it gets. Becoming, words, tropes, memes, metas. The man with the coat flapping in the wind, is still the man with the coat flapping in the wind even if he has ketchup on his jacket.

In this world, as in the world consciousness resides, there will always be triangles, always be wheels.
The question is, could there even be a "world without triangles, a world without wheels." [sic]

Our thoughts are branches, roots to the past. Events, dreams, happening in another simultaneous dimension we are not quite conscious of, but feel as though we are/were/still are, affecting our spirits [sic], memories conferring the permanence, toys to be played with to satisfy the urge, a chamber of doors.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What I've learned thus far

Post by Pam Seeback » Sat Nov 26, 2016 2:28 am

What I've learned thus far, update:

Coming to the realization that there is no thought that does not originate in God or Life or Source or Spirit (choose your name) is to come into the conscience of consciousness where all forms in their infinite causal potentiality reside. In the beginning (prior to revelation) was the word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God.

Words become a thought. A thought is the absolute will or intent revealed of the conscience of consciousness. Revelation and realization are different Words (thought patterns) causing different effects. Where revelation is the absolute Word pattern spoken by every Man, not every Man of revelation is realized of the way of absolute Word.

The realized Man is absolutely free and absolutely responsible. Absolutely free because his knowledge of the absoluteness of form holds him prisoner to no form. Absolutely responsible because his knowledge of the absoluteness of form holds him to its law of 'no thought returns void': what is caused is realized to effect the All. For the absolute-conscious Man, freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin.

Post Reply