Statement about Solway and Trump

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Pam Seeback »

jimhaz wrote:[Pam wrote: There is no 'may' about it. By definition, a belief is not absolute. Knowing this, one has right view. Belief in 'my truth' is wrong view. There is only THE truth. No wiggle room allowed]

And then what happens?

Doesn’t one ever get to take the straight jacket off.
How does one quit smoking? By taking the straight jacket of cigarettes off. How does one quite drinking? By taking the straight jacket of alcohol off. The same principle applies to opining.

Taking the straight jacket of opining off is so difficult that those who claim to have done so (the Buddha, for example) developed detailed doctrines to aid in the process. No different in principle than using a nicotine patch to help one quit the weed or going to AA to help one quit the bottle. The metaphor of a bridge or a ladder or a raft is often used to describe the purpose of such doctrines or 'Ways'. The mind seeks logical reasons, therefore, logical reasons are given. The Buddhist doctrine of Dependent Origination (The 12 Niddanas) is just such a Way. The whole chapter of Job is the story of turning reasoning in on itself until it hits the wall of intellectual silence (one's absolute nature). The logical last step then of having stopped opining is that all 'that is left' is one's absolute nature.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Pam Seeback wrote:How does one quit smoking? By taking the straight jacket of cigarettes off. How does one quite drinking? By taking the straight jacket of alcohol off. The same principle applies to opining. ]The logical last step then of having stopped opining is that all 'that is left' is one's absolute nature.
Opining is more like breath. It's a feature of the mind and a necessary activity in terms of relating to ones world and its future. Not at all like smoking or drinking alcohol which we can do all without, with a little effort. You are treating here opining like a drug, that would be like treating thought or breath like a drug too! And perhaps life itself could be called alcohol, some intoxicating exotic wine -- but that issue goes way further than just the intellect as it would include all sensation, all mentation, all forms of self-existence at all levels.

This is why you have trouble with opinionated discussion Pam. Of course you don't get it! Isn't this exactly what you tried to transcend, what you might believe to have transcended? But I don't think you did -- I think you're just hiding it under the carpet. It's a repressive move, not liberation.

Forming judgment, viewpoints or statement on subjective matters does not stop when obtaining wisdom. They also not all get mushed together as one blob, one opinion the same as the other, compared to the absolute truth. That's a misconception. When "Jesus is born", and he is being born, wisdom cannot help but materializing in action, in words and in opinion. And of course it all will clash. But then again, clash and strife are fundamental to existence, in the sense of Heraclitus.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Hey Guys,

I couldn''t help myself with this one - I know its been awhile -

It seems to me that this whole issue between Kevin & David boils down to the following question – What is more of a threat to wisdom/survival of the species?

1. An unstable narcissist being the leader of the most powerful country of the world.
2. A growing fundamentalist leftist movement in the US that is naturally elitist, and using all sorts of emotional & devious tactics to discredit & silent opponents.

It’s a difficult question, because in reality, both are a serious threat to wisdom and the survival of the species. However, Trump does represent a more immediate grave danger, he could easily start a major world conflict, perhaps even nuclear. Or he could pass legislation to give him more and more power, and make large scale decisions independently. And who knows what he would do, I view his psyche as quite unstable, so I don’t believe Trump even knows what Trump would do. He is not a man of consistent principles, but rather, and opportunistic narcissist who will do whatever grows his power and attention in the eyes of others.

The fundamentalist leftists offer a slower risk - a death by slowing eroding the culture of battleground philosophy and the art of debate & discussion. They do not even want offensive things to them to exist in the first place, so they are dangerous as well, especially if the current political arena of debate is replaced with a more soft gentle atmosphere based on the acceptance, equality, non-judgement, etc.

With Trump - I find his statements very wreckless for the leader of the most powerful nation in the world - IE - take the 'fake news' statement - Even if the news outlets in the US are bought and owned by corporations and elitists, they are still the only mechanism in place to criticize the behaviour of government wide scale, so for Trump to discredit them all as fake news is dangerous to traditional civilization because if the population loses faith in it, and it is allowed to be dismantled, then a situation similar to Russia could emerge.

Basically, I believe that Trump has uttered so many wreckless and thoughtless statements that people are essentially immune to them.

On the point of extremists leftists - It may benefit and be strategic to write a second copy of wisdom of the infinite and poison for the heart minus the inflammationary language . I know you both probably believe that it would be cowardly to water down the writing, but by making a firm distinction between masculinity and femininity in a philsophical context, and highlighting the spiritual merits of one over the other, it only follows that offended groups will seek to discredit and make such material disappear. Perhaps that is the reason why writings such as The Tao Te Ching have probably survived. Perhaps sages in other times wrote documents similar as poison for the heart, but they were destroyed and lost, who knows. The truth of the matter is that any writing that suggests one group has a defiency from a spiritual point of view is bound to be targeted by sensitive groups who want things to be fair, open, fluffy, non-judgemental, non-offensive, etc.

That is one reason why I believe Comedy is very important as a culture catalyst for higher grade philosophy. If the comedians can keep mocking it, then hopefully a writer should be able to write a book about it.

And Kevin stated he is worried about Canada becoming a police state. I wouldn’t worry about it. Our current leader is going to legalize marijuana, a move in the direction of increased liberalism. I don’t see any threat of a police state in Canada in my lifetime. Unless of course, Trump decides to consolidate power, and invade Canada. : ) Anyway, it’s been great to see the two old boys – Quinn & Solway back on the saddle together, Its been an interesting read, I like the empirical subjective stuff, as mentally wading through the waters of contrasting empirical perspectives is always a time.

I hope everything on the forum is well, Cheers.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Pam Seeback wrote:How does one quit smoking? By taking the straight jacket of cigarettes off. How does one quite drinking? By taking the straight jacket of alcohol off. The same principle applies to opining. ]The logical last step then of having stopped opining is that all 'that is left' is one's absolute nature.
Opining is more like breath. It's a feature of the mind and a necessary activity in terms of relating to ones world and its future. Not at all like smoking or drinking alcohol which we can do all without, with a little effort. You are treating here opining like a drug, that would be like treating thought or breath like a drug too! And perhaps life itself could be called alcohol, some intoxicating exotic wine -- but that issue goes way further than just the intellect as it would include all sensation, all mentation, all forms of self-existence at all levels.

This is why you have trouble with opinionated discussion Pam. Of course you don't get it! Isn't this exactly what you tried to transcend, what you might believe to have transcended? But I don't think you did -- I think you're just hiding it under the carpet. It's a repressive move, not liberation.

Forming judgment, viewpoints or statement on subjective matters does not stop when obtaining wisdom. They also not all get mushed together as one blob, one opinion the same as the other, compared to the absolute truth. That's a misconception. When "Jesus is born", and he is being born, wisdom cannot help but materializing in action, in words and in opinion. And of course it all will clash. But then again, clash and strife are fundamental to existence, in the sense of Heraclitus.
You have judged me incorrectly Diebert. I totally get the consequences of opinionated discussions which is why I do not participate.

I have never claimed to have transcended opining. If I did, I do not remember doing so. Good thing you opined when you judged that I am repressing opining, at least that's honest. Obviously I have no way of 'proving' otherwise, so opine away. There is a path that must be walked that releases/absorbs the will to power/the tension of "I think", I am doing my best to walk it, never a dull moment!

You failed to address the original statement I made about the relative being the relative and the absolute being the absolute. Last time I looked, the address of this board is "theabsolute.net", not "thesubjective-relative.net."

As for chastising me for treating the relative breath like a drug, you have used the concept of seduction several times when referring to attachment to form. It is my experience that one can be seduced by forms of clash and strife just as one can be seduced by those of comfort and love. Neither seduction that subjectifies form has anything to do with the absolute.

I seek the absolute and the way to its complete realization. Yes, along the way the relational twins of clash and comfort shall come and go like bubbles from a child's pipe. You're right -- such mentations are the stuff of life, my life as well. But plod on toward the absolute I go. As I see it, all I have to lose is suffering. :-)
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Hey Ryan,

Good to see some of the old folk crawling out of the woodwork again. :)
Ryan Rudolph wrote:It seems to me that this whole issue between Kevin & David boils down to the following question – What is more of a threat to wisdom/survival of the species?

1. An unstable narcissist being the leader of the most powerful country of the world.
2. A growing fundamentalist leftist movement in the US that is naturally elitist, and using all sorts of emotional & devious tactics to discredit & silent opponents.
I don't see why it has to be an either/or situation. I can understand the need to oppose the fundamentalist leftist movement, but why this has to entail ignoring or excusing or supporting an unstable narcissist leader is beyond me.

Kevin mentioned that insulting people never works if you want to convert them over to your cause, which is true enough, yet going around and telling people that Trump is just a normal businessman or that he hasn’t done anything too bad yet only serves to insult people’s intelligence. He is not going to win anyone over to his cause by being so openly divorced from reality.

I am guessing that Kevin feels that if he were to start recognizing the true nature of Trump and start verbalizing his utter contempt for the man, as a spiritual man normally would, then it would look as though he was moving politically to the left and thus it would blur the lines of the war that he is currently immersed in.

A radicalized person needs those clean lines and clear separations. Otherwise, he disappears.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:On the point of extremists leftists - It may benefit and be strategic to write a second copy of wisdom of the infinite and poison for the heart minus the inflammationary language . I know you both probably believe that it would be cowardly to water down the writing, but by making a firm distinction between masculinity and femininity in a philsophical context, and highlighting the spiritual merits of one over the other, it only follows that offended groups will seek to discredit and make such material disappear. Perhaps that is the reason why writings such as The Tao Te Ching have probably survived. Perhaps sages in other times wrote documents similar as poison for the heart, but they were destroyed and lost, who knows. The truth of the matter is that any writing that suggests one group has a defiency from a spiritual point of view is bound to be targeted by sensitive groups who want things to be fair, open, fluffy, non-judgemental, non-offensive, etc.
There is a lot of irony here, isn't there. Kevin, involved in a quest which seeks, in part, to maintain the right to insult people (i.e. analyze, criticize, satirize, etc), has himself become acutely sensitive to being insulted, so much so that he nowadays rails against the very act of insulting others in and of itself. And this after a lifetime of insulting half of the human race.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

To Diebert, Pam Seeback wrote:You failed to address the original statement I made about the relative being the relative and the absolute being the absolute. Last time I looked, the address of this board is "theabsolute.net", not "thesubjective-relative.net."
From a spiritual perspective, you can't really divorce the relative world from the absolute, not while you are part of this world.

For example, consider the act of writing to this forum. If it is your aim to promote wisdom (i.e. consciousness of the absolute) in others, then naturally you try to seek the words that will best trigger wise thoughts in those who read them. But because you don't really know who is reading them or what is actually occurring in their brains in each moment, it becomes a bit of a lottery. You have to make some educated guesses and throw out some thoughts in the hope it will do the trick. These thoughts could consist of pure logical reasonings, or they could involve some empirical theorizing, or some humour, or some insults, or a spiritual quote, or whatever.

In this way, the absolute within the spiritual mind (no existence, no attachment, no delusion, no bias, no mental blocks) meets the relativity of the world (the uncertainty of the senses, assumptions, inferences, guesswork).

If your output is confined to pure abstract reasonings or absolute truths, then it will become too sterile and dry. If it just focuses on empirical theorizing, then it will become too superficial and banal. The key is to keep mixing it up in an intelligent manner.
encode_decode
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by encode_decode »

@David Quinn - I could not have put it better myself. On another note, I would really like to explore 'The Wisdom of the Infinite' with you. Not all at once - but over time.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Hey Guys,

I couldn''t help myself with this one - I know its been awhile -

It seems to me that this whole issue between Kevin & David boils down to the following question – What is more of a threat to wisdom/survival of the species?

1.An unstable narcissist being the leader of the most powerful country of the world.
Hey Ryan. How goes it? I think this point needs some addition to faithfully represent the reality, at least in my case. It's not merely Trump that's the issue here, indeed, it may not even be Trump. One has to look at the powers around and behind him as well, along with their agenda. It may well be those powers are simply exploiting Trump's derangement [as dangerous as that is likely to be in itself] to their own ends. A 'blunt instrument' as Bannon once described him.

As insidious as aspects of the Regressive Left may be, I don't see Trump and his regime to be in any sense ameliorating of that.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

David Quinn wrote:Hey Ryan,

Good to see some of the old folk crawling out of the woodwork again. :)
Ryan Rudolph wrote:It seems to me that this whole issue between Kevin & David boils down to the following question – What is more of a threat to wisdom/survival of the species?

1. An unstable narcissist being the leader of the most powerful country of the world.
2. A growing fundamentalist leftist movement in the US that is naturally elitist, and using all sorts of emotional & devious tactics to discredit & silent opponents.
I don't see why it has to be an either/or situation. I can understand the need to oppose the fundamentalist leftist movement, but why this has to entail ignoring or excusing or supporting an unstable narcissist leader is beyond me.
It's certainly not a simple dichotomy. The Democrats were hugely divided in this election, in a way that I've never seen before. Many Democrat supporters, mostly younger progressives, were horrified by Clinton being their nominee, to the point that the question of whether or not to vote at all was openly canvassed by their more vocal mouthpieces. This is why Bernie Sanders, who, like Trump, ran on an anti-establishment platform was proving so successful and in all national polling was walloping Trump. Of course, to their great shame but typical of their elite (monied) establishment numbskullery, the DNC screwed Sanders over, with some help from the hopelessly parochial NYT. The point being that the Left had an issue with the monied establishment as well.

That schism within the Democrats is still widening and the anti-establishment forces are gaining momentum. Mouthpieces for that movement such as Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk - https://www.youtube.com/user/SecularTalk/videos - are getting increased attention. So, I guess the point I'm making here is that Trump and Bannon and the ordinary Americans that voted for them are not the only ones with establishment grievances.

What's so odd about the whole thing is that in Trump's case, he is the establishment and people were just too dense to appreciate it.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:We could say that the odds are 1 in 45.
You have no idea what the odds are. I think your opinions on these matters are completely warped.

The evidence, if it existed, couldn't have been all that good, as he ended up retracting the claim in September last year.
Your logic is faulty. The evidence may have been fairly good, but as I said, he may have agreed to preserve someone's anonymity, and so couldn't present what he had. You are in the dark on this issue, as we all are.

That's very much his style.
That's just your personal opinion, which I think is worthless on these issues.

The editorial board obviously doesn't accept any article unless it is dark and angry and stripped of all humour.


Most of the articles are written with an obvious and good sense of humour. You aren't able to see the humour because you don't like what the articles are saying.

I know you don't believe in white supremacy, but nonetheless you are choosing to be part of a movement which overlaps into white supremacy
No I'm not. You are speaking absolute nonsense. Firstly, I choose what movement I am a part of, and not you. And secondly, even when you are part of a movement it doesn't mean that you agree with every single thing that every other person in the movement thinks. It's incredible that I need to explain this to you.

Using your incredibly foolish "logic" then the movement you choose to be a part of - let's call it the authoritarian left, or the Left, or the anti-Trump movement, or apologists for the mainstream media, overlaps with all the SJWs and insane feminist, who are arguably far worse than any white supremacists.

If Breitbart is a white supremacist organization then why does it employ so many writers who aren't white? Your opinions on these issues are ridiculous.

I think you don't care about the truth at all on these issues, but that you have been beaten into submission by those you mistakenly believe to be your allies. I think you have been made afraid of what they might do to you, and so you are just believing everything they say.

. . . and thus you run the risk of being called a "white supremacist" by others.


And using your logic then you run the risk of being called an SJW and an insane feminist. This line of reasoning isn't going to get you anywhere. What you are "called" by others doesn't have anything to do with truth.

Your are basically saying that you should do whatever bullies tell you to do, otherwise they will bully you. You can live your life that way if you choose, but don't expect others to follow your lead.

Once an organization develops a reputation it tends to tar everyone involved in it, whether they like it or not.
I care about TRUTH. So long as Breitbart are speaking the truth, and the mainstream media are speaking untruth - as you are - then I will continue to promote Breitbart over the mainstream media.

The only reason Breitbart has a bad reputation in your circles is because of how often you speak untruth about them. I don't think you realise that you are in an echo chamber, and that you aren't getting any input from the real world.

The obvious difference between the Catholic church and Breitbart is that we know there have been active pedophiles in the Catholic church, but we don't know that Brietbart is white supremacist. You have yourself said that in your mind it's a "grey area", but you can't seem to keep your story straight.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:I would like to see some proper evidence of this. Can you point to some specific examples?
I've already mentioned very recent examples of such witch-hunting in this thread. I'm not going to mention them again as I believe you are currently unable to process them.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Kevin Solway wrote:I think you don't care about the truth at all on these issues, but that you have been beaten into submission by those you mistakenly believe to be your allies. I think you have been made afraid of what they might do to you, and so you are just believing everything they say.
I didn't follow this bit. Who is blackmailing David?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I would like to see some proper evidence of this. Can you point to some specific examples?
I've already mentioned very recent examples of such witch-hunting in this thread. I'm not going to mention them again as I believe you are currently unable to process them.
You've offered accusations (some of which I entirely agree with because I've seen it) but you have certainly not cited anything specific to support them, which is obviously what David is seeking, especially with regard to these claims:
We live in an age where the authoritarian left are constructing actual lists of non-believers who are to be excluded from society, whom they seek to deny employment, whom they seek to block from all social media, and hidden from search engines.
You keep chastising people for making claims they cannot substantiate but seem happy enough to do it yourself. 'lists of non-believers' is pretty out there. I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence for that, while adding that it wouldn't especially surprise me.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

encode_decode wrote:@David Quinn - I could not have put it better myself. On another note, I would really like to explore 'The Wisdom of the Infinite' with you. Not all at once - but over time.
I'm happy to do that. When you are ready start a thread about it and I'll contribute.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

Ryan Rudolph wrote: 1. An unstable narcissist being the leader of the most powerful country of the world.
2. A growing fundamentalist leftist movement in the US that is naturally elitist, and using all sorts of emotional & devious tactics to discredit & silent opponents.
Hi Ryan. The issue is whether or to what degree Trump is "unstable". The jury is out on that one. If we start with the assumption that Trump is dangerously unstable and has a pathological mental illness then we are starting with a loaded deck, and are not going to get a fair result.

He is not a man of consistent principles
I understand that he is 70 years of age and is yet to break the law - or at least be caught breaking the law. So he may indeed have some consistent principles. Also, I don't believe that a person can be successful in business, working with many people, for decades, unless you have a good number of consistent principles. If you don't have consistent principles then nobody will trust you.

The fundamentalist leftists offer a slower risk . . .
Yet there comes a tipping point, at which time you have very little time in which you must act, and you must not delay.

for Trump to discredit them all as fake news . . .
It's fake news that Trump has discredited all of the mainstream media as fake news. It's a story that has been pushed by fake news outlets.

is dangerous to traditional civilization because if the population loses faith in it, and it is allowed to be dismantled, then a situation similar to Russia could emerge.


If media outlets are publishing "fake news" - which is to say lies, misinformation, misdirection, propaganda, etc, then we already have the situation they had in communist Russia. In that case the population should most definitely lose faith in the mainstream media. It would be dangerous if they didn't.

The truth of the matter is that any writing that suggests one group has a deficency from a spiritual point of view is bound to be targeted by sensitive groups who want things to be fair, open, fluffy, non-judgemental, non-offensive, etc.
I've thought about this, but I've personally opted for the direct truth-speaking method. Quality over quantity. There are pros and cons to either approach, and I think different individuals will choose different paths.

And Kevin stated he is worried about Canada becoming a police state. I wouldn’t worry about it. Our current leader is going to legalize marijuana, a move in the direction of increased liberalism.
"Increased liberalism" can also mean freedom from being offended, which would could mean that anyone who offends is either put in prison or ejected from society.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote: . . . why this has to entail ignoring or excusing or supporting an unstable narcissist leader is beyond me.
As I've said in my previous post to Ryan, if you're starting with the assumption that Trump is dangerously unstable, then you're starting with a loaded deck, and will get wrong results. But if it's beyond you, then it's beyond you.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Kevin, involved in a quest which seeks, in part, to maintain the right to insult people (i.e. analyze, criticize, satirize, etc)
This is where I fundamentally disagree with your view, and with the view of those in your political circles. Criticism is not the same as insult. Criticism is not the same as name-calling.

Calling people "misogynist", or "racist", or "sexist", or "white supremacist", for every perceived slight under the sun, and without providing any good reasons, is name-calling, and is insult.

And this after a lifetime of insulting half of the human race.
This is false. I have criticized women (and feminine men), and provided good reasons, but never insulted them.

I have never said that "to me, it's a grey area" and then maligned people on the basis of that ignorance.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

I think any discussion about Trump is moot at this point. The Russian connections "scandal" is spinning out of control. Trump's adversaries will either maneuver him and his people into a perjuring themselves or tie up the government in an investigative procedural rigmarole which would be impossible to unravel.

While the US population enjoys the show, the financial system will wobble, crash, and burn and the humiliation of Trump a.k.a Twitler will be complete. Abandoned by the Republican Party, isolated and crazed in the White House, he'll either voluntarily pass the baton to Mike Pence or he will be declared unfit to serve and removed. It seems I was correct to observe earlier in this thread that Trump (knowingly or otherwise) is playing the part of a heel.

The question is what happens next. Probably a rapid loss of trust in both old-line political parties. The Trumpists will never forgive the Republican Party, and the Democrats will have gained nothing.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

jupiviv wrote:I think any discussion about Trump is moot at this point. The Russian connections "scandal" is spinning out of control. Trump's adversaries will either maneuver him and his people into a perjuring themselves or tie up the government in an investigative procedural rigmarole which would be impossible to unravel.

While the US population enjoys the show, the financial system will wobble, crash, and burn and the humiliation of Trump a.k.a Twitler will be complete. Abandoned by the Republican Party, isolated and crazed in the White House, he'll either voluntarily pass the baton to Mike Pence or he will be declared unfit to serve and removed. It seems I was correct to observe earlier in this thread that Trump (knowingly or otherwise) is playing the part of a heel.
You could well be right. There is also the failure of the healthcare plan, which will have an impact, I believe. This is the first time that Trump was forced to stop shadow-boxing and actually implement a serious policy and, of course, he bungled it. And now for the first time in his political career, his much vaunted “negotiating skills" that he repeatedly boasted about appear hollow. How this plays out with his fan base will be fascinating to observe. Trump will have been deeply humiliated by this. It is going to be interesting to see how he reacts over the next few weeks.

The question is what happens next. Probably a rapid loss of trust in both old-line political parties. The Trumpists will never forgive the Republican Party, and the Democrats will have gained nothing.
Hopefully, the Democrats will have learnt an incredible amount from this experience, but we will have to wait and see. As for the Republican party, they could well implode.

In some ways, Trump’s election could end up being a good thing from a progressive point of view, provided that he is stopped before he causes too much damage. If Clinton had been elected, you can imagine how intense her opposition would have been. She would have driven them all nuts. The various right-wing/anti-establishment forces that came together during the Obama years would have been even stronger and more united. But instead, with Trump being elected, all that simmering anger is being given an outlet and a lot of it is being released.

If Trump had lost the election, it is entirely possible that an even more dangerous character could have emerged from the Republican ranks in 2020 and taken advantage of the united opposition to Clinton. Someone more intelligent and focused and cold-blooded. One of the advantages of Trump in this regard is that he such a chaotic, bumbling idiot, which by rights should act as a dissipating force.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

This is an interesting insight into the money behind the Trump campaign. Of course, as we know, the monied nature of US politics is a problem across the parties, but this is a little different, I think.

Robert Mercer & the Dark Money Behind Trump and Bannon's Radical Vision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HdifKgmPFQ
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:This is the first time that Trump was forced to stop shadow-boxing and actually implement a serious policy and, of course, he bungled it. And now for the first time in his political career, his much vaunted “negotiating skills" that he repeatedly boasted about appear hollow. How this plays out with his fan base will be fascinating to observe. Trump will have been deeply humiliated by this. It is going to be interesting to see how he reacts over the next few weeks.
Well, it was not Trump's plan but mainly Paul Ryan's project, so a thing from the main conservative wing. Indications are that Trump's personal view is that Obamacare would be okay but of course he ran on a platform which demanded it to change. The main issue is, and I've seen statements showing Trump being aware of it, is that Obamacare aimed to make things cheaper by preventing serious and expensive illnesses, causing unemployment or emergency care, developing as a result of not being insured and not seeking advice on time.

Nevertheless, Trump hates to lose. But as long as the focus will be on him again next week, I don't think he'll care that much. What's more interesting is the slow break down of whole "Russian hacking DNC" nonsense, mixed in with some bungling of dubious intercepts done within the Trump tower or targetting his people abroad. It's not impossible Trump will get vindicated on this and then he can announce some reform of the security agencies (draining swamps) probably making them worse but okay. Bottom line is that he's in need of a win. And he knows how ratings work.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Pam Seeback wrote:There is a path that must be walked that releases/absorbs the will to power/the tension of "I think", I am doing my best to walk it, never a dull moment!
Just don't kid yourself.
It is my experience that one can be seduced by forms of clash and strife just as one can be seduced by those of comfort and love. Neither seduction that subjectifies form has anything to do with the absolute.
Form is always subjective and seduction might be a matter of how bees and flowers keep going at it. It's unclear what exactly you are proposing here.
I seek the absolute and the way to its complete realization. Yes, along the way the relational twins of clash and comfort shall come and go like bubbles from a child's pipe. You're right -- such mentations are the stuff of life, my life as well. But plod on toward the absolute I go. As I see it, all I have to lose is suffering. :-)
Wouldn't you describe plodding towards the absolute as suffering too? My own description would be more like speeding down the glide of the absolute and landing in the mud. There's no way crawling back.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:such historical events, even if it were that they were in some distant sense analogous, has not a single thing to do with Trump's actual behaviour nor the conspiratorial nonsense, expressed without evidence of any kind, that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery.
It's known that also the Clinton campaign in 2008 seriously considered publicly doubting if Obama was "American in his thinking and in his values" and targeting his "lack of American roots". They ended up not running with it because as we all know, democrats prefer to talk smooth and have way better instincts for the racial backlash egged on by opponents. But as far as political games go, historically there was nothing new with using doubts on the place of birth. Which was my point.
Maybe, after all, there were no planes on 9/11. I mean, it's all just speculation.
People are of course free to doubt the physics of buildings fires and collapse. Some topics will never provide sufficient simple to parse evidence to change all their preconceived notions. However, it's unclear to me why you bring it up.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Dan Rowden wrote:This is long [1:09:56 - skip to 3:20] but very interesting. Well, it's interesting if you're on a similar page to David and me regarding Trump. Otherwise you'll probably just see it as an exercise in confirmation bias.

Chris Hedges: The Rise of Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na_jAtxpmiI
Very impressive! Love his passion. It's great to come across such a hard-nosed, yet ethical, take on the whole debacle.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Pam Seeback »

David Quinn wrote:
To Diebert, Pam Seeback wrote:You failed to address the original statement I made about the relative being the relative and the absolute being the absolute. Last time I looked, the address of this board is "theabsolute.net", not "thesubjective-relative.net."
From a spiritual perspective, you can't really divorce the relative world from the absolute, not while you are part of this world.

For example, consider the act of writing to this forum. If it is your aim to promote wisdom (i.e. consciousness of the absolute) in others, then naturally you try to seek the words that will best trigger wise thoughts in those who read them. But because you don't really know who is reading them or what is actually occurring in their brains in each moment, it becomes a bit of a lottery. You have to make some educated guesses and throw out some thoughts in the hope it will do the trick. These thoughts could consist of pure logical reasonings, or they could involve some empirical theorizing, or some humour, or some insults, or a spiritual quote, or whatever.

In this way, the absolute within the spiritual mind (no existence, no attachment, no delusion, no bias, no mental blocks) meets the relativity of the world (the uncertainty of the senses, assumptions, inferences, guesswork).

If your output is confined to pure abstract reasonings or absolute truths, then it will become too sterile and dry. If it just focuses on empirical theorizing, then it will become too superficial and banal. The key is to keep mixing it up in an intelligent manner.
I appreciate your response here David, and if by the two 'realms' meeting you are proposing that the purpose of this meeting is to remove the delusion of the conditioned relative, then I absolutely agree with you. Obviously this task is achieved while still in the world, there is no other way.

As for posts appearing sterile and dry if one were to post only abstract postings, I can see how this would not attract those who are on the cusp of awakening or have just awakened, and I can see using the worldly relative to 'spice things up' to this end, but as I implied above, the purpose of such 'spice' should be only to attract, not to suggest that the conditioned relative and the unconditioned absolute are the same or equal. Nowadays hybrid things are very popular, hybrid cars, hybrid dogs, etc. but the wise man should avoid this temptation to hybrid the absolute and the relative like the plague.

Using Buddhist terms, nirvana (the unconditioned absolute) and samsara (the conditioned relative) intersect in consciousness while samsara is still active and its conditioned terms are used wisely with the goal to realize nirvana, but at no time should it be said directly or implied indirectly that nirvana = samsara. Perhaps I am missing something, but your idea of the two realms being combined when a decision is being made sounds very much like a doctrine of absolute-relative hybridism.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Nevertheless, Trump hates to lose.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with Trump. The reason why Trump won is because he represented the likeable villain challenging the reigning champion/deep state (a term which at this point has lost any meaning it might ever have had)/keepers of the status quo. But what can the likeable villain do that the status quo can't? Much more of the same, with customised bumpers (i.e., in the interest of the people rather than that of the elite).

Perhaps "winning" is something that many American conservatives deserve to experience after years if not decades of "losing" to the liberals. Trump certainly provided that experience, and his successors are likely to provide improved versions of that experience. Meanwhile, only a leader who is determined to *lose* where it matters most, i.e., unbridled consumption on *all* fronts fuelled by infinite growth, can provide a valid narrative for the future in the US or any other country.

Problem - bipartisan insanity and corruption; solution - the Garden Party.
Locked