Statement about Solway and Trump

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:03 pm

Diebert wrote:You don't know enough, have not shown enough, to make such claims about any origination.
It is this sort of statement that needs to be looked into. Would this not pair up in the next thrust with 'femininity' or lack of masculinity et cetera? You imply that there is some special or unique knowledge that must be achieved and which, if one follows the implication forward, you have gained. Am I right? Well, articulate it. I think this would involve you in a more direct statement of enlightenment as you see it. In any case, it would make your own realization more accessible.

I take this sort of statement --- and forgive the visuals --- as the spider-personality reacting when it gets backed up into its web. Home is very comfortable, very cozy and 'known'. A little bit of protective aggression? Correct me if I am wrong. It looks like this.

I am not convinced that 'special knowledge' is required to see --- at least some things --- with sufficient clarity to make statements about them.

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

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:06 pm

David Quinn wrote:A wise action doesn't always have to be an astonishing act of genius.
No but a genius action is still an act of genius, right? It's just a bit of a stretch to tie wisdom to the simple act of not instantly killing oneself or another. Any average, healthy cow protects its own calves. And we don't need to elevate that to profound or even mundane Buddha mooing. Once awareness and self-reflection kicks in, decision moments will happen: abortion, infanticide, adoption or simply whatever one does what is called for in each situation. Gee, I wonder who said that? If it's called for to kill the infant or leave it alone with its gun perhaps because something more important happens over there, for whatever reason, it will be done. Causality not morality.
In the case of a toddler playing with a loaded gun, the wisest action is to quickly remove the gun with the minimum of fuss. A less wise action would involve ego, which could add an extra layer of complication and potentially endanger the lives of those nearby.
A wise man once said: the wisest action is simply doing what is called for in each situation. And sometimes that might be a remarkable action, at other times it might be mundane. Sometimes it might save a life, sometimes waste one. You see, I think you are supporting my view and abandoning your own. And course you do, you have reasoned most of your life and you won't abandon it now just to feel right.

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

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:10 pm

Santiago Odo wrote:
Diebert wrote:You don't know enough, have not shown enough, to make such claims about any origination.
I take this sort of statement --- and forgive the visuals --- as the spider-personality reacting when it gets backed up into its web. Home is very comfortable, very cozy and 'known'. A little bit of protective aggression? Correct me if I am wrong. It looks like this.
No you were claiming to know something certain about the origination of ethics. And then make it my issue! Vintage Alex.

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

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:31 pm

Santiago Odo wrote:I think you have, and very much, if perhaps inadvertently, revealed quite clearly where you place the axis and center of gravity. In essence, this is an encapsulation of your understanding of 'enlightenment'. It is, of course, the direct result and the product of your philosophical project and it largely explains why you are here, why the webs that have been spun here attract you, and how it has come about that you have made for yourself such a solid home for your philosophy-spinning self. Sorry to play on the arachnoid theme but it is oddly fitting I think. The philosophical mother, the unending web of philosophical spinning, but a spinning that at some point turns strictly on itself, though the woven web is extraordinary, dazzling, alluring.
Sure nearly all my posts on this forum would qualify as an encapsulation of my understanding of 'enlightenment', in a way.

But I regard others as doing exactly the same. It's not something that can be escaped, even the most agile fly might be fooling himself as he's caught in the web, encapsulated by his own origination and philosophical underpinning. Hoisted by his own petard.
Factually, there is no point in any of your writing where I can say that I recognize a man who has arrived at a solution for himself. But I notice, constantly, a man who goes on spinning & spinning. Now, this does not bother me per se. Except that you, Diebert, 'occur' within this particular GF web. You come forward, is it were, in a context and you also 'explain' that context to a significant degree. Or perhaps you don't? How can one assess this?
This is mostly about your own requirements. It's impossible to answer this. In my own view I'm pretty clear, informative and consistent, relating to very real and actual issues. Then again, I'm sure you feel the same way about your own writing.
we all come out of a specific European tradition, and out of a Medieval worldview, which is being dismantled, or has been dismantled, or has fallen down, or has partially fallen down, and is in any case going through endless permutations in its process of descent. And out of this people attempt to recover, protect, restructure, rebuild, some 'personal edifice' around which they can enjoy some protection, and live, and thrive or at least carry on ... or hobble on as the case may be.
Yes we're causal beings, all with a context drenched in historical, genetic and cultural fluids. Nobody disputed this I think.
This is not a philosophy forum, Diebert, it is in its essence a religion forum. That has always been my take on it. And I do not think you could successfully prove it otherwise. Man seeks, and man requires, a complete and a 'religious' view. He needs it, I suppose, just as he needs and cannot do without the physical structure of his body. These correlate one with the other.
To me the notion of "world", as it seems to be used by people, is like a religious edifice, a carved god and its inhabitants are like ghosts, like vortexes of memories and associations trying to become "real". It should be no surprise that I answer with "so what"?

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:48 pm

Santiago Odo wrote:Your spirited defense of 'personal freedom', as I see it, reveals that you fail to grasp that 'personal freedom' is a sort of code for licence. And it is this licence that is, essentially, at the root of hyperliberalism. It does not lead to freedom and responsibility, but rather to enslavement to appetite and, then, to mass-forces which can hook that appetite.
What's wrong with allowing people to make their own choices and mistakes? What does it matter to you how they choose to live?

In fact, it is not a movement that has built up around Trump but rather that Trump appeared on an existing scene.
Yes, as I say, Trump the PR man has merely stuck his brand name on a political movement that has been building up long before he came on the scene.

What I find very strange about every element of every contribution of yours in this thread is how easily, and how fully, your view of things conforms to the established view.
You mean the view that nothing really exists? Or that Kevin has been radicalized? Or that the Chinese sages are on the same page as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche? Or that Trump's mentality is that of a very aggressive woman? Or that it is important for people to get rid of all illusion and become truly wise? . . . . . Do these sound establishment to you?

I don't know about anyone else, but to me this whole "anti-establishment" spiel is getting old real quick. It is the established view that things fall to the earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second, that smoking leads to lung cancer, that traffic lights are an effective means of directing traffic and minimizing accidents, that the concept of money is an effective way to enable business transactions, that a police force is needed to help prevent crime, that without electricity internet activity would come to a standstill, and so on. Are we going to dismiss all these views simply because they are "established"?

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by JohnJAu » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:30 am

David Quinn wrote: that the concept of money is an effective way to enable business transactions, that a police force is needed to help prevent crime... Are we going to dismiss all these views simply because they are "established"?
The effectiveness is relative, most of the examples you mentioned weren't based on necessities at all, but on circumstances which are so commonplace that the established response seems necessary. You don't dismiss something because it's established, but you do if it's broken or the consequences are so great and it is unlikely to improve. To support and thus perpetuate something which is broken and not improving is insane or stupid, even if the possible alternatives are not well established.

That single sentence about a police force demonstrates pretty serious ignorance and conformity. I'm not sure I could explain it to you if you haven't figured that out already at your age.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:47 am

David wrote:What's wrong with allowing people to make their own choices and mistakes? What does it matter to you how they choose to live?
Again, I find it amazing that you are asking such bad questions.
Santiago Odo wrote:Your spirited defence of 'personal freedom', as I see it, reveals that you fail to grasp that 'personal freedom' is a sort of code for licence. And it is this licence that is, essentially, at the root of hyperliberalism. It does not lead to freedom and responsibility, but rather to enslavement to appetite and, then, to mass-forces which can hook that appetite.
Our life here, and the 'life' that allowed for the rigorousness of the thought of, say, Nietzsche or Kierkegaard, and by this I mean the achievements of life, comes as a result of self-discipline. But more than that it comes about because of the taking into oneself of a sense --- I mean this like revelation --- of relationship with higher value. The primary, shall we say 'spiritual', revelation, is that man is free when he chooses that which limits, channels, and often thwarts his own personal will. But seen another way it is only the 'spiritual man' (this is an absolute rule I would suggest but I do not means this in the sense of tied to any particular tradition, though everything that we are, have, do and think does come out of one or another) who gains the perspective of far-reaching sight, and who then, in a relationship of reciprocity, channels his revelation back down into his own 'flesh', the flesh of the world, his culture, his milieu, his world.

I would suggest that, on one side of the pole, a man restricts himself, chooses limitation, consciously decides to understand and therefor to see that choices and actions have consequences, and teaches this to those around him, or insists on it through the creation of jurisprudential systems, regulations, et cetera, and accepts all this as part of his duty ...

...or he choses to expend his consciousness in licence; to give himself over to pleasure, to avoid discipline, et cetera. Surely no part of this needs to be further explained.

So the issue is not so much to stand in the way of someone lunging forward in concupiscence, or as they are enticed, captured and then driven by it (sexual desire is a huge motivator, maybe the largest one, in our present)(I think), the question has to do with how this has come about, and what motors and engines stand behind it, what its effects are, etc.

This is where I really do not get you David, not at all. The path that your admired sages followed, or many of them, is precisely one that is conservative, self-restrictive, spiritual and also a response to a revelation (an inner revelation, a recognition of truth and a desire to live in accord with it). There is a whole faction of men, and I suppose some women included there, who embody these characteristics, and these characteristics are quite opposed to the hyperliberalism of our present. And as I mentioned there are political theorists in Europe, now, who are writing on these themes and who recommend a cultural rediscovery of the conservative base and the traditions.

It matter very much how other people live. It matters very much what choices I make, whether what I do is unseen by others or whether it is displayed. This seems such basic, elementary stuff David.

In the West we defined our relationship to Being mostly in the Medieval period (Aquinas, Augustine, et cetera). The Medieval psychology, that is, the definition of the soul within the world of motion and matter (the mutable), is a foundational psychology that is still *operative* and functional. It is a highly reasoned and profoundly intellectual system of definitions of those men who sat down and reasoned things through. What we are as persons, that is as spirits moulded by culture, has come about directly through the restrictions imposed by the systems laid down. Paideia, the schools, the church, the monastery, but also the municipality, the jurisprudential systems, and then the local laws and rules as well.

I suggest that we are in a grand process of *falling away* as the structures around us have begun to dissolve or have dissolved. This is a basic perception that is understood and shared by many. It is simple historical fact yet, I have discovered, few employ it as an understanding or as a visualisation around which to construct a quotidian philosophy. The excesses of our present, and every one that you and Dan and Kevin reacted against in former times, come about when people give in to licence, in one form or another, in one way or another.

The whole purpose of spiritual life, and intellectual-spiritual life, and moral and ethical life certainly, is to recover the primal connection and then to work out, one by one, the rules by which we shall live. The whole purpose of a reform movement --- and this is what GF is, in essence (or was) --- is to offer to people a sense of what is possible, and then to articulate what is to be gained by reforming.

As I have often said, the problem is not that the rigor of the plan is wrong or *off*, but rather that you-plural are less the ones to carry forward the meaning and the sense of the thing that you desired to put in motion. I once said to Mother Spider that I would 'rewrite Genius Forum'. It has to be done. Let me say this: GF has been highly relevant to me because 1) it displayed an intensity of focus and defined what is at the base of it (masculine spirit, properly understood) and 2) because I quickly noticed that you-plural were not up to the task!

The question is how to become equal to the task that you yourselves have outlined. Right now, in these pages, you are largely displaying and for all to see just how far away from understanding you are. Remember: to engage in these processes you have to be willing to 'get bloody'.

Commander Solway, if you hear me! I declare my allegiance to Thy Projects and will serve in the Breitbart and GamerGate Battles! Direct me as my Wise Mind appears and raises the sword in Sacred Fury! Beat those pussies down!!! May the Masculine and Holy Spirit break through the gooey shell that encases David and Dan! I ask this in the name of the Absolute Non-Never-Existing Nothing, Amen.
Last edited by Santiago Odo on Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:50 am

Say what you will about Alex, but he is a master of concern trolling. As soon as he returned to the thread, it livened up again.
David Quinn wrote:It is the established view that things fall to the earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second, that smoking leads to lung cancer, that traffic lights are an effective means of directing traffic and minimizing accidents, that the concept of money is an effective way to enable business transactions, that a police force is needed to help prevent crime, that without electricity internet activity would come to a standstill, and so on. Are we going to dismiss all these views simply because they are "established"?
This is a colossally stupid logical fallacy in itself, but somehow even more so coming from you waxing pithy. Your argument boils down to: a few things labelled "X" are true, therefore everything labelled "X" is true.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:51 am

David Quinn wrote:Making the shift from a shifting consciousness to a shiftless consciousness is an enormous undertaking. As Hakuin describes, it involves having to single-mindedly bore through the Great Barrier.
If you break the Great Barrier, Trump will eventually build a new one with a Great Debt Ceiling. Actually, that's a great koan - how do you reduce debt by adding more debt? Answer - "by a logical twist that goes to the heart of zen".
Is enlightened consciousness the same as ordinary consciousness? Or is it different? Do you know the answer to that?
Koans - the genuine ones at least - are meant to be deductions that reveal the extremity of logic. If your koan about "shifting by not shifting" is to be called genuine, then it must reveal such an extremity. However, it reveals a very commonplace deduction that functional adults the world over are performing 24x7, as I've demonstrated above. The extremity of that deduction is a debt ceiling.

To answer your question - yes, they are different. An enlightened consciousness understands the extremity of its logic, which is its own finite nature. Like a lily of the field, it feels the grace of God precisely as what it is - a finite thing distinct from others. To an ordinary consciousness, reasoning is a debt and its extremity is a debt ceiling which must be increased from time to time to incorporate even more debt. But regardless of how high its pushed, it remains a debt ceiling.

But let's consider the lilies once more. Here is the koan from "The Essential teachings of Hakuin" that I posted earlier, along with the commentary (cited by Hakuin) by one Yung-chiao:

The koan:

Priest Ch'ien-feng addressed his assembly:

"This Dharma-body has three kinds of sickness and two kinds of light. Can any of you clarify that?"

Yun-men came forward and said, "Why doesn't the fellow inside the hermitage know what's going on outside?"

Ch'ien-feng roared with laughter.

"Your student still has his doubts," Yun-men said.

"What are you thinking of?" said Ch'ien-feng.

"That's for you to clarify," said Yun-men.

"If you're like that," Ch'ien-feng said, "I'd say you're home free."


Commentary:

In the fourth chapter of a collection of Zen records titled Ch'an-yu is a Dharma talk [fusetsu] the Ming priest Yung-chiao gave to his assembly during the December practice session:

Ch'ien-feng says that the Dharma-body has three kinds of sickness and two kinds of light; he also says that there is an opening through which to pass beyond these obstructions. Now, even if I have to lose my eyebrows for doing it, I'm going to explain the true meaning of Ch'ien-feng's words to you.

As a rule, mountains, streams, the great earth, light and darkness, form and emptiness, and all the other myriad phenomena obstruct your vision and are, as such, impediments to the Dharma body. That is the first of the sicknesses Ch'ien-feng refers to.

When you go on to realize the emptiness of all things and begin dimly to discern the true principle of the Dharma-body, but are unable to leave your attachment to the Dharma behind - that is the second sickness.

When you are able to bore through and attain the Dharma body, but you realize upon investigating it anew that there is no way to grasp hold of it, no way to postulate it or to indicate it to others, attachment to the Dharrna still remains. That is the third sickness.

The first sickness is a kind of light that doesn't penetrate freely. The second and third sicknesses are likewise a kind of light; it doesn't penetrate with unobstructed freedom either.

When a student has bored his way through the opening mentioned, he is beyond these obstructions and is able to see clearly the three sicknesses and two lights, with no need for even the slightest bit of further effort.


So David, would you say the commentary by Yung-chiao explains that koan? I'm asking because I think its meaning is identical to that of Kierkegaard's parable about lilies, and therefore my own point as well.

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

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:19 am

Santiago Odo wrote:The whole purpose of spiritual life, and intellectual-spiritual life, and moral and ethical life certainly, is to recover the primal connection and then to work out, one by one, the rules by which we shall live.
Alex, I'll not interfere or come in between much further but one addendum here, mostly related to my last exchange with you.

Suddenly I realized, while reading your most recent little sermon on the mole-heap, what your web fetish is all about. This is how I see it: the moment you, or anyone else, would actually close in to that "primal connection" and get to the rule book, like you're always aiming for: that's the moment that metaphysical web will start to manifest, this " philosophical mother" and "unending web of philosophical spinning". It's the nature of the object: the more one gets closer, it will run faster away again, as one of my teachers so playfully wrote: the perverse strategy of the object.

You are trying to move from subject to object, and whole of modernity is doing this, like the whole techne thing, as ongoing revelation! But I 'm telling you that's a lost battle, even while it's necessary and certainly not meaningless. Here I tell you about enlightenment instead: you won't find the primal, you won't figure out the ground rules. That arrow is simply not pointing into the right direction for that purpose. This is perhaps indeed a bit further introduction to my writing about the "end of things" and my, admittedly confusing, simultaneously accepting and denying the important of the causal, metaphysical web which you keep bringing up. Yes, I actually solved the puzzle but you are so in love with the puzzle and as such will never sit still long enough to even consider the reverse direction. It would look like one of "those other attempts" again. But it's not anything like it. While, at the same time, like everything else, it will manifest, as something, and indeed, for sure, as something vaguely recognizable and classifiable. And so you will study it--judiciously, as you will-- and report back again. But I've said enough about it.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:33 am

What you have written, or rather delicately spun, just above, is in my own view more evidence of your precise relationship to the problem. And one that has you stymied. Here, you have run into a wall, you can go neither forward nor backward, and yet the powerful motor is still revving on. But where can you expand? Into what new territory? Spin, son, has two senses, related yet distinct: to produce a delicate thread and to revolve endlessly. That as a description of things describes your basic relation to the problem and what you do in relation to it.

Please do not think it is a criticism (though it is a critique). It is this problem that must be talked about; how it came about and what it means. Meaning, this is precisely the problem we face, which is all that I really wanted to say. Therefor, you have rather nicely, if somewhat spindlely and with silvered whispy flourishes most admired, gotten to the core of the issue.

Your 'strategy', it would appear, rises up in you in relation to this, the issue and problem you describe, an agony of sorts. There, Spidey spins, spins splendidly, spins non-endingly.

I do not have a problem with your particular declarations, that is, what can and cannot be done, or what you or your teacher have determined to be the case, et cetera. I am sure that discourse on the topic will be interesting. A man I suppose must learn the role of philosophical spider and there is a natural succession. Did you get a plaque?

You will find the primal and you will find the ground rules. You really will! And you will live in accord with them.

Neurotically, you are stuck in a sort of vicious loop and your 'enlightenment' seems to me, as it often has, the exasperations and long sighings of an exhausted man-matron ... the Last European perhaps?

What I notice in your essay is just how forcefully and absolutely it is presented. It is essentially pessimistic but then your romanticism and your whole Nietzschean-pose arises in defence of it.

What's up with that?

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

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:18 am

Santiago Odo wrote:What I notice in your essay is just how forcefully and absolutely it is presented. It is essentially pessimistic but then your romanticism and your whole Nietzschean-pose arises in defence of it. What's up with that?
Are you suggesting then that I should address the fundamental ambiguity of your object-and-rulebook reality in a more open-ended and metaphorical way? And add some upbeat vibe to it? And using more open arms, all inviting and less defensive?

To put a different spin on things then: the Sufi whirling, where dervishes aim to reach the source of all perfection through abandoning one's egos or personal desires, by listening to the music, focusing on God, and spinning one's body in repetitive circles, which has been seen as a symbolic imitation of planets in the Solar System orbiting the sun.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn » Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:23 am

JohnJAu wrote:
David Quinn wrote: that the concept of money is an effective way to enable business transactions, that a police force is needed to help prevent crime... Are we going to dismiss all these views simply because they are "established"?
The effectiveness is relative, most of the examples you mentioned weren't based on necessities at all, but on circumstances which are so commonplace that the established response seems necessary. You don't dismiss something because it's established, but you do if it's broken or the consequences are so great and it is unlikely to improve. To support and thus perpetuate something which is broken and not improving is insane or stupid, even if the possible alternatives are not well established.
I was speaking against the newly-established view that an established view should be downplayed or dismissed simply because it is an established view. This isn't the same as affirming all established views. I trust you see the difference.

All of this anti-establishment stuff is becoming so fashionable! What did Chris Hedges call it? The politics of personal resentment.

JohnJAu wrote:That single sentence about a police force demonstrates pretty serious ignorance and conformity. I'm not sure I could explain it to you if you haven't figured that out already at your age.
Come on, give it a go. What do you think would happen if society didn't have a police force?

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn » Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:34 am

Santiago Odo wrote:The whole purpose of spiritual life, and intellectual-spiritual life, and moral and ethical life certainly, is to recover the primal connection and then to work out, one by one, the rules by which we shall live. The whole purpose of a reform movement --- and this is what GF is, in essence (or was) --- is to offer to people a sense of what is possible, and then to articulate what is to be gained by reforming.
You can open up people's horizons to what is possible, but then you leave them free to pursue those horizons if they choose to. You can't force them to follow the spiritual path.

There was a time when Christians did everything they could to force people into following their path, culminating in the crusades, and we are still paying for that god-awful mess to this very day.

You know, underneath the jocularity, I am detecting some authoritarian impulses.....

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:04 am

David Quinn wrote:You know, underneath the jocularity, I am detecting some authoritarian impulses.....
While that may, and may not, be the case, nevertheless the question of authority, the role of authority, what authority is and means, and how authority is handled and channeled is indeed, in my view, an important topic.

I have over the last couple of years especially learned a great deal about authority and about power and the use of power. What I will tell you, and again I will refer to a Medieval psychology of the body (which is where the mind is located), is that the intellect, properly understood, properly empowered, has natural rulership. The more the intellect (in the Medieval sense I mean this) is strengthened, the *brighter* is its power. And in the better circumstances, all of itself, it pulls people along with it. Essentially, that is 'authority'.

It is more or less true, and especially in the sort of society you are in, that you only have limited ability or *right* to influence others in certain very important senses, and any effort to exert authority is quickly resented, but in contradistinction to that, in the society in which I find myself things are a bit different. But in regard to this I might mention some of the Chinese tracts that instruct on how a ruler should act, or how to rule. Even in a classically 'democratic' society it was established as a given that only a well-ordered man would be able to function in democracy. So, the ordering of men was predicated as the base for constructing a functional democracy. If you do not have order, and if there is not order in people, obviously democracy cannot function (they cannot participate) and they ask, more or less, for an authoritarian limit to be set. This is just basic stuff.

Especially when you have responsibility for kids --- which came later in my life --- one very quickly has to get oneself ordered as to just what one values and what one will insist on. This is, quite literally, authoritarianism, but it occurs, in the best case, within a paideia. The reason that I think the question of authority is different in my region is, rather obviously, because this is a Catholic culture. There are still more intact social structures and social mores which do not allow outrageous deviation (though it begins). What does this mean? That a culture establishes within itself a general mores which allows authority to function. It is either established or it is not. It either has authority to do so or it does not.

I certainly suggest that hyper-liberalism, which is among different things a rebellion, will eventuate in the destruction of the social fibres. You can choose to look upon that as good and necessary, and perhaps leading to new things, or as a corruption leading to dissolution. However you decide will determine many things about your relationship to authority. But what is more important here, in terms of what I wish to communicate, is that the Nouvelle Droite is a movement which looks into, examines, interrogates, and makes propositions about such questions as the 'right and proper ordering of society', and it does this because it is forced to through a reaction that occurs to hyper-liberal excesses.

So again, I suggest and I definitely hold to the idea that it is required, and deeply necessary, that this occur, and that an aspect of the reaction that you have noticed to the SJW upwelling, and perhaps some part of Commander Solway's ever-so-slight reaction, has to do with some of these issues and questions. In any case, this is how I see it.
There was a time when Christians did everything they could to force people into following their path, culminating in the crusades, and we are still paying for that god-awful mess to this very day.
What do you mean?

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:20 am

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Is enlightened consciousness the same as ordinary consciousness? Or is it different? Do you know the answer to that?
Koans - the genuine ones at least - are meant to be deductions that reveal the extremity of logic.

That is certainly the established view of modern Buddhism, but it is wrong.

Koans are all about breaking the spell of dualistic thinking, to put an end to the grasping mentality and allow logic to function freely.

If your koan about "shifting by not shifting" is to be called genuine, then it must reveal such an extremity. However, it reveals a very commonplace deduction that functional adults the world over are performing 24x7, as I've demonstrated above.
You're clearly not understanding it. Either that or you are living in some kind of alternative universe where it is commonplace for people to comprehend the truth and abandon duality. It's not a world that I am living in, alas.

To answer your question - yes, they are different. An enlightened consciousness understands the extremity of its logic, which is its own finite nature. Like a lily of the field, it feels the grace of God precisely as what it is - a finite thing distinct from others.
Yes, but that grace embraces everything that exists, including the whole of the beginningless past and the whole of the endless future, as well as every moment of your life. The moment you perceive that it doesn't, it vanishes. You are ejected back into shifting consciousness once again.

Even grace cannot survive the grasping mentality.

But let's consider the lilies once more. Here is the koan from "The Essential teachings of Hakuin" that I posted earlier, along with the commentary (cited by Hakuin) by one Yung-chiao:

The koan:

Priest Ch'ien-feng addressed his assembly:

"This Dharma-body has three kinds of sickness and two kinds of light. Can any of you clarify that?"

Yun-men came forward and said, "Why doesn't the fellow inside the hermitage know what's going on outside?"

Ch'ien-feng roared with laughter.

"Your student still has his doubts," Yun-men said.

"What are you thinking of?" said Ch'ien-feng.

"That's for you to clarify," said Yun-men.

"If you're like that," Ch'ien-feng said, "I'd say you're home free."


Commentary:

In the fourth chapter of a collection of Zen records titled Ch'an-yu is a Dharma talk [fusetsu] the Ming priest Yung-chiao gave to his assembly during the December practice session:

Ch'ien-feng says that the Dharma-body has three kinds of sickness and two kinds of light; he also says that there is an opening through which to pass beyond these obstructions. Now, even if I have to lose my eyebrows for doing it, I'm going to explain the true meaning of Ch'ien-feng's words to you.

As a rule, mountains, streams, the great earth, light and darkness, form and emptiness, and all the other myriad phenomena obstruct your vision and are, as such, impediments to the Dharma body. That is the first of the sicknesses Ch'ien-feng refers to.

When you go on to realize the emptiness of all things and begin dimly to discern the true principle of the Dharma-body, but are unable to leave your attachment to the Dharma behind - that is the second sickness.

When you are able to bore through and attain the Dharma body, but you realize upon investigating it anew that there is no way to grasp hold of it, no way to postulate it or to indicate it to others, attachment to the Dharrna still remains. That is the third sickness.

The first sickness is a kind of light that doesn't penetrate freely. The second and third sicknesses are likewise a kind of light; it doesn't penetrate with unobstructed freedom either.

When a student has bored his way through the opening mentioned, he is beyond these obstructions and is able to see clearly the three sicknesses and two lights, with no need for even the slightest bit of further effort.


So David, would you say the commentary by Yung-chiao explains that koan? I'm asking because I think its meaning is identical to that of Kierkegaard's parable about lilies, and therefore my own point as well.
Yunch-chiao should wash his mouth out with soap, after spewing such filthy words. Why did he make such an effort? Does he think he can cure people? Who does he think he is? All that effort and now even more buddhas are trapped in the darkness!

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:45 am

To put a different spin on things then: the Sufi whirling, where dervishes aim to reach the source of all perfection through abandoning one's egos or personal desires, by listening to the music, focusing on God, and spinning one's body in repetitive circles, which has been seen as a symbolic imitation of planets in the Solar System orbiting the sun.
Keep weaving, web-maker ...

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

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:09 am

David Quinn wrote:
Santiago Odo wrote:
David Quinn wrote:You know, underneath the jocularity, I am detecting some authoritarian impulses.....
. . . . Even in a classically 'democratic' society it was established as a given that only a well-ordered man would be able to function in democracy. So, the ordering of men was predicated as the base for constructing a functional democracy. If you do not have order, and if there is not order in people, obviously democracy cannot function (they cannot participate) and they ask, more or less, for an authoritarian limit to be set. This is just basic stuff.

Especially when you have responsibility for kids --- which came later in my life --- one very quickly has to get oneself ordered as to just what one values and what one will insist on.
I can agree to the idea that most people need boundaries imposed on their lives, so as to give their lives purpose and a comforting sense that they are being looked after. They are a lot like children in this regard. Ideally, the people imposing these boundaries would be wise, clear-sighted individuals with noble hearts.
Boundaries are given for small children and adults who are incapable of stilling their wandering or anxious thoughts so conscience can be heard. For example, one who is of conscience will not need a speed limit to make him aware that speed can kill.

Most children are able to still their wandering and anxious self conscious thoughts by the age of four or five. The adult of conscience then would wait for a child to be at ease before asking them what is right or wrong action.
Last edited by Pam Seeback on Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:10 pm

Okay, a classic spin-meister interruption. This thread was veering seriously off-topic into discussing all volatile issues around politics, race, identity and morality and the recent posts have been split to White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius. Even while I'm personally interested in discussing at least some of it, the very nature of these topics is fundamentally different from the main forum intention. Yes, there are all kinds of possible links but this turns out to be debatable and would result in topics full of never-ending facts, references and interpretations. All very fascinating and I hope everybody understands the reason for the split. Complaints or suggestions on how to do this better can all be done in the Helpdesk.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:57 pm

This was a nice piece of forum surgery. I thank you, Diebert.

Post Reply