To compare is to judge?

[Avolith]

What are you all talking about? Are you getting 'enlightened' behind my back? This is not right.

Being ignored, for a woman, is pretty close to the experience of a painful death, isn't it. Anyways, I will tell you I was plotting to turn them all against you, but no more. The new (win-win!) plan is for our secret club to ascend to heaven, leaving you behind. You will then be free to write anything you please, without receiving 'board warnings'. And best of all, no one will be trying to trick you or anyone else into joining a nihilistic suicidal death cult!

[Santiago Odo]

Excellent! So thoughtful! Give me a kiss before you ascend. It's only fair . . .

You leave me to have to imagine everything.

Dear Eric. I read your striking comments and, then and there, was transported into the luminous mists of The All. Unable to speak I gazed out into Infinity and, swoosh, I disappeared.

My Dear Avolith. Yes, I too was caused to implode inward in Pure Rational Realization once, lo the many years! Now, my particles are spread evenly within he Infinite All and I burn burn burn in magnificent octaves of harmony.

Dear Eric. Agreed. And that asshole Santiago. Such an idiot!

Dear Avolith. Yes. The very model of Ignorance. Would that the Tao touch him. Not impossible! Let us racionate together in a postmodern semblance of prayer . . .

Dear Eric. Let's turn to page 422 of the Collected World of Soren Kierkegaard and read lustrous passages! The letter where he dumps that wretched female Regine . . .

Dear Avolith. It is good. And don't kiss Santiago goodbye you'll surely get terrestrial cooties!

Et cetera . . .

[Avolith]

Excellent! So thoughtful! Give me a kiss before you ascend. It's only fair . . .

You leave me to have to imagine everything.

Dear Eric. I read your striking comments and, then and there, was transported into the luminous mists of The All. Unable to speak I gazed out into Infinity and, swoosh, I disappeared.

My Dear Avolith. Yes, I too was caused to implode inward in Pure Rational Realization once, lo the many years! Now, my particles are spread evenly within he Infinite All and I burn burn burn in magnificent octaves of harmony.

Dear Eric. Agreed. And that asshole Santiago. Such an idiot!

Dear Avolith. Yes. The very model of Ignorance. Would that the Tao touch him. Not impossible! Let us racionate together in a postmodern semblance of prayer . . .

Dear Eric. Let's turn to page 422 of the Collected World of Soren Kierkegaard and read lustrous passages! The letter where he dumps that wretched female Regine . . .

Dear Avolith. It is good. And don't kiss Santiago goodbye you'll surely get terrestrial cooties!

Et cetera . . .

Actually, it was more like
Dear mr Eric, how did you get enlightened? Tell me now or else.
Dear Avolith, chill out, and Im working on this text that may or may not be completed
Dear mr Eric, ok sorry
Dear Avolith, Please don't post images, it's against the rules
Dear mr Eric, ok fine. PS do you also think Alex is an asshole?
Dear Avolith, yes, I concur

--the end--

[Santiago Odo]

Except I am really wonderful. Really. Europe loves me. America. South America. Even Tasmania . . .

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In fact, I heard they have death warrants out now in all of them but Colombia, where you must still have good connections with the Cali Cartel.

[guest_of_logic]

Even Tasmania . . .

Sure, Tasmania loves you. Just don't try to kiss it.

[Pam Seeback]

Except I am really wonderful. Really. Europe loves me. America. South America. Even Tasmania . . .

Canada (me earthly home) doesn't love you? We're known for our social and cultural tolerance so whatever you said or did to piss us off must have been, well, not very nice. Send us some flowers and perhaps we'll forgive you.

[Santiago Odo]

My Dear & Darling Children:

Each & All, receive my blessing.

::: mysterious outflow of effervescent luminous energy like a shimmering cascade :::

It's a strange road we've been down, isn't it? You didn't know it was going to turn out like this, did you? Miracle of miracles.

I want each of you to know that though it has been strange, though you have understood so little, that still *we* seem to have been able to get through to you.

Many of you we have often visited, or rather had your souls drawn out and visited our temples and compounds where -- how strange to see you pliant and cooperative in your raw, soul-state! -- you have agreed to all our premises and to participate in the Grand Schemes.

Let us now enter Phase Two. Oh yes, the first cycle is now complete. Seismic in import. You are ready.

Blessing My Children!

::: crescendo of rollicking harmonies and then a long drawn out note ending in vast undertones :::

I will never leave you. Never!

[Pam Seeback]

It seems as if you are unable to recognize that truth seekers are wholly dedicated to following the path of 'seek and YE shall find, knock and the door shall be opened.' You (and those like you) who want to serve up a template for how-things-should-be are oblivious to the effect it has on the unbending desire of seekers of the ultimate to reason and know for themselves. Don't say I didn't warn you -- Daddy Alex rails against the big bad void in hopes of turning the innocents back but as the Daddy in the OT discovered, tell them not to eat the fruit and bam - the apple is in their mouth.

[Santiago Odo]

I'm tripping on your metaphors.

I am farther along on the path you know in shadow.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It seems as if you are unable to recognize that truth seekers are wholly dedicated to following the path of 'seek and YE shall find, knock and the door shall be opened.' You (and those like you) who want to serve up a template for how-things-should-be are oblivious to the effect it has on the unbending desire of seekers of the ultimate to reason and know for themselves. Don't say I didn't warn you -- Daddy Alex rails against the big bad void in hopes of turning the innocents back but as the Daddy in the OT discovered, tell them not to eat the fruit and bam - the apple is in their mouth.

Pam, make no mistake, Alex lives from the notion of "been there done that a long time ago". He looks down from this high mountain top believing he completely truly understands why you have to write like you do. He believes, after having seen enough of it, that it's not the way to go and not in a neutral sense but more like "not my poison" and not the poison humans ought to take although he understands the mortal wound pushing someone to "take that number". It then fascinates him during the interactions.

Alex is poised, beyond the obvious trolling, games and nesting syndromes, to employ insight and spirituality as a kind of restoration project, to distill meaning and hard nosed principles in "how to be" in the world, as a more true politics, a more true national sentiment, a more true living arrangement and work ethic, a more true metaphysical ground for the various decision taking and so on. A stated desire to connect the philosophical with some praxis and to see them as one and the same. Quite like what drove Karl Marx to his project but Karl at least got more serious with it and connected with very similar minds as a social project.

In the end though, the question is where one makes his treasure. If the gravity of ones being is locked into a certain mode of existence, then there is where all concerns will lie, that's where all thoughts and feelings start to orbit around. This is a cognitive dissonance which is the main issue on a forum like this when members interact philosophically as we all have dispositions which are not free to mold and sync with the other. Which means, ipso facto, that exchanges tend to focus on abstract sounding, universal, somewhat disembodied topics. It's a necessary feature and while it can serve as escape as well, it's the only way to have this discussion at all, at least without having it all fall to pieces, which actually is the default human disposition, like living fractals.

[Santiago Odo]

Freude, schöner Götterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken.
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
Deine Zauber binden wieder
Was die Mode streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

Deine Zauber binden wieder
Was die Mode streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
____________________________________

He believes, after having seen enough of it, that it's not the way to go and not in a neutral sense but more like "not my poison" and not the poison humans ought to take although he understands the mortal wound pushing someone to "take that number". It then fascinates him during the interactions.

What would be a 'neutral sense'?

The notion of a 'mortal wound' is interesting. I am also interested in what you imply here: to be determined to act or think or conceive in certain ways as a result (as you say, it is not a phrase I have used) of a mortal wound. What mortal wound?

But I would ask: If there is a 'mortal wound' that impels one, what is the opposing metaphor? That is, to respond to and be impelled by what I must necessarily describe -- to operate within the metaphorical structure you just provided -- as 'immortal cure'?

Alex is poised, beyond the obvious trolling, games and nesting syndromes, to employ insight and spirituality as a kind of restoration project, to distill meaning and hard nosed principles in "how to be" in the world, as a more true politics, a more true national sentiment, a more true living arrangement and work ethic, a more true metaphysical ground for the various decision taking and so on.

We are people who come out of and are the outcomes -- the creations -- of a vast human project. I think it fair to think in such terms. I mean of course 'the Occidental project' and the creation of Europe. I refer often to Occidental paideia. Now, I could go on with a defining list but it would only have significance for a person aware enough to even recognize what is being talked about, right? You cannot hum Ode to Joy to a dog and expect much response from the dog, can you? Similarly, I have noticed, especially here and over the years, that many people attracted to this Enlightenment Gimmick are people who operate, intellectually, similarly to my metaphorical and exemplary dog. And you of all people remember what Bjornstand always said:

A dog in a fog's in a bog

Let us then bring out the notion -- just the notion mind you -- of what 'restoration' can mean in the widest sense that we might conceive. Horrifyingly, I know -- it would be insulting to a normal man I guess but how could the 'enlightened' be affected in the slightest? -- I know that this is a confrontative statement: to imply that many who are attracted here are 'doggish intellects', but it is really the core of understanding what 'to restore' can mean.

What you have written in your fine paragraph is what you recognize as essential and literally unavoidable. Your paragraph indicates that you define the raison d'être of being aware and knowing in this way. There is no alternative and if there is I wish to be made aware of it.

What were Weininger, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard or for that matter Gustav Bjornstrand doing then if not *that*? Again, I wish to be instructed and corrected if I am not seeing straight.

Quite like what drove Karl Marx to his project but Karl at least got more serious with it and connected with very similar minds as a social project.

But there you have it! By your own logic. One must 'define a project', one's project must go right to the root of what is metaphysically contingent from it, and one must work together in what ways are possible to realize one's Vision.

I was the shadow of the waxwing slain
By the false azure in the windowpane;
I was the smudge of ashen fluff -- and I
Lived on, flew on, in the reflected sky.
And from the inside, too, I'd duplicate
Myself, my lamp, an apple on a plate:
Uncurtaining the night, I'd let dark glass
Hang all the furniture above the grass,
And how delightful when a fall of snow
Covered my glimpse of lawn and reached up so
As to make chair and bed exactly stand
Upon that snow, out in that crystal land!

In the end though, the question is where one makes his treasure.

Yes, of course, but 'treasure' must be defined. Is *meaning* a treasure? or is there treasure in meaning? What does treasure mean? Can you make any non-evasive statement about it? And if you did, what language would you employ? Please, your apple on a plate.

If the gravity of ones being is locked into a certain mode of existence, then there is where all concerns will lie, that's where all thoughts and feelings start to orbit around. This is a cognitive dissonance which is the main issue on a forum like this when members interact philosophically as we all have dispositions which are not free to mold and sync with the other.

How many 'modes of existence' are there? Can you provide a short list? I mean, just a roundabout description? I assure you I can grasp and *see through* metaphors to what stands behind them, as I can see the furniture suspended above the grass reflected in the glass.

I might suggest that you are making a false statement when you imply that 'members interact philosophically'. It would be more accurate and thus more fair for you to acknowledge that when 'philosophical interaction', if determined by David Quinn, is a destruction of what you are referring to. I only repeat what Fr. Bjornstrand has said and always says that the end of that bizarre road is *the destruction of intellect*. First, *destruction of intellect* is a real thing, a real process. It is, I suggest, precisely what our Dear Founders reacted in horror against when they noticed the entire culture being overswamped by feminized sensation. Bjornstrand, if I did understand him correctly, felt that such destruction of intellect (in that special sense of the word) corresponded to 'demonic descent into nescience'.

'And from the inside, too, I'd duplicate myself...'

Can I make this any more clear? Can you receive out of Ode to Joy any special sense? Can you see the images 'suspended over the grass'?

Which means, ipso facto, that exchanges tend to focus on abstract sounding, universal, somewhat disembodied topics. It's a necessary feature and while it can serve as escape as well, it's the only way to have this discussion at all, at least without having it all fall to pieces, which actually is the default human disposition, like living fractals.

You are in truth writing a defense of your own relationship to knowledge and being! You are explaining yourself. You are presenting your sense of 'what is good and necessary'. This is your assertion: "it's the only way to have this discussion at all, at least without having it all fall to pieces, which actually is the default human disposition".

The point is to open the conversation to the full dimension of what is possible in it and about it. The subject of the sentence being 'what is possible' more than 'the conversation'.

[Pam Seeback]

Santiago Odo/Alex: I might suggest that you are making a false statement when you imply that 'members interact philosophically'. It would be more accurate and thus more fair for you to acknowledge that when 'philosophical interaction', if determined by David Quinn, is a destruction of what you are referring to. I only repeat what Fr. Bjornstrand has said and always says that the end of that bizarre road is *the destruction of intellect*. First, *destruction of intellect* is a real thing, a real process. It is, I suggest, precisely what our Dear Founders reacted in horror against when they noticed the entire culture being overswamped by feminized sensation. Bjornstrand, if I did understand him correctly, felt that such destruction of intellect (in that special sense of the word) corresponded to 'demonic descent into nescience'.

Herein lies the paradox, no? If we bow to the intellect, we create complex forms of meaning that ultimately can be reduced to a few forms without losing much substance. I believe it is worth acknowledging that the intellect has great potential to be the nesting place for the ego using 100 words when 10 would do, all so that distraction and word play, rather than simplicity of function or feeling, is the end result. Don't get me wrong, I love words as much as the next guy, after all, I am a product of my times, but I am aware of the potential of the intellect - when it is admired rather than viewed as being a tool - to cause confusion and doubt rather than clarity and succinctness. At least on the philosophical, abstract plane the intellect is given free rein to play and define without causing suffering on the human plane which is what happens when it finds its chosen "ism" and attempts to spreads its doctrine web far and wide in the name of the will to power (its survival).

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that the human intellect of culture and politics and science be abandoned, what I am suggesting is that the "ism" factor be avoided at all costs, that is, that we enjoy our culture and use our science and politics but do not identify - attach our "I" to - their forms. It is when we identify with our forms that all the spinning and defensiveness and aggression comes into effect - aka, human suffering in a nutshell. As I understand the feminization of human categories to be, it is about attachment to form, not about the forms themselves that is its cause. Unless I have misunderstood your ism of paternalism, "it" requires identification with pre-conceived gender roles in order to function, no?

[Santiago Odo]

Intellect is the foundation of consciousness. No intellect, no human consciousness. This is an absolute statement.

There is no way not to 'bow to the intellect'. To imply that it is possible, or advisable not to cultivate intellect, is as if to propose that one not have consciousness, not perceive as an aware being.

That it is suggested as possible to do without, is (to my ass's ears) an impossible statement. It simply does not function.

Therefore I reject, a priori, the entire suggestion, whatever the heck it is, whatever the heck it is proposing.

Intellect is the foundation of consciousness.

Therefore, when I encounter constructs such as this:

If you don't make the Truth your own, and sacrifice your entire being in the pursuit of it, burning away everything you love on an altar devoted to an Unlimited Love, you will never have it. None, no master, can sew it on you with needle and thread. As long as the pursuit of Truth remains an intellectual exercise, it will be a good start, and worthy of much merit, and none could fault you as you attempt it, but it will hardly even be the first step. This is because such systems of thought are like objects to be pursued in a race and can always be kept at a safe distance.

I only have questions to ask. Something does not sound right here. Not because I cannot grasp what this *mood* is that holds sway for this person -- I am aware of such sentiments in the Saints for example -- but rather because this *project*, as stated, does not connect back to our *human world*. It becomes a very private affair shared only in a limited context. It takes leave of the world and uses language that supports a strange separation.

In a tradition that is connected to this world, and to our being in it, such for example are or were *our own traditions*, all being, experience and knowledge are of-a-piece with higher attainment.

Therefore, to be involved in such is to be involved with the world of man.

It is when we identify with our forms that all the spinning and defensiveness and aggression comes into effect - aka, human suffering in a nutshell.

One has no choice but to *identify* through intellect and through awareness all that one values and all that one will do. If one does not or cannot do this one is a partial human, mentally deficient, or captured by possessive terrestrial forces demoniac in nature (this is how I interpret the 'flowey feminine'). I would lay stress on this dualism. It is a choice within our incarnated world.

That is what *intellect* does. It is the foundation of all awareness and thus of all action. 'Defensiveness' and 'aggression' are therefore necessary components and cannot be avoided or done away with. One must know rather what one is defending and what to be aggressive in caring for and valuing.

What you propose, and this is what you have chosen to do as your private choice, is to abandon the project.

In the Occident, now and today, we are living in a world that is falling asunder not because of 'identification' and 'aggression' in relation to defined and rational value, but because if falling away from the capacity to do just that. And I continually present a living example: David Quinn. Where intellect dies and some bizarre will takes over.

[Avolith]

I don't feel like burning my fingers again, but I'm watching this conversation!

PS. Did you know a cute kitten dies every time you say Occidental

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alex, do we really have to engage in the answer-question game again? Would you really change a iota in your thought? Or mine?

He believes, after having seen enough of it, that it's not the way to go and not in a neutral sense but more like "not my poison" and not the poison humans ought to take although he understands the mortal wound pushing someone to "take that number". It then fascinates him during the interactions.

What would be a 'neutral sense'?

That you'd say "it's not the way to do" and simply go somewhere else or talk about something else? Not to be determined to put it inside some laboratory for moral analysis and then to conclude it's part of the evil which tears apart the world? Some world at least.

The notion of a 'mortal wound' is interesting. I am also interested in what you imply here: to be determined to act or think or conceive in certain ways as a result (as you say, it is not a phrase I have used) of a mortal wound. What mortal wound?

The notion of a core wound comes from transpersonal psychology although I'd define it as a strong disposition (causing various forms of suffering) which pushes people to seek liberation, insight, answers or just peace. In other words, if nothing is wrong nobody is going to move. The addition of "mortal" is something I added, implying mortality, the fall, death and death wishes and all that.

Your paragraph indicates that you define the raison d'être of being aware and knowing in this way. There is no alternative and if there is I wish to be made aware of it.

Are you sure that's what it indicated?

What were Weininger, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard or for that matter Gustav Bjornstrand doing then if not *that*? Again, I wish to be instructed and corrected if I am not seeing straight.

Setting off firecrackers in the depth of night. You quickly look out of the window, inching the curtains just a bit, only to see no one there in sight. And you guess they ran off.

Yes, of course, but 'treasure' must be defined. Is *meaning* a treasure? or is there treasure in meaning? What does treasure mean? Can you make any non-evasive statement about it? And if you did, what language would you employ? Please, your apple on a plate.

But it really doesn't have to. Around your deeply held treasure meaning always gestates. Not that each treasure is that original.

How many 'modes of existence' are there?

Exactly ten thousand!

You are in truth writing a defense of your own relationship to knowledge and being! You are explaining yourself. You are presenting your sense of 'what is good and necessary'. This is your assertion: "it's the only way to have this discussion at all, at least without having it all fall to pieces, which actually is the default human disposition".

Yes but it's trying, through the confines of language, to reach for the universal, all-too-human, condition. Is it a problem that anyone would "present their sense of what is good and necessary"? Heaven forbid!

It's time for a break from these round-tripping conversations with someone who made an art out of not realizing what he himself is saying and representing. A fascinating anima on display or just a not so silent Hannibal Lector in between the lambs? Nec refert.

[Santiago Odo]

In fairness -- and I have a highly developed sense of it -- I am going to offer you a second go.

I am very disappointed by this inane post.

[Pam Seeback]

Alex: Intellect is the foundation of consciousness. No intellect, no human consciousness. This is an absolute statement.

There is no way not to 'bow to the intellect'. To imply that it is possible, or advisable not to cultivate intellect, is as if to propose that one not have consciousness, not perceive as an aware being.

That it is suggested as possible to do without, is (to my ass's ears) an impossible statement. It simply does not function.

Therefore I reject, a priori, the entire suggestion, whatever the heck it is, whatever the heck it is proposing.

Intellect is the foundation of consciousness.

Consciousness and intellect, both caused, arise together, so you are correct, no intellect, no human consciousness. What is caused, however, cannot be a foundation.

In a tradition that is connected to this world, and to our being in it, such for example are or were *our own traditions*, all being, experience and knowledge are of-a-piece with higher attainment.

Therefore, to be involved in such is to be involved with the world of man.

Pam wrote:
It is when we identify with our forms that all the spinning and defensiveness and aggression comes into effect - aka, human suffering in a nutshell.

One has no choice but to *identify* through intellect and through awareness all that one values and all that one will do. If one does not or cannot do this one is a partial human, mentally deficient, or captured by possessive terrestrial forces demoniac in nature (this is how I interpret the 'flowey feminine'). I would lay stress on this dualism. It is a choice within our incarnated world.

That is what *intellect* does. It is the foundation of all awareness and thus of all action. 'Defensiveness' and 'aggression' are therefore necessary components and cannot be avoided or done away with. One must know rather what one is defending and what to be aggressive in caring for and valuing.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If one values the intellect, then the intellect is caused to have the capacity to reveal all forms, not just those of tradition and culture. Let's look at your proposed world of paternalism within the confines of your perceived Occidental values and culture for a moment. Let's say you are the Alpha Male of your Occidental world, overseeing the caring for and valuing of what this means to you, including those you perceive as being lesser in knowledge and devotion than you. What will you do when those under your care begin to question your perception (and I emphasize 'your') Occidental values? What will you do when they encounter 'strange' words like 'infinite', 'God', 'spirit', 'ultimate truth', 'eternal', etc and begin forming groups to discuss what they mean? Will you punish them? Forbid them to read anything not Occidental-related? Unplug the internet? History has proven time and time again that the causality won't be held down to certain forms - the spirit (eventually) rebels loudly when the yoke is applied.

In the Occident, now and today, we are living in a world that is falling asunder not because of 'identification' and 'aggression' in relation to defined and rational value, but because if falling away from the capacity to do just that. And I continually present a living example: David Quinn. Where intellect dies and some bizarre will takes over.

Your shaming of David or Diebert or anyone here is not going to bring converts over to your side. This is a huge blind spot of paternalism, the lashing out in disappointment and anger when things don't go Daddy's way and the blind ignorance that is the inability to see the effects of such tantrums.

Try as you may (and no one can fault you for trying), you will never cage the spirit of words.

[Santiago Odo]

This is so futile and tiresome.

What will you do when those under your care begin to question your perception (and I emphasize 'your') Occidental values? What will you do when they encounter 'strange' words like 'infinite', 'God', 'spirit', 'ultimate truth', 'eternal', etc and begin forming groups to discuss what they mean? Will you punish them? Forbid them to read anything not Occidental-related? Unplug the internet? History has proven time and time again that the causality won't be held down to certain forms - the spirit (eventually) rebels loudly when the yoke is applied.

The word 'infinite' is a word that cannot have much meaning. It is an abstraction. (But those who use that term will be mildly tortured.)

'God' 'Spirit' 'Ultimate Truth' 'Eternal': these are terms that are part of the philosophical tradition of the Occi--- oops -- the West.

(I am not going to be responsible for the murder of kittens!)

If you understood the basic paideia which I make efforts to alert you to, you'd understand what I am getting at. But since you don't, and won't make the effort, I can see why you cannot understand what I am saying.

PS: One cannot shame David. It would be like shaming a star. Or the blackness of the black night. Like shaking your fist at the sun, or spanking the ocean waves!

Neither can one shame Fr. Diebert. He is beyond good and evil and far far beyond the human, all too human.

[jupiviv]

If you understood the basic paideia which I make efforts to alert you to, you'd understand what I am getting at. But since you don't, and won't make the effort, I can see why you cannot understand what I am saying.

"Love was before the light began,
When light is over, love shall be;
O warm hand in the grave, O bridge of truth,
O ivy’s tooth
Eating the green heart of the tree
Of man!"