If you place sand and dirt under crushing pressure for enough time, you get diamonds.Often, the wildest kids are those who grew up with strict discipline.
possible egotisical motives for being here
-
Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
That reminds me of Kierkegaard's upbringing. He actually thought his father was psychologically killing off the entire family (most of them did actually die). He did "go wild" as a teenager and in his early twenties.avidaloca wrote:Marsha: Often, the wildest kids are those who grew up with strict discipline.
Martin: If you place sand and dirt under crushing pressure for enough time, you get diamonds.
But his father appears to have been a fairly consistent, reflective man. His behaviour and punishment style was linked. So Kierkegaard's desperate escapes were not from illogical strictness, but from this realm of intense psychological examination.
This is about the Genius Realms.
.
-
Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
David,
God can involve himself with the human race on one of two conditions, either in such a way that individuals are found who are willing to venture out so far in hating themselves that God can use them as apostles, or in such a way that the true situation is honestly and unconditionally admitted. The latter is
my primitivity.
As far as the former is concerned, this is certainly the instruction of the New Testament. But with respect to venturing out so far, the following must be noted. This is something so dreadful for a human being that it is permissible to say: I dare not.
--Kierkegaard
I don’t know, David. This guy seems rather emotional to me. I mean, it’s all very holy and all, but what are we talking about here? Suddenly there is a time where it’s OK for one to value the idea of an inherently existing self? Why and how is this more dreadful than any other notion attached to the idea of an inherently existing self?
More on this down further…
I cannot fathom the idea of Jesus hating himself. It implies ego. Are we, for the sake of such a Jesus, to abandon the idea of a fully enlightened Buddha? Or, do you consider the path of this Jesus as some sort of stepping-stone to it?
However, I think it’s appropriate to state, at this point, that I don’t believe in an historical Jesus of the magnitude depicted in the Bible, if in an historical Jesus at all.
God can involve himself with the human race on one of two conditions, either in such a way that individuals are found who are willing to venture out so far in hating themselves that God can use them as apostles, or in such a way that the true situation is honestly and unconditionally admitted. The latter is
my primitivity.
As far as the former is concerned, this is certainly the instruction of the New Testament. But with respect to venturing out so far, the following must be noted. This is something so dreadful for a human being that it is permissible to say: I dare not.
--Kierkegaard
I don’t know, David. This guy seems rather emotional to me. I mean, it’s all very holy and all, but what are we talking about here? Suddenly there is a time where it’s OK for one to value the idea of an inherently existing self? Why and how is this more dreadful than any other notion attached to the idea of an inherently existing self?
More on this down further…
Well, I am trying to explore your ideas (and Kevin’s) on it, actually -- and I don‘t just mean the bland, surface ones, either. Given the quote above, the idea that it is permissible to say “I dare not†regarding venturing out: are you speaking of an exact (or near enough) replica -- a literal replica of the apostles? Are we talking about door-knocking houses of parliament and proselytising in the ghettos to the gentiles? Foregoing house and comfort and family and friends in this very specific nomadic direction?L: I cannot understand this desire to take Jesus the wise man out of the bible whilst attempting to leave Jesus the stupid man in it.
D: In what way was Jesus stupid, do you think? You were speculating above that his very work for wisdom (his apostlizing and getting crucified) was stupid.
I cannot fathom the idea of Jesus hating himself. It implies ego. Are we, for the sake of such a Jesus, to abandon the idea of a fully enlightened Buddha? Or, do you consider the path of this Jesus as some sort of stepping-stone to it?
Yes, I am trying to point to something but am obviously not doing a very good job of it. I will give it some more thought and come back to it.D: But here you seem to be refering to something else.
However, I think it’s appropriate to state, at this point, that I don’t believe in an historical Jesus of the magnitude depicted in the Bible, if in an historical Jesus at all.
I'm done explaining TeX.Kelly Jones wrote:Terry,
Can you send me a private message wit your email address, so as to avoid blocking up this thread?
In case I have any questions on getting one of those applications running. I'll try TeXmacs first.
K
My e-mail is on the my profile. Although I'd be of little use for troubleshooting specific program problems at this point. I don't use TeXmacs; I only know LyX. You'd be better served if you went to a forum for that sort of stuff.
-
Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: possible egotisical motives for being here
.
Either this motive, or not:
The imperfect being who wants to become enlightened feeds himself with some thing he likes to eat, to drop imperfections.
What he likes to eat makes all the difference.
If the attachment is to God (emptiness), then immediately imperfection can be dropped. The imperfect being is swallowed up (disappears).
.
All imperfect beings are overweight, this isn't inherently bad. The path is to become aware of what you are eating, and to eat correctly - and in doing so, slowly starve.
.
Tiny baby becomes big fat thinker bloats to become whole genius starves to become ten-directions philosopher that clarifies the sage.
.
cosmic_prostitute wrote:What are some possible egostisical motives for being here?
Either this motive, or not:
The imperfect being who wants to become enlightened feeds himself with some thing he likes to eat, to drop imperfections.
What he likes to eat makes all the difference.
If the attachment is to God (emptiness), then immediately imperfection can be dropped. The imperfect being is swallowed up (disappears).
.
All imperfect beings are overweight, this isn't inherently bad. The path is to become aware of what you are eating, and to eat correctly - and in doing so, slowly starve.
.
Tiny baby becomes big fat thinker bloats to become whole genius starves to become ten-directions philosopher that clarifies the sage.
.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Leyla,
That's strange, I detect very little emotion here at all. Instead, I see a thinker who is calmly and resolutely facing up to a terrible truth.
The egotistical pathways etched deeply into the brain by a lifetime of egotistical activity, and which are still there even in spiritually-advanced people, are what complicate the issue. It is because of these pathways that the spiritual person easily falls into the trap of believing in his self - not in a coarser intellectual sense, but subtly, emotionally, instinctually. When faced with the fearsome prospect of being persecuted and sacrificed for the sake of the truth - a la Jesus style - these subtle egotisms tend to come to the surface.
As with Kierkegaard's statements above, what is being "hated" is the false self and the attachment to it. It means hating the craving for comfort, safety, happiness, good health, good friends, a long life, social status, approval, intimacy, etc, which characterizes the mediocre, untruthful life. One cannot be a disciple of Jesus (i.e. a lover of Truth) without abandoning all of that and opening oneself up to the hardships and abuses which come with being a thorn in the side of humanity.
It does mean abandoning the normal comforts of life that most people take for granted, yes. In effect, one becomes an enemy of everyone. As Jesus said, "Foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
But I imagine that his activities would be far more interesting and threatening than the usual doorknocking and shouting out from the rooftops so beloved of born-again Christians. He is more likely to be a tremendous stirrer and trouble-maker in society, along the lines of Socrates and Diogenes.
Do you remember that "serial pest" we had here in Australia a few years ago - Peter Hore? He frequently disrupted grand social events - the Melbourne Cup, Austalian Open tennis, the funeral of Michael Hutchence, etc - by inserting himself into the proceedings and causing everything to grind to a halt. He used to drive everyone nuts with this sort of thing. I would imagine that a sage would engage in that kind of high-level stirring, but in a more intelligent, less grandstanding manner.
[Well, wouldn't you know it, Peter Hore is still doing his thing. A couple of days ago, he disrupted the Cole inquiry into the AWB scandal. Here is a newspaper article about it. I thought he had given it all up years ago. )
-
Kierkegaard: God can involve himself with the human race on one of two conditions, either in such a way that individuals are found who are willing to venture out so far in hating themselves that God can use them as apostles, or in such a way that the true situation is honestly and unconditionally admitted. The latter is
my primitivity.
As far as the former is concerned, this is certainly the instruction of the New Testament. But with respect to venturing out so far, the following must be noted. This is something so dreadful for a human being that it is permissible to say: I dare not.
Leyla: I don’t know, David. This guy seems rather emotional to me.
That's strange, I detect very little emotion here at all. Instead, I see a thinker who is calmly and resolutely facing up to a terrible truth.
I mean, it’s all very holy and all, but what are we talking about here? Suddenly there is a time where it’s OK for one to value the idea of an inherently existing self? Why and how is this more dreadful than any other notion attached to the idea of an inherently existing self?
The egotistical pathways etched deeply into the brain by a lifetime of egotistical activity, and which are still there even in spiritually-advanced people, are what complicate the issue. It is because of these pathways that the spiritual person easily falls into the trap of believing in his self - not in a coarser intellectual sense, but subtly, emotionally, instinctually. When faced with the fearsome prospect of being persecuted and sacrificed for the sake of the truth - a la Jesus style - these subtle egotisms tend to come to the surface.
Jesus did say: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."I cannot fathom the idea of Jesus hating himself. It implies ego. Are we, for the sake of such a Jesus, to abandon the idea of a fully enlightened Buddha? Or, do you consider the path of this Jesus as some sort of stepping-stone to it?
As with Kierkegaard's statements above, what is being "hated" is the false self and the attachment to it. It means hating the craving for comfort, safety, happiness, good health, good friends, a long life, social status, approval, intimacy, etc, which characterizes the mediocre, untruthful life. One cannot be a disciple of Jesus (i.e. a lover of Truth) without abandoning all of that and opening oneself up to the hardships and abuses which come with being a thorn in the side of humanity.
L: I cannot understand this desire to take Jesus the wise man out of the bible whilst attempting to leave Jesus the stupid man in it.
D: In what way was Jesus stupid, do you think? You were speculating above that his very work for wisdom (his apostlizing and getting crucified) was stupid.
L: Well, I am trying to explore your ideas (and Kevin’s) on it, actually -- and I don‘t just mean the bland, surface ones, either. Given the quote above, the idea that it is permissible to say “I dare not†regarding venturing out: are you speaking of an exact (or near enough) replica -- a literal replica of the apostles? Are we talking about door-knocking houses of parliament and proselytising in the ghettos to the gentiles? Foregoing house and comfort and family and friends in this very specific nomadic direction?
It does mean abandoning the normal comforts of life that most people take for granted, yes. In effect, one becomes an enemy of everyone. As Jesus said, "Foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
But I imagine that his activities would be far more interesting and threatening than the usual doorknocking and shouting out from the rooftops so beloved of born-again Christians. He is more likely to be a tremendous stirrer and trouble-maker in society, along the lines of Socrates and Diogenes.
Do you remember that "serial pest" we had here in Australia a few years ago - Peter Hore? He frequently disrupted grand social events - the Melbourne Cup, Austalian Open tennis, the funeral of Michael Hutchence, etc - by inserting himself into the proceedings and causing everything to grind to a halt. He used to drive everyone nuts with this sort of thing. I would imagine that a sage would engage in that kind of high-level stirring, but in a more intelligent, less grandstanding manner.
[Well, wouldn't you know it, Peter Hore is still doing his thing. A couple of days ago, he disrupted the Cole inquiry into the AWB scandal. Here is a newspaper article about it. I thought he had given it all up years ago. )
You may be right to believe this, but it doesn't really matter. The ideal remains very real.However, I think it’s appropriate to state, at this point, that I don’t believe in an historical Jesus of the magnitude depicted in the Bible, if in an historical Jesus at all.
-
-
Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
-
Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
.
How cunning is ego.
If a woman says, "I am lazy and not pushing myself enough", it is to others, and about others, because she is all show.
She blames others for not helping her, or say, "I am better than them" to avoid conscience of her weakness. Then she asks, "Why doesn't a woman think for herself?" - to blame - to avoid God. She is really thinking, "I don't want to know God, not directly. I don't want to know what I am. I want to hide in my cage. I want to play with dolls and toys. I want to pretend I am something."
Thus she plays with things to make herself real. She loves to forget and she loves - as Dave said - to tell a story. Her stories pretend she is there, at the centre of it all.
Can she stop being a fool ?
.
How cunning is ego.
If a woman says, "I am lazy and not pushing myself enough", it is to others, and about others, because she is all show.
She blames others for not helping her, or say, "I am better than them" to avoid conscience of her weakness. Then she asks, "Why doesn't a woman think for herself?" - to blame - to avoid God. She is really thinking, "I don't want to know God, not directly. I don't want to know what I am. I want to hide in my cage. I want to play with dolls and toys. I want to pretend I am something."
Thus she plays with things to make herself real. She loves to forget and she loves - as Dave said - to tell a story. Her stories pretend she is there, at the centre of it all.
Can she stop being a fool ?
.
-
Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
-
millipodium
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Sorry about bumping this thread. Somebody is over on Genius Forums is spamming, and I was concerned that threads would fall off the end and started bumping threads so they wouldn't get lost. This thread still had a link from the other forum and I didn't realize that "moved" meant that was the side that didn't post there anymore.
My ISP went down, and I just hoped that there was a back-up of all the threads. By the time I came back, I saw that threads were not falling off the end.
My ISP went down, and I just hoped that there was a back-up of all the threads. By the time I came back, I saw that threads were not falling off the end.
-
Steven Coyle
-
millipodium
-
millipodium
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilism
ni·hil·ism (n-lzm, n-) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "nihilism" [P]
n.
1. Philosophy.
1. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
2. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
4. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
5. Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.
ni·hil·ism (n-lzm, n-) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "nihilism" [P]
n.
1. Philosophy.
1. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
2. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
4. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
5. Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
-
millipodium