Avolith wrote:...an escape into a mental fabrication of a version of enlightenment...
I more or less came to conclude that 'enlightenment' and 'samadhi' are in themselves 'mental fabrications'. Looking into Tibetan mystical practices, dream manipulation (from which Carlos Castaneda may have borrowed his elaborate dreaming scheme), I think that one must conclude that mental states can be cultivated. (But it would be a mistake to interpret that I think that wisdom of
Orientals (that is, the other side of the
Occidentals!) is not a container with things of value).
I reject outrightly the *value* of the assertion of relevance of 'enlightenment' and say, and have always said, that any person on this forum who has pretended to 'enlightenment' is involved in layers of self-deception. And one has to pay attention to how this notion and concept of 'enlightenment' has entered into Western categories, and who began to promote it and why. Unhappily, it came along with Sixties drug-like intoxication and seems to me a part of *general cultural acids* that are also part-and-parcel of anti-intellectual forces.
...do you believe in the ideas of enlightenment in a buddhist sense at all?
I would not phrase it in terms of belief or disbelief, but rather of 'relevance' and (sorry to use such a word but) 'utility'. The way that the notion of 'enlightenment' is used, in most situations where it is held as a value, seem to me to have psychologically pathological elements. Like a drug addict who smokes a crack-pipe and has Visions of Grandeur of one sort or another, so our minds can become captivated by the *unreal* (the irrelevant in my parlance) and through these means we self-dupe ourselves. This 'self-dupery' is a big element in my philosophical and spiritual understanding. I phrase it that: 'Our very self gets wedded, through complicity, in lies and deceptions'. How to arrive at what is true, I admit, is not easy in our present intellectual climate (and I use the word 'intellect' in a special sense).
Every jackass who has spouted Buddhist nonsense on this forum, I have, I think, been able to see through. They have not appreciated this much and this goes without saying. That is my own assessment of course. David and Dan both desired to establish themselves as minor Mahatmas. It always seemed to me a tremendous self-deception. Diebert has a sort of fake interest in Buddhism -- a Nietzschean 'Chinese' attitude that will subsume Western categories of relevance. In different ways, these show what self-dupery produce. It is endless and labyrinthian. It would, I reckon, take some years to work one's way out of it.
Could it be linked to both loss of nerve AND spiritual insight?
Of course. Take an example. It has been said that Occidental art is in a decadent phase. What formerly gave sense, meaning and shall I say
power to Occidental art became weakened or even undermined. These are historical eventualities and they have to do with trends that occur over centuries. Much of this can be grasped through examination of European intellectual history and as I mentioned previously in Richard Weaver's
Ideas Have Consequences.
When I speak of 'loss of nerve' I means specific things, not vague unstated things. But, just as much of modern art is interesting, complex, 'fascinating' one might say, and though in aspects it is devoid and even 'nihilistic', no one could say that it is not technically competent. It reveals content. Messages are communicated. Therefor, it will definitely have its 'insights' and, perhaps, they might be of a *higher order*. But the question has to do with general ascent or of general descent. Decadence, as a technical term, means specific things, not vague things.
What I say and have always tended to say is that one must examine the trends in society that have produced these descents and this tendency to descend. That is 'loss of nerve' in my lexicon of meaning.
So you're saying they don't understand you after your repeated efforts to explain something to them.
You could of course put it in that way if you desire to. I look at it from a larger framework. I say that *we have all* lost our connection with those things -- ideas, categories -- of *genuine value*. We don't know how to recognize what really has value. And we trick ourselves with contrived pseudo-values. Our culture is in the grip of a fantastic array of deceptions, and I certainly understand that Dan and David and Kevin noticed this. But they rejected what is in fact the most essential and the most relevant. They traded their patrimony for a 'mess of pottage' to quote a known phrase. They did this because the surrounding and general intellectual direction of culture goes in this direction. They tried to propose a sound alternative, but lost the proper track, and got lost themselves. They now dwell in underworld regions of irrelevance. But it is a larger problem. They are simply *victims* of it.
...dressing up language to hide a lack of any real point, or, a lack of ability or courage to put it forward.
Again I notice the *challenge* to reveal something essential to you. That is a mistaken platform right there. You must assume that some people, somewhere, are going to be further along some particular path. Don't claw at them like a frustrated teenager and demand that they 'Explain things to me in a way that I can understand!' You have to make the effort to ascend yourself. I would suggest a reading of the chapter 'Distinction & Hierarchy' in Weaver's book. It is that important of an idea.
In order to grasp a 'real point' you must,
eo facto, have at least an intuition of it. So, reveal to me something of a 'real point' and something of real, valuable content!
If you had to google 'Occidentals' I can only say that you need to do more reading of more advanced material! Our language and some level of mastery of it are such basic necessities. It is your
responsibility to choose to educate yourself, despite the limited hand that was dealt to you in your upbringing. As I said this must be viewed in a longterm time-frame. Ten years is not unrealistic. Take it for what it is worth or reject it.
So summarizing, they correctly identified feminization of society and an attack on their masculinity, but, they didn't get to the heart of the problem. I still see your post is a criticism on them that they didn't reach far enough - you give implicit hints that you have a better understanding, but the understanding itself is still withheld?
You are not going to get anywhere with this line of inquiry. I recommend to you something far more difficult and far more demanding: the undertaking of a self-education project. Did I give you the impression that I am here to reveal something to you? To dole something out like a mouthful of pablum? You can only encounter an important essence (of an idea, in a value) if you yourself have entered into it. You have to have an 'inkling'. This is a Platonic idea. In order to be stimulated to understanding something latent has to be awoken.
If you wish to understand my critique of the founders of Genius Forum you can research my writing here. But you cannot have it doled out to you as if understanding of the complex ideas I deal in can be received on the end of baby's spoon. This sounds insulting but truthfully I don't mean it that way. To understand what I am getting at you'd have to grasp the idea of 'dumbing down'. It is an accessible idea but it would take an
investment on your part.
What good is a hard earned understanding if you cannot share it with others, however difficult. Isn't that the whole point?
The sort of communication that you are referring to occurs not on Internet forums and in written form, but in fact between people who have intellectual relationship. It is obvious to me (if I must apologize to you for being this direct I will give you that sort-of apology) that you have very little foundation for your intellectual being. You can take this as an *unfair insult* or take it in, mull over it, and decide what such a truth means to you. I suggest setting yourself on a path of *genuine learning* and to avoid the mishmosh of Buddhist and neo-Buddhist garbage. But you will have to define what *genuine knowledge* is and what its effect is. It is, in my view, a teleological issue.
You make the mistake as I said before of wishing something to be doled out to you. One can only offer *intimations* and these will either resonate in you, as they say, or they won't. I really do not care whether you understand or misunderstand what I am getting at. The chances are good that you came into this conversation with a will inclined to misunderstand. There is something about this Forum, I have not quite grasped it, that attracts people with this off pathology.
But that is the *starting point* that DD&K began from. If we are going to cure a pathology we are going to have to get really
really serious.