a few questions

[DHodges]

It's a matter of degree. All cultures are materialistic, hedonistic and religiously crude, but not to the extremes that American culture seems to be.

Thanks. Outside of the U.S., I've only been to Canada and Mexico. Canada seemed about as much of a separate country as Texas did. Maybe less.

In Mexico, Americans were welcomed with a huge (if fake) smile, because tourism was the major industry in the places I went to.

I've lately been reconsidering moving to Mexico, because I could probably live there very cheap, and make it sort of an early retirement. But Mexico also seemed "religiously crude" in that it is a dominantly Catholic country.

What are your thoughts on the culture in Australia, or New Zealand?

[Sapius]

Sapius wrote:

DQ: How certain am I about [cause & effect]? Well, since it is a purely defintional truth, with no reliance on empirical data in any way, I am 100% certain.

S: I'm not quite clear on the 'purely definitional truth' part.

What is it that you are defining?

The statement essentially is, "all things have causes", so we need to define "thing" and "cause".

This is how I define them:

- A "thing" is less than the Totality. In other words, a "thing" refers to any phenomenon which does not extend to the totality of all there is.

S: Of course I agree with this, but you are talking about a "thing". which is nothing but an experienced phenomenon. and what is that experience based on?

- A "cause" is anything which is necessary for something else to exist.

Now since the existence of what is less than the Totality will necessarily depend on the existence of the rest of the Totality, it automatically follows that all things have causes. No thing can ever arise by itself in the absence of other things.

Irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Would you not show me a point of reference? How can a definition stand true without a reference? Do you simply discard sense perception once you find yourself capable of abstract though?

By the way I have defined it above, a "thing" necessarily refers to all phenomena in the Universe. That is the empirical connection right there.

Good. So at which point does a "pure logical truth" have no empirical connection and still hold a meaning when you talk or think about a "thing"?

The beauty of this definition is that it refers to all empirical realities out of logical necessity, and yet, at the same time, its validity isn't dependent on any specific empirical evidence. No matter what kind of empirical evidence is before us, a "thing" will always (a) remain less than the totality of all there is, and (b) refer to all phenomena in the Universe.

Aren't you deceiving yourself here? Isn't phenomena based on empirical data?

How can you rely 100% on a definition that is initially guided by perception, which you agree that we cannot be 100% sure of?

Because abstract thought has the ability to free itself from the constraints and uncertainties of the empirical realm. It can take hold of the raw material of empirical data and transmute it into logical knowledge through a skillful philosophic process. It's a form of logical alchemy, if you will.

-

Yes, it does turn the dust of uncetainties into gold, and a dream into reality.

[bert]

If I see the same thing -- whether it be an object or a place -- differently through the labour of time, is it still the same thing? What exactly is the connection you are making between this and the denial of flesh?

It is the same thing,yes, in that we are familiar with it being existing,we know that from memory.

Yet,the perceptions we encounter are self-inflicted - ego being self-constructed.
when having contact with reality,our mood and mental state correspond to the nature of our believing within,which always is - man and his illusions.
These are fragile;thought is via bodily experience,and 'thinking' the experience ultimately excarnating.
This explains why all knowledge becomes 'flesh'.
There is more truth in our erotic zones then in the whole of religion and mathematics.

example:your hands are wet (bodily experience) so you want to dry them (thought via bodily experience),you are in your house and ,you know where the towel usually is(you know that from memory),the towel is not on the usual spot,the towel not being there (reminds you of your own self-inflicted experience)(by 'thinking' you have excarnated an experience which in the end was not there)The knowledge (of wet hands and wanting the towel)has become flesh - the body's inward expectation.

of course there are constantly different layers of being making contact with each other ,and knowledge constantly eating itself.
Self-evident it is,that by the labour of time 'flesh' might change.
Example:Having seen a movie for a second time many years later,it might mean something very different to you.The 'flesh' touches 'flesh' by illogical means.

existence is allogical to any 'logic' we know,so it is irrational to attempt to rationalize,except in cases where our own prejudices form our mentation.

[David Quinn]

Dave Hodges,

What are your thoughts on the culture in Australia, or New Zealand?

Australia has a very materialistic, hedonistic culture, but we differ from America in that we don't care so much about financial wealth and social status. We are far more interested in leisure and having a good time. We also have a strong iconoclastic streak that loves to poke fun at authority, which is very unlike America. This makes for a far more egalitarian society.

But we also differ from Europe in that we don't have centuries of tradition weighing us down. We are a young country and our culture is still very much unformed.

So all these elements, combined with our natural wealth and lack of threatening neighbours, make for a very free society. We are probably the freest society on earth.

New Zealand is a far more homogenous society. Aside from the Maoris, their ancestors have primarily come from the English middle class, and so you what you see there is a very bland, provincially-minded society. Australia is similar to America in that our ancestors come from a wide variety of cultures - English, Irish, Italians, Greeks, Chinese, Germans, South Africans, etc. On the other hand, we had the good sense to exterminate most of the indigeneous tribes and to not import African slaves, and this has helped keep racial tensions down to a minimum.

I've heard it said that one of the major differences between America and Austalia is that the former was founded by people who left Europe during the Middle Ages, while the latter was founded by people who left Europe during the Enlightenment period and the industrial revolution. As a result, American culture is very puritanical and almost medieval in tone, whereas Australia is far more down-to-earth, sceptical and sacriligious.

-

[David Quinn]

Sapius wrote.

DQ: The beauty of this definition is that it refers to all empirical realities out of logical necessity, and yet, at the same time, its validity isn't dependent on any specific empirical evidence. No matter what kind of empirical evidence is before us, a "thing" will always (a) remain less than the totality of all there is, and (b) refer to all phenomena in the Universe.

S: Aren't you deceiving yourself here? Isn't phenomena based on empirical data?

Well, why don't you pull out a telescope, or a microscope, and try to find an empirical phenomenon that doesn't fall into the category of a "thing". Let me know when you've found one.

-

[Leyla Shen]

I just want to play around with this for a bit, bert. Feel free to comment, of course:

example:your hands are wet (thought plus bodily experience) so you want to dry them (conclusion via thoughts and [via] bodily experience),you are in your house and ,you know where the towel usually is(you know that from memory, but you have forgotten that you didn't wash the towels that week, so...),the towel is not on the usual spot,the towel not being there (reminds you of your own self-inflicted experience because your memory and logic failed you and, so, by not 'thinking' (remove quotation marks) you have excarnated an experience which in the end was not there) The knowledge (of wet hands and wanting the towel and not remembering you didn't put one in the usual spot)has become flesh - the body's inward expectation (due to and since the invention of the towel, which came about -- incidentally -- due to the application of logic to existence and things, and a failure of memory. If you had remembered that you had not put the towel in its place and instead dried your hands on your pants, the expectation would have been fulfilled nonetheless.).

The 'flesh' touches 'flesh' by illogical means.

Well, yes it seems it does -- doesn't it.

[bert]

ok,in other words:

you have to focus on the consciousness,within the consiousness lies your manifestation.

thought is via bodily experience:You feel like wanting a towel at that moment,a givencircumstance we now accept,you need to accept that at that moment.It gives you a certain consciousness.
Other things might be added,maybe you also feel frightened that when your hands are not fast dry they will "hurt" your skin.
An extra circumstance might be that you are expecting people in a second,and you have still some things to do,you feel in a hurry.
All this knowledge sets your consciousness in a certain landscape

and 'thinking' the experience ultimately excarnating:
you want a towel.(wet hands)
you want them dry fast.(skin)
you need to be fast.(expecting visit)
Through the body his inward tensions (flesh') you set a certain consiousness.
With the towel not directly finding,the body reacts to that,you are really stressing now,your consciousness develops accordingly to the situation.

:all knowledge is through the 'flesh':
the importance lies in things 'as now'.flesh exists to be exploited.It is in all things and all things will be through it.

This very moment you have living flesh.I'm now capable of feeling really good.I smile.I want to feel good,my flesh is changing.I take a deep breath.So joyfull,every breath makes me feel better,my consciousness is changing.Now I satrt to laugh ,aimlessly ,I laugh at the unimportance of everything.
This is the living flesh,ever changing.
we are ever terms of existence whatever our fluxing consciousness permits.

Enough people who deny their flesh,not even knowing it.Afraid of life,and the mind has tired of them.
As my teacher says:they live under a stone with there stinking theses.

When exploiting the flesh your vision becomes more accurate.

[Leyla Shen]

bert wrote:

ok,in other words:

you have to focus on the consciousness,within the consiousness lies your manifestation.

thought is via bodily experience, and consciousness: As a consequence of consciousness, coupled with the ability to think in varying degrees, the human (as opposed to the purely instinctual animal) has the ability to discern emotion from thought. However, lacking such discernment, the human experiences only emotion: he [You] feels like wanting a towel at that moment,a givencircumstance we now accept (translate to: no longer consciously think about),you need to accept that at that moment because if you didn‘t, you would be consciously thinking about it and this whole theory of the “flesh“ would be false. No longer actively thinking about such activities [It gives you] brings about a certain unconsciousness; an automaticity, if you will.
Other [things] emotions derived from past experiences and lacking conscious analysis (thought) might be [added] present,maybe you also feel frightened that when your hands are not fast dry they will "hurt" (remove friggen quotation marks and add: “…, a deluded fear since there is no such danger in actuality,”) your skin.
An extra circumstance might be that you are expecting people in a second,and you have still some things to do,you feel in a hurry. The neurotic considers such things of utmost importance. Valuing the opinions of others is paramount to personal, rational thought -- despite the fact that even the act of being ready on time, setting the time, and picking up the phone and saying, “I‘m running a little late“ were and are all viable options to the self-created dilemma.
All this unevaluated, “fleshly” knowledge sets your consciousness in a certain landscape; that is, essentially, a semi kind of consciousness lacking discernment through the abstraction of causality and the interrelationship of things.

~
More later.

[Leyla Shen]

bert wrote:

When exploiting the flesh your vision becomes more accurate.

I interpret this (along with the sum of our discussions on the subject so far) as another expression of David’s discourse on brain constructions. I wonder if you see that.

existence is allogical to any 'logic' we know,so it is irrational to attempt to rationalize,except in cases where our own prejudices form our mentation.

You appear to be defining existence itself as “the flesh” -- this idea that a human is ultimately driven by what they do not know (are not consciousness of) over and above consciousness, thought and logic. Interestingly, you seem to be making an attempt to tie even those things into this super category of “flesh” for the sake of maintaining the idea that existence is allogical to any logic we know: as if there is no difference between the idea of man and animal. Yet you hit into a problem with this, in that obviously it is "rational to rationalise it where our own prejudices (which I would choose to define along the lines of karma, in this context) form our mentation."

Tell me of a case where your own prejudices (karma) did not form your mentation.

[bert]

on your first reply,you only confirm me.

thought is via bodily experience,and 'thinking' the experience ultimately excarnating:all knowledge becomes flesh.
you think when 'it' acts.

you have put your own flesh in the situation.
and thus your consious is different to the example given.
The fleshes are different.

the 'then' of you you re-experience 'as now',by memory,with ever changing relationship of 'I am' through changing environment,desires and beliefs.

What is existence?
The realizable reality.

the realizable reality is illogical to any 'logic' we know.
Try it but.It is always presented serially.Never known as a whole.

the evidence of all things is consciousness that is personal.
There are divergent ways to knowledge.And only effort towards truth discloses truth.


on the second reaction:
I have no idea what to say.

I think it's best I leave you with this,my will gives up.

On karma:
I hope you meet a stoic.

[Leyla Shen]

How long is a moment, bert?

[bert]

How long is a moment, bert?

an equation of itself?!

[Sapius]

Sapius wrote.

DQ: The beauty of this definition is that it refers to all empirical realities out of logical necessity, and yet, at the same time, its validity isn't dependent on any specific empirical evidence. No matter what kind of empirical evidence is before us, a "thing" will always (a) remain less than the totality of all there is, and (b) refer to all phenomena in the Universe.
S: Aren't you deceiving yourself here? Isn't phenomena based on empirical data?

Well, why don't you pull out a telescope, or a microscope, and try to find an empirical phenomenon that doesn't fall into the category of a "thing". Let me know when you've found one.

-

I'm sorry I don't understand your response. Seems irrelevant and evasive.

My point is, what is your experience of a "thing", for that matter any "thing", or your sense of Totality actually based on? Is it just blind logic and abstract thinking, or does it involve sense perception and empirical data to understand it yourself, and actually communicate what you mean.

[bert]

oh yes,leyla,cases where our own prejudices form our mentation....
I know that you may still have the urge to kick me in the balls,yet... :

Sevens has put a link of prejudices which form our mentation in the topic reality.
The 8 braincircuitries.

The whole of your existence(the realizable reality) is dependent on such prejudices which form our mentation.

thanks for your posts.

[Leyla Shen]

bert wrote:

oh yes,leyla,cases where our own prejudices form our mentation....

Actually, I asked for a case where our own prejudices did not form our mentation.

I know that you may still have the urge to kick me in the balls,yet... :

Only if you insist on the idea that only impacts have meaning.

Sevens has put a link of prejudices which form our mentation in the topic reality. The 8 braincircuitries.

OK, I read it. The author wraps it up thusly:

In short, the various levels of consciousness and circuits we have been discussing, and illustrating, are all biochemical imprints in the evolution of the nervous system. Each imprint creates a bigger tunnel-reality. In the Sufi metaphor, the donkey on the which we ride becomes a different donkey after each imprint. The metaprogrammer continually learns more and is increasingly able to be aware of itself operating. We are thus evolving to intelligence-studying-intelligence (the nervous system studying the nervous system) and are more and more capable of accelerating our own evolution.

bert wrote:

The whole of your existence(the realizable reality) is dependent on such prejudices which form our mentation.

I never argued against this, I did compare it to David’s discourse on Brain Constructions. Are you presenting it again because you have interpreted my position as an argument against that? My argument was against the statement that existence is allogical to any logic we know.

In your reply you seem to have confirmed that there can be no case where our own prejudices do not form our mentation. What you do not seem to be doing with this understanding is relating it to the first part of your original statement: existence is allogical to any logic we know.

Existence is precisely logical or illogical to any logic we know. A realisable reality that is illogical is just that: a set of conditions (moment/series of moments) that has been experienced and does not make sense but, driven by the logic that by virtue of appearance and experience it must make sense, presents the potential for knowing.

In presenting this (8-circuit) link here, do you mean it to support the idea that existence is allogical to any logic we know, or as an argument against brain constructions or Ultimate Truth? Is it not obvious that even this idea -- this supreme state of consciousness alluded to -- still depends on the Ultimate Truths espoused on this forum. It is still dependent on the brain and, as determined by the above author's prejudices that form his mentation, experimentation with and development through drugs.

What difference does one's state of consciousness make to the truth that all things lack inherent existence; all things are caused?

[David Quinn]

Sapius wrote:

DQ: The beauty of this definition is that it refers to all empirical realities out of logical necessity, and yet, at the same time, its validity isn't dependent on any specific empirical evidence. No matter what kind of empirical evidence is before us, a "thing" will always (a) remain less than the totality of all there is, and (b) refer to all phenomena in the Universe.

S: Aren't you deceiving yourself here? Isn't phenomena based on empirical data?

DQ: Well, why don't you pull out a telescope, or a microscope, and try to find an empirical phenomenon that doesn't fall into the category of a "thing". Let me know when you've found one.

S: I'm sorry I don't understand your response. Seems irrelevant and evasive.

On the contrary, it is direct and to the point. It highlights the fact that no empirical observation is needed to prove, without any shadow of a doubt, that each and every empirical phenomenon, no matter what it is, falls into the category of a "thing".

If you want to disagree with this, then you need to provide some proper evidence. Put your hypothesis into practice and use your sensory apparatus to seek out an actual phenomenon in the world which doesn't fall into the category of a "thing". Let me know how you go.

My point is, what is your experience of a "thing", for that matter any "thing", or your sense of Totality actually based on? Is it just blind logic and abstract thinking, or does it involve sense perception and empirical data to understand it yourself, and actually communicate what you mean.

Just pure logic and abstract thinking. It doesn't require any sense-perception or empirical data to understand the nature of "things".

-

[Sapius]

David wrote:

If you want to disagree with this, then you need to provide some proper evidence. Put your hypothesis into practice and use your sensory apparatus to seek out an actual phenomenon in the world which doesn't fall into the category of a "thing". Let me know how you go.

On the (counter) contrary, you are telling me to do what I'm actually pointing out to. The point that you necessarily need some sort of sensory information to actually experience a "thing", and those sensory perceptions are not 100% reliable as we agreed.

Just pure logic and abstract thinking. It doesn't require any sense-perception or empirical data to understand the nature of "things".

Understanding the nature of "things" comes later. Lets first tackle a single "thing" rather than nature of all "things". How can you abstractly explain me a Tree? How would it not involve or require empirical data for either of us?

[bert]

Quote:
oh yes,leyla,cases where our own prejudices form our mentation....


Actually, I asked for a case where our own prejudices did not form our mentation.

Truth is the manner in which all things exist - lacking inherent existence.
This says how we have to think.That is teaching by imprint.

The trick is to name them.So I could have gived lots of examples.

Quote:
I know that you may still have the urge to kick me in the balls,yet... :


Only if you insist on the idea that only impacts have meaning.

Yes,only impacts have meaning.Do you not agree?

I never argued against this, I did compare it to David’s discourse on Brain Constructions. Are you presenting it again because you have interpreted my position as an argument against that? My argument was against the statement that existence is allogical to any logic we know.

I have no know of David's thesis.

In your reply you seem to have confirmed that there can be no case where our own prejudices do not form our mentation. What you do not seem to be doing with this understanding is relating it to the first part of your original statement: existence is allogical to any logic we know.

the point is to describe the prjudices which form our mentation.
for instance:'7.Where ego goeth there alone is the sensation and perception of reality.'
and
'13.God is absolutely my own idea,otherwise God could not exist.'
and
' 17.I ask,what is conceivable when we can not even conceive what we are conceiving? '
and
'16.existence is allogical to any 'logic' we know.So it is irrational to attempt to rationalise,except in cases where our own prejudices form our mentation.'
is the kind of reasoning that points towards our mentation.

Existence is precisely logical or illogical to any logic we know. A realisable reality that is illogical is just that: a set of conditions (moment/series of moments) that has been experienced and does not make sense but, driven by the logic that by virtue of appearance and experience it must make sense, presents the potential for knowing.

"A realisable reality that is illogical is just that"
This has nothing to do with :existence is alogiacal to any logic we know.

different logics make alogical.
for instance:the failing to collaborate quantum mùechanics with relativity theorie.

In presenting this (8-circuit) link here, do you mean it to support the idea that existence is allogical to any logic we know,

yes

Is it not obvious that even this idea -- this supreme state of consciousness alluded to -- still depends on the Ultimate Truths espoused on this forum.

I do not call them supreme.
geniuses have active subconsciousnesses.
Ultimate truths always come as an 'as if' truth.
If they do depend on what is said here,then how works our vast emotional complex?

It is still dependent on the brain and, as determined by the above author's prejudices that form his mentation, experimentation with and development through drugs.

all knowledge becomes flesh!
the evidence of all things is consciousness that is personal.
There are divergent ways to knowledge.And only effort towards truth discloses truth.

Are you going to tell me that your observation is perfect?

What difference does one's state of consciousness make to the truth that all things lack inherent existence; all things are caused?

any part of the whole derives its ethos from the whole.

[Leyla Shen]

bert:

LS: In your reply you seem to have confirmed that there can be no case where our own prejudices do not form our mentation. What you do not seem to be doing with this understanding is relating it to the first part of your original statement: existence is allogical to any logic we know.

bert: the point is to describe the prjudices which form our mentation.

Sure. That’s a part of it. But the point can only go so far as the objective, or vice versa. For instance:

bert: ' 17.I ask,what is conceivable when we can not even conceive what we are conceiving? '

Having identified a prejudice that forms mentation, you have come up with a question. This question does indeed speak volumes. It is only possible to conceive what you are conceiving. Even if I were blind, my conception would still be the conception I was conceiving. Assuming that there is such a thing as sensory perceptions operating at full capacity, even if what I was looking at was a pink elephant but due to the limitations of those sensory perceptions I could only conceive of it as a yellow dinosaur, I would still be conceiving a yellow dinosaur and the idea of there possibly being a pink elephant would be nothing more than a further conception ultimately bound by the same limitations.

Thus, what I glean from this knowledge, and what you do, appear to be two different things. Whereas I, for this very reason, acknowledge and consider the limitations of all types of sensory perception and conclude that there are fundamental truths to all forms of existence, you conclude -- merely by asking the question -- that there is an ultimate form of existence that cannot be conceived or understood in any way.

LS: Existence is precisely logical or illogical to any logic we know. A realisable reality that is illogical is just that: a set of conditions (moment/series of moments) that has been experienced and does not make sense but, driven by the logic that by virtue of appearance and experience it must make sense, presents the potential for knowing.

bert: "A realisable reality that is illogical is just that"
This has nothing to do with :existence is alogiacal to any logic we know.

different logics make alogical.
for instance:the failing to collaborate quantum mùechanics with relativity theorie.

Rather than saying existence is absolutely alogical, all you are demonstrating here is that according to one or more given theories (logic and abstractions based on and determined by experimentation and observation -- which we both understand has its limitations), existence is perceived as either logical, illogical or alogical. In which case, it becomes -- by logical necessity -- irrational to attempt to rationalise it, except in cases where our own prejudices have formed a mentation that allows us to do so.

Bert, I reckon you speak of nothing more than fundamentalist, scientific materialism.

This whole discussion began with your accusation that Kevin taught nothing but religion: that all religions are evil. I ask you, in what way is what you teach any less a religion? The fact that you refuse to use the word “God”?

Nietzsche had his Superman. QSR have their Ultimate Truth. Christians have Jehovah. And you have The Flesh.

There is not one person on this planet that is not religious. Whether they represent the esoteric or dogmatic and ritualistic brand of their religion is of no relevance to the fact of religiosity.

bert: existence is allogical to any 'logic' we know,so it is irrational to attempt to rationalize,except in cases where our own prejudices form our mentation.

There is one other way I can paraphrase the above:

You cannot know existence based on what you know and it is irrational to attempt to know, except when what you know enables you to know existence.

I hope to address some of your other points shortly.

[bert]

Quote:
bert: ' 17.I ask,what is conceivable when we can not even conceive what we are conceiving? '


Having identified a prejudice that forms mentation, you have come up with a question. This question does indeed speak volumes. It is only possible to conceive what you are conceiving. Even if I were blind, my conception would still be the conception I was conceiving. Assuming that there is such a thing as sensory perceptions operating at full capacity, even if what I was looking at was a pink elephant but due to the limitations of those sensory perceptions I could only conceive of it as a yellow dinosaur, I would still be conceiving a yellow dinosaur and the idea of there possibly being a pink elephant would be nothing more than a further conception ultimately bound by the same limitations.

Thus, what I glean from this knowledge, and what you do, appear to be two different things. Whereas I, for this very reason, acknowledge and consider the limitations of all types of sensory perception and conclude that there are fundamental truths to all forms of existence, you conclude -- merely by asking the question -- that there is an ultimate form of existence that cannot be conceived or understood in any way.

Aaarghh ,those damn jumpers to conclusions...
Why are you making things up?All there is is the question.
Why you do look further?I have given you no need.
The pink elephant is not needed here.

The question has to be understood on its own!
And then you feel its content.

Have you ever heard of an idea of an idea of an idea of...?
This lets me think of James Joyce:
It is not just a riot of blots and blurs and disjointed jottings linked by spurts of speed...it only looks as like it as damn it.

[Leyla Shen]

bert:

LS: Is it not obvious that even this idea -- this supreme state of consciousness alluded to -- still depends on the Ultimate Truths espoused on this forum.

bert: I do not call them supreme.
geniuses have active subconsciousnesses.
Ultimate truths always come as an 'as if' truth.
If they do depend on what is said here,then how works our vast emotional complex?

I have no idea really what you mean by an “as if truth.” The only possible thing it indicates to me is that you hold nothing as true, whilst holding something as true. You believe that everything is belief. So, you cast the blind faith in your own doctrine onto others and encourage them to follow the way.

But, to answer your question: on the basis of A=A, the notion of Emptiness and any other universal truth. How else? You simply could not even ask the question without these truths.

all knowledge becomes flesh!
the evidence of all things is consciousness that is personal.

Is that conclusion truth, as-if truth or belief -- and on what basis?

There are divergent ways to knowledge.And only effort towards truth discloses truth.

Is that conclusion truth, as-if truth or belief -- and on what basis?

Are you going to tell me that your observation is perfect?

I think you should be asking me if I’m going to tell you my knowledge is complete: we have discussed observations. My answer to that, then, must be no. But that has no effect on the understanding of absolute truths when knowledge is defined as information about specific things.

LS: What difference does one's state of consciousness make to the truth that all things lack inherent existence; all things are caused?

bert: any part of the whole derives its ethos from the whole.

How can you know that without knowing (“jumping to” conclusions about) the whole? You have also said this:

the realizable reality is illogical to any 'logic' we know.
Try it but.It is always presented serially.Never known as a whole.

How do you justify this contradiction?

bert: I know that you may still have the urge to kick me in the balls,yet... :

LS: Only if you insist on the idea that only impacts have meaning.

bert: Yes,only impacts have meaning.Do you not agree?

If you define words, thoughts and concepts as impacts, I might agree.

I have no know of David's thesis.

I recommend it.

[bert]

Rather than saying existence is absolutely alogical, all you are demonstrating here is that according to one or more given theories (logic and abstractions based on and determined by experimentation and observation -- which we both understand has its limitations), existence is perceived as either logical, illogical or alogical. In which case, it becomes -- by logical necessity -- irrational to attempt to rationalise it, except in cases where our own prejudices have formed a mentation that allows us to do so.

Bert, I reckon you speak of nothing more than fundamentalist, scientific materialism.

This whole discussion began with your accusation that Kevin taught nothing but religion: that all religions are evil. I ask you, in what way is what you teach any less a religion? The fact that you refuse to use the word “God”?

Nietzsche had his Superman. QSR have their Ultimate Truth. Christians have Jehovah. And you have The Flesh.

There is not one person on this planet that is not religious. Whether they represent the esoteric or dogmatic and ritualistic brand of their religion is of no relevance to the fact of religiosity.

Mine is not a religion,because I ,here,care only about relationing.But everybody has a personal religion,I have not spoken of my personal religion yet.All this thinking,is about who we are.Not how we have to think.There is no standard for thinking,because there are no final conclusions;existence is alogical to any 'logic' we know.

The true teacher implants no knowledge but shows him his own superabundance.Keeping his vision clear he directs or leads them as a child to the essential.Having shown him the source he retires before sentiment and gratitude sets in,leaving him to furtilise as he wishes.Is this not the way to heaven?

And what I get in return...fundamentalist,scientific materialist.
thanks.

And don't know if you noticed it,but I use the word God,and gods.I have absolutely no shame of using it.I also believe that my soul survives,and also in reincarnation,but this is absolutely personal,so I do not push that forward as a Truth to anyone else.It belongs to my 'as if truth',not 'as if' truth.
I'm also close to Pantheism and the stoics.And those who puts there interest in mystery and beauty are also my friends.Am I clear?

I recommend that people first understand that 'all is illusion'.this is of immense value.It is the key to know ultimately 'all things'.

and in the end,all I have presented to you is knowledge,and the question remains,will I teach thee again?So for all my teaching I say,may I ever blush.

[bert]

It is not things themselves but others connected with them that stimulate man's hatred....so man hateth the otherness which he encounters in himself.

[williamashley]

It seems to me some of you think men are superiour to women, mentally, why is that?

I think everyone is infinitly intelligent for their own past purpose. To be biased is to think oneself superior rather then knowing we our the supreme of being ourself.

How do you define Truth and Enlightenment? What are you referring to.

Truth is what is.
Englightenment is understanding of what is. Knowing of acceptance and experience.

What is your opinion of people like buddha and jesus, were they 'enlightened'?

you use the term were. They are both englightened to their own understanding. However the difference between engithenement and the way is engligthenment is a state of knoweldge the way is a state of being.