I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You aren't free of delusions... you are only aware that the conceptualizations are just conceptualizations. Those crazy thoughts still pop up often. The only change is personal, and only you really know it is there. It is not really of a help to anyone else, that is why it is funny to see monks being worshiped.

[Russell Parr]

You aren't free of delusions... you are only aware that the conceptualizations are just conceptualizations. Those crazy thoughts still pop up often. The only change is personal, and only you really know it is there. It is not really of a help to anyone else, that is why it is funny to see monks being worshiped.

Are you saying no one is free of delusions? If so, how deluded do you think you are?

[Dan Rowden]

You aren't free of delusions... you are only aware that the conceptualizations are just conceptualizations. Those crazy thoughts still pop up often. The only change is personal, and only you really know it is there. It is not really of a help to anyone else, that is why it is funny to see monks being worshiped.

Hmm, not so sure about this. Aside from what bluerap asked, there's a problem with this perspective. It's that of a person who is applying an understanding rather than being that understanding. What you're talking about is a form of attainment, certainly, but it's a long way from enlightenment or true liberation. If there's delusion that's arising that you're recognising, then the source of delusion in general is still well and truly in place. If that is so, then there's lots of stuff happening that you don't recognise, including the dynamics that give rise to the ones you do. Seems all too chaotic to me to be considered more than what I said at the start: an understanding that one is having to make an effort to apply to everyday life. Real liberation involves utter faultless spontaneity. Genuine delusion - i.e. to do with ego and the nature of ultimate reality - does not arise at all.

[Bobo]

"What would it mean to do so? Nothing, really."

Guruism.

Do you think that it is nothing, really?

[Dan Rowden]

Well, not to to the gullible and stupid. They get mesmerised by that sort of shit all the time. So, yes, in that sense it means something and more often than not something bad. But to any intelligent and remotely insightful person it ought not mean much at all. Maybe the start of a quality conversation.

[Bobo]

A quality conversation with someone who subjectively have no false conceptualizations? No one could ever get past anything they say.

[Dan Rowden]

I don't get what your attitude is about. That's obviously not true. What does "get past" mean in this context? That they can't communicate meaningfully? If that's what you mean it's silly.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You are only avoiding the negative connotations of the word, if delusions mean imaginary bullshit, then you still experience those, like I said, you are only aware that a lot of what goes on in your mind is delusion and so you don't act on it, like getting angry about something but then leaving it behind when you recognise the sillyness.

Either way let's avoid this particular word game. What is a good enlightened philosophical topic?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A quality conversation with someone who subjectively have no false conceptualizations? No one could ever get past anything they say.

Bobo, isn't quality here determined by the capability to discern and process the elements of that conversation? If you want to make it empirical, yes, there might be a message in there when everyone someone converses with keeps giving up in despair after a few exchanges, when no bridge can ever be built. Something is wrong and it's most likely not everyone else. If lets say a James Randi explains to you in a conversation that what you just witnessed "is all a trick and you're being fooled", it means he subjectively but with certainty concluded someone just played a trick on you. How would you form your own opinion on his statements? You might not believe his own firm conclusions but you're free to explore his way of thinking since he keeps on explaining the process and then try to see if with this higher level of scrutiny the earlier witnessed event still means the same thing to you. There's normally no simple objective fact in a real life scenario which can be put under a microscope unless it's the one of your own mind.

[Alex Jacob]

And judge you do. Is this judgement of yours absolutely true or is it a judgement relative to your comprehension ability? A prejudice, an aversion? The truth is you don't know. You can't know Dan's subjective experience.

There is a group of 'intellects' who assemble themselves, in a Sangha-of-the-Absurd, around their Hero-Fathers. They believe they have internalized 'the Teachings' and they position themselves as 'yes-men', as 'affirmative echoes', as supporters, and at times as outright ass-lickers. When you examine the substratum of their 'thinking' you do not find, in fact, 'reasoning' except of a most inferior ('binary') sort, but rather Will. Will is the blind-spot; will is what no one wants to look at. No matter how outrageous the assertion on the part of say Diebert or Dan, or how totally incommensurate it may be with the ever-shifting (and versatile!) neo-Buddhist doctrines, the Loyal Follower will declare his allegiance to his tribe by upholding his Hero. It has very little to do with 'reasoning' and a great deal to do with Will. And you cannot fight against and you will never win against a child's will. More specifically a boy's will. The Loyal Follower will enmesh himself in controversies that are not his, in conflicts that are not his, because in this way he can create his own relevance. Eventually, those Influential Ones who actually frame the Conversation, begin to resort to him. This is how ingratiating sycophancy works, this is what it does.

• Can't judge in an 'ultimate sense'. The world is filled with people who fill the world with their assertions. In this sense 'can't judge'. But I can make all manner of assessments, suggestions, etc.
• How could any opinion held be anything other than derivative of one's 'comprehension ability'? The only way out of that problem would be to declare access to an Absolute Source, some sort of direct conduit to the Absolute. And lo: there arises the Ultimate Arbiter. But combine the possibility of 'ultimate arbitration' with a crude, unschooled, and wily personal will, and voilà: We know him as Dennis Mahar!
• 'Prejudice, aversion'. Sure! But inflected differently those may be: discrimination, alternative assertion of value, reasoned decisiveness, cogent argumentation. But when we cut to the chase we understand the following: within your system there can be no assertion of Value, and so nothing defended. It is a game of disappearing into Buddhist fogs where, like the Cheshire Cat, only a virulent Will remains. We know that will, we feel him. He snarls, fights, defends, plays games, etc. This is all pretty easy to recognize. You make 'true' whatever you desire to have as 'true' in a given moment. It seems to depend on your will.
• 'The truth is you don't know'. What a person 'knows' is what they have been taught, taught themselves, and learned in the course of living life. One makes decisions about what Values to value. One stakes oneself on living one's values, defending those values. Life in this sense is always a series of 'battles'. But what happens when one's 'will' has been, say, hijacked? By a philosophy of self-disappearance? A sort of destruction of all possible knowledge-bases? By contempt for the endeavor itself? Take an unlettered, functionally uneducated, but very willful individual in his declining years where his powerlessness and ineffectiveness become apparent, and give him a little Potion to turn himself into a sort of Mighty Mouse, and some 'doctrines' by which he can imagine himself defeating 'the whole world' and sitting, rhetorically, on top of it. There you have a very attractive program to get aligned with!

It is the Followers, those barking boys, who more often than not illustrate the defective side of the Q-R-S doctrines. I assert that they don't hook-in to them on the basis of ratiocination so much, but rather on the delightful attractions offered to their 'will'.

Read: seduction.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Great stuff there I must say about a boy's will(y), creating own relevance and the various strategies of fog. Keep digging! What happened to the little boy to end up in this seductive state?

[Alex Jacob]

What happened to the little boy to end up in this seducible state? I think you mean. It is a very good question!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It starts with a state being seductive in order for oneself - or any other involved - to be seduced by it. That way the pivot remains the narcissistic self, enticing its own reflections.

[Alex Jacob]

Oooooh. Here, let us have a beginning point. Narcissist's Training 101!

• 'A flute, a tuneful bamboo flute
  ---or is it a fisherman's pole?---
  The name is the same and so is the goal;
  To tangle, to lure, and snare.'

[Russell Parr]

What is a good enlightened philosophical topic?

How about the importance of proper and relevant definitions in communication?

You are only avoiding the negative connotations of the word, if delusions mean imaginary bullshit, then you still experience those, like I said, you are only aware that a lot of what goes on in your mind is delusion and so you don't act on it, like getting angry about something but then leaving it behind when you recognise the sillyness.

Would you not agree that "illusionary" would be a better term in this context? When you state something to the effect of "delusions cannot be avoided," not only does this seem to imply that it is impossible to gauge just how accurate one's thinking is (which would render any goal of 'perfecting one's understanding of the nature of reality' meaningless), but it confirms a mind-frame that nearly all of the human population already conforms to, i.e. postmodernism, or "no one is ultimately right or wrong," or, "Hi, my name is Alex, and my authoritative, accurate standpoint on reality is that there is no authoritative, accurate standpoint on reality."

It's true, as you have said before, that the meanings are more important than the words themselves, but the symbol(s) by which the meaning is communicated, in this case words, must be carefully considered if we wish to share knowledge with others.

Perhaps another relevant philosophical topic could be 'exactly to what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?'

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

A quality conversation with someone who subjectively have no false conceptualizations? No one could ever get past anything they say.

A conversation with someone who doesn't have any false conceptualizations would be quality, indeed. A conversation with someone who is deluded but convinced that they don't have any false conceptualizations would be anywhere from less quality to worse than a waste of time, depending on how deluded the person is.

Are you claiming that there is no such thing as an enlightened person? Or are you claiming that no enlightened person would ever claim to be enlightened, therefore all claiming to be enlightened are deluded? Or are you claiming that since you, as an unenlightened person, can not tell if a person is enlightened or not (presumably save for the obviously deluded) that - what? Or something else?

Since the unenlightened can not tell for sure whether or not an enlightened person actually is enlightened, it is best to approach everyone with the dual concepts that they could be enlightened or deluded - but either way, their words are just their words. You must decide for yourself if the words have any merit. Even the highly deluded can occasionally say something enlightened. In deciding for yourself if the words have merit, you practice your discernment skills, which is a step closer to enlightenment for you.

[Dan Rowden]

You are only avoiding the negative connotations of the word, if delusions mean imaginary bullshit, then you still experience those, like I said, you are only aware that a lot of what goes on in your mind is delusion and so you don't act on it, like getting angry about something but then leaving it behind when you recognise the sillyness.

Either way let's avoid this particular word game. What is a good enlightened philosophical topic?

Word game? I think you're paying way too much attention to Alex's stratagems. You do give the impression that you want to change the subject rather badly. I can understand why. To me you're stuck in a mode that you find psychologically very comfortable. It's one where you can easily dismiss anything you like. It's all an illusion/delusion. "I don't have to care about anything, do anything (including think), I don't have to feel any responsibility for anything. Yet, I have no control over my mind and delusions constantly arise. But that's ok, because nothing can be done about it other than the ad hoc psychotherapy I've developed to convince myself I'm in some measure of control."

This is, as I've stated before, a stage one gets to on the path to genuine attainment, but it's a dangerous one. It's a real trap for those who lack sufficient spark of Bodhicitta to get through it. It is a powerful and comfortable place to be. It can give one an awful lot of false confidence. But sadly, it's spiritually abortive. It's not a place of no return, for example, since if the source of delusion (ego) is still operating at this level of force, it's possible to regress, indeed to go pretty much anywhere as a result. This is what happens when a person is in "technique" mode, where they simply apply an understanding ("an" understanding, not actually the correct one) to everyday life. It feels legitimate. It feels sure and certain. The problem is that because one has not arrived at this stage through proper intellectual effort - i.e. they haven't reasoned their way to such a place - it really is just a feeling. One finds they must rationalise it, rather than explain it in a proper logical and cogent way. I find your "arguments" to be more like rationalisations than expressions of genuine insight into reality, accompanied by genuine transcendence of ego. The latter being of utmost importance. Your words often ring true, but I suspect that's because I'm projecting my own understanding onto them.

Your view seems to be that ego and its functions can only be suppressed rather than transcended. Trouble is your views about the degree of control we have over such things make either of those options more or less impossible. I can't help but think that you're entrenched in a sort of "giving up" mode than protects you from any further action. Submission to God is all well and good, but there's a right and wrong way(s) to do it. The wrong ways always involve a sort of: "Don't blame me, it's out of my control" sort of mentality.

I don't expect you to talk about your personal life that much, but have you laboured under a significant amount of responsibility in your life? It's a little theory I have, that's all. It's not that important if you wish to ignore it.

[Tomas]

In deciding for yourself if the words have merit, you practice your discernment skills, which is a step closer to enlightenment for you.

Very good, Elizabeth. You win a cookie!

[Dan Rowden]

There is a group of 'intellects' who assemble themselves, in a Sangha-of-the-Absurd, around their Hero-Fathers. They believe they have internalized 'the Teachings' and they position themselves as 'yes-men', as 'affirmative echoes', as supporters, and at times as outright ass-lickers. When you examine the substratum of their 'thinking' you do not find, in fact, 'reasoning' except of a most inferior ('binary') sort, but rather Will. Will is the blind-spot; will is what no one wants to look at. No matter how outrageous the assertion on the part of say Diebert or Dan, or how totally incommensurate it may be with the ever-shifting (and versatile!) neo-Buddhist doctrines, the Loyal Follower will declare his allegiance to his tribe by upholding his Hero. It has very little to do with 'reasoning' and a great deal to do with Will. And you cannot fight against and you will never win against a child's will. More specifically a boy's will. The Loyal Follower will enmesh himself in controversies that are not his, in conflicts that are not his, because in this way he can create his own relevance. Eventually, those Influential Ones who actually frame the Conversation, begin to resort to him. This is how ingratiating sycophancy works, this is what it does.

Alex, labels are not arguments. You may see things this way, but I'm sick to fucking death of you insulting the members of the board in this way. Please note if you continue with this theme in your posts I will ban you. The ban will be permanent. Basically what you're saying, and trying to dress up as "analysis" with your flowerly verbosity is that anyone that agrees with "QRS" at any time is a sycophant. Ok, fine, that's your perspective. We get it. Point made. Make it again and you're gone forever. The choice is literally yours.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

For all the Grotowski wannabes out there!

Theatre of Narcissism

• Each of these forms of theatre suffers from the disease of cultural and personal narcissism. Such is its focus on the object of its attention that it sees only the reflection of its own predisposition. Like a small child still in its ego-centric phase of development, it sees only itself. It commends itself for being relevant and important. It is applauded for being the voice and identity of its audience. It is held up as the antidote to cultural / corporate imperialism. It is the justification for public funding and its own very existence.
  
  But Theatre of Narcissism is betrayal. It is personal betrayal of the artist by the artist. It is cultural betrayal by those entrusted with custodianship of the human story; the social dramas comprising the everlasting struggle for love, perfection, purpose, connectedness and relationship. Theatre of Narcissism is betrayal of truth within the story by supplanting its organic action with an overlay of imposed cultural baggage. Theatre of Narcissism is bigoted and intolerant of divergence from its own personal or cultural admiration.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You've done a whole lot of psychological guessing, which usually ends up with one sounding foolish, an example is Tomas and Kunga guessing Dennis has been drinking only to find out he hasn't taken a sip in 30 years. I asked to avoid the word game because those tend to happelot and usually end up replacing any discusions. Hence why I said "anyone have a good philosophical topic?". If you've chosen me for the topic then I'll answer, no I bare no great responsibility or pressure and am not trying to avoid anything. I'm not sure how you always manage to quickly plaCVce others beneath you, you are good at it, and I can understand why you would assume most people to be holding irrelevant concepts about reality, but I can assure you, I'm the nobody not focusing my mind in delusions about themselves and the nature of things. The mind is never empty of false and irrelevant conceptualizations, you are only aware of them. If you disagree so strongly you may continue to assume I'm only saying that out of a backwards need to hide from my deluded beginners mind. There is nothing different or special.about you or anyone else you know?

[Dan Rowden]

My only real interest in this issue is that of your error. You can ignore the warnings about where I think you're at if you wish. It doesn't matter that much. What does matter is that you are peddling a significantly false idea. Such errors are doubly dangerous when wrapped up in otherwise reasonable observations. You say:

The mind is never empty of false and irrelevant conceptualizations, you are only aware of them.

Name one. Give me an example of one of these false conceptualisations that you experience arising in your mind. Let's forget the various emotions we feel from time to time for now and go with something more existential. Can you think of an example of a delusion that arises for you regarding the basic nature of reality itself?

[Alex Jacob]

But Dan, let us suppose that that paragraph were to have been written more specifically, to clearly indicate that this is what I thought of Dennis? It was after all in a post directed to him and in response to him. It was intended specifically for him though I can see how you might have thought I think that of everyone who appreciates your angle, your work, which is not the case. (Surely you must see that I too am baited to a degree.) But let us suppose there would have been no ambiguity and it were directed specifically to Dennis. Would this in your view be 'inappropriate speech'?

And again, my preference is just that you ask me to stop posting. The reason is I would like to collect my posts before being deactivated and the program needs active membership. If you tell me either on-board or in a PM that you wish me to stop writing here you have my word that I will stop. I'll stop writing and then will in about a week collect all my posts, and then of course you can do what you wish with the usernames at that point.

[Dan Rowden]

But Dan, let us suppose that that paragraph were to have been written more specifically, to clearly indicate that this is what I thought of Dennis? It was after all in a post directed to him and in response to him. It was intended specifically for him though I can see how you might have thought I think that of everyone who appreciates your angle, your work, which is not the case. (Surely you must see that I too am baited to a degree.) But let us suppose there would have been no ambiguity and it were directed specifically to Dennis. Would this in your view be 'inappropriate speech'?

Yes, it makes a difference. If it was intended for Dennis specifically, that is another matter. Mind you, it makes the first part very badly written.

And again, my preference is just that you ask me to stop posting.

I will not accord you such respect under such circumstances should they exist. I accept your explanation in this instance, however; it's up to Dennis to tell you where to go now :)

The reason is I would like to collect my posts before being deactivated and the program needs active membership.

For the last time, banning will not effect your posts. They will remain for an embarrassing posterity (for you).

[Alex Jacob]

Thou comprehendest not: Laird has a program that 'collects' posts, like a vacuum cleaner, but it requires an active status.

I can assure you that though you read the post 'badly', looking as you are for a decent reason to do what you have desired to do for a long time, it was not misunderstood by Dennis who by the way would only be able to say 'empty & meaningless & empty & meaningless that it's empty & meaningless' or two or three other pat phrases. This is one of the reasons it is so fun to thwack him: he cannot respond! (It's a narcissistic-sadistic thing, you wouldn't understand).