Genius Types
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: Genius Types
Talkin' about something else.
forget it.
the dreaming.
the magnum opus.
in the moment.
fully alive
fair dinkum.
forget it.
the dreaming.
the magnum opus.
in the moment.
fully alive
fair dinkum.
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Genius Types
You got the engine but where's you car? The road? Just revving it forever?Dennis Mahar wrote: the dreaming.
the magnum opus.
in the moment.
fully alive
fair dinkum.
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Genius Types
But imagination lies elsewhere, correct?Dennis Mahar wrote:Imagine that!
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: Genius Types
'To confer significance upon' fixes it like pinning a butterfly in a display case.
Holds it.
Binds it.
Yes?
Holds it.
Binds it.
Yes?
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Genius Types
That's how a past is born and births. Bound in symbols.Dennis Mahar wrote:'To confer significance upon' fixes it like pinning a butterfly in a display case. Holds it. Binds it. Yes?
Imagination lies elsewhere, in signs, in possibility, in vision.
Between those pushed boundaries a space is present. Breathing room.
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: Genius Types
nice one!That's how a past is born and births. Bound in symbols.
Imagination lies elsewhere, in signs, in possibility, in vision.
Between those pushed boundaries a space is present. Breathing room.
constructing the magnum opus to live in to.
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Genius Types
We can stimulate each other to create more breathing room. But boundaries are constructed by pushing them: pushing symbols, reading signs. Binding yet unbinding, settling yet unsettling. And then we don't even get stuck in the present, like happens so much nowadays. This is where we should push.Dennis Mahar wrote:Nice one! Constructing the magnum opus to live in to.That's how a past is born and births. Bound in symbols.
Imagination lies elsewhere, in signs, in possibility, in vision.
Between those pushed boundaries a space is present. Breathing room.
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Genius Types
Otherwise we just end up with rather short people with their short breath (Randy Newman). Or run out of breath!
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: Genius Types
Talk me thru' Bodhichitta please.
the set up.
as impregnable fortress to play out of.
looking good?
the typical buddhist throws out the cliche 'kindness' that looks like a saccharine sugariness.
in the grip of that.
2 days without food sorts that out.
'of a kind' is more pertinent.
a crafted response,
steely edge.
the set up.
as impregnable fortress to play out of.
looking good?
the typical buddhist throws out the cliche 'kindness' that looks like a saccharine sugariness.
in the grip of that.
2 days without food sorts that out.
'of a kind' is more pertinent.
a crafted response,
steely edge.
-
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm
Re: Genius Types
Creating boundaries of unbinding, breathing room, yes, for only here can we exist while we end the suffering of our existence. It is for this reason that I do not believe anyone (existing) on this forum is detached. I will go so far as to say that those who do believe they are detached are deluded, and that because of their delusion have closed themselves off to actually becoming detached. Therefore, how we who know of emptiness are becoming detached is the honest and stimulating question of wisdom enlightenment.Diebert: We can stimulate each other to create more breathing room. But boundaries are constructed by pushing them: pushing symbols, reading signs. Binding yet unbinding, settling yet unsettling. And then we don't even get stuck in the present, like happens so much nowadays. This is where we should push.
-
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: Genius Types
Leave it at that.Creating boundaries of unbinding, breathing room, yes, for only here can we exist while we end the suffering of our existence.
The rest of it looks bitter.
-
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm
Re: Genius Types
Bitter is one possibility of causation of a boundary of unbinding, but not only is it a shallow one (born of ego), it is one that adds to, not subtracts from the suffering of our existence.Dennis Mahar wrote:Leave it at that.Creating boundaries of unbinding, breathing room, yes, for only here can we exist while we end the suffering of our existence.
The rest of it looks bitter.
The other possibility is to go deep into the suffering that is existence, deep into its root of name and form and allow the wisdom fruit of compassion to bloom in the expanding light of the deep dive. To allow to grow the fruit of wisdom of suffering that produces that which subtracts from suffering, the compassion virtues of patience, lovingkindness and mercy.
Re: Genius Types
Regardless of all the psychological, philosophy, scientific, and religious logic presented here, no one can say, or even claim, life is not the source of their physicality and conscious awareness. The issue being dealt with here is three-fold. That of the existence of an unknown source which is the inertia for the activity of sentient living in the physical. Whether there is free will of choice to choose how to live physically independent of the patterned principle incomprehensible to the human mind. And whether believing or thinking an individuals thought interpretation, of pushing or pulling inevitable laws, can and does cause a different in the functioning application of the sentient world by eliminating repetitive conscious psychological repetitious inference, that material mass (brick or bouquet), is a true representative for reality from a mind which cannot define reality as the synchronized full thought of mankind?
To deal with philosophical, scientific, imaginary assumptive ideas and discoveries are dealing with results with no ending. Effect is always the easy route to take by man's intellectual conscious senses. However, because there is nothing but 'hearsay evidence, as how to move through the mind to get beyond the mind, dealing with assumptions is an ever ending human mandate, for effect is always the plate of food to eat from because all human intellect is a forays of that which has been foraged, nothing else, for there are no treasures other than I think, or I believe offered. This is why no guru, no one of a high intellect, no suppose man of the cloth, scientist, mathematician, quantum physicist, no one believing in, building, and living of the human intellect exclusively can awaken to a new dimension of life.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
To deal with philosophical, scientific, imaginary assumptive ideas and discoveries are dealing with results with no ending. Effect is always the easy route to take by man's intellectual conscious senses. However, because there is nothing but 'hearsay evidence, as how to move through the mind to get beyond the mind, dealing with assumptions is an ever ending human mandate, for effect is always the plate of food to eat from because all human intellect is a forays of that which has been foraged, nothing else, for there are no treasures other than I think, or I believe offered. This is why no guru, no one of a high intellect, no suppose man of the cloth, scientist, mathematician, quantum physicist, no one believing in, building, and living of the human intellect exclusively can awaken to a new dimension of life.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
Last edited by jufa on Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Genius Types
It's strange Jufa, but it might be completely outside the question if "life" is a source of something or not. What is life, what is love?jufa wrote:Regardless of all the psychological, philosophy, scientific, and religious logic presented here, no one can say, or even claim, life is not the source of their physicality and conscious awareness.
We can know there are sources - causality as principle.
Physicality is something to experience as consciousness is something to realize.
But life is something left to be defined.
Re: Genius Types
Defining life is not the gist of my post Diebert. But since you you ask for definition, you must first define how do you know "there are sources - causality as principle" when you have presented only your word with no logic or evidence for your assumption?Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's strange Jufa, but it might be completely outside the question if "life" is a source of something or not. What is life, what is love?jufa wrote:Regardless of all the psychological, philosophy, scientific, and religious logic presented here, no one can say, or even claim, life is not the source of their physicality and conscious awareness.
We can know there are sources - causality as principle.
Physicality is something to experience as consciousness is something to realize.
But life is something left to be defined.
Moreover, you do know conversation of definition must be the definition of the conversation don't you? Therefore before you can question one about the effective object: ["sources - causality as principle"] before you define the object you are speaking about without any logical evidence, you must present your definition of life beyond meaningless words: "sources - causality as principle." What life are you asking question of, since by you own admission there are "sources"?
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Genius Types
Causality as postulate only needs a word or a thought. No proof. This is the starting point every examination will return to. You try it, again and again until doubt itself will get tired. But don't give up too soon!jufa wrote:Defining life is not the gist of my post Diebert. But since you you ask for definition, you must first define how do you know "there are sources - causality as principle" when you have presented only your word with no logic or evidence for your assumption?
Perhaps you should define it, since you raised the issue of something called "life" being definitely "the source of physicality and conscious awareness". That's a claim in itself. All I did is offering doubt to it. But it's not my task to explain you -- I can only explain myself.What life are you asking question of, since by you own admission there are "sources"?
Re: Genius Types
Diebert, you can slip and slip all you want, but this is your pundit, not mine. And you no one ask you to prove anything, and by you making such a ridiculous statement: "Causality as postulate only needs a word or a thought. No proof," only tighten the self placed noose around your neck concerning my position of only your words of assumption.
And your: "Perhaps you should define it, since you raised the issue of something called "life" being definitely "the source of physicality and conscious awareness," asking of me to define your Talking Head is just your way of you presenting presenting snippets [horse before the cart] which ignore the context of:
This subject matter does not deal with what you are attempting to glamorize. The immediate quote is the issue here, and the first question, which you also ignored. But more than that, the issue you are attempting to get across is moot, for it has already been answered, which you also overlooked in an attempt to glamorize you intelligence. Said answer to you asking for definition is of that which is not of the original contents of my post comes from my original post stating:
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
And your: "Perhaps you should define it, since you raised the issue of something called "life" being definitely "the source of physicality and conscious awareness," asking of me to define your Talking Head is just your way of you presenting presenting snippets [horse before the cart] which ignore the context of:
The issue being dealt with here is three-fold. That of the existence of an unknown source which is the inertia for the activity of sentient living in the physical. Whether there is free will of choice to choose how to live physically independent of the patterned principle incomprehensible to the human mind. And whether believing or thinking an individuals thought interpretation, of pushing or pulling inevitable laws, can and does cause a different in the functioning application of the sentient world by eliminating repetitive conscious psychological repetitious inference, that material mass (brick or bouquet), is a true representative for reality from a mind which cannot define reality as the synchronized full thought of mankind?
This subject matter does not deal with what you are attempting to glamorize. The immediate quote is the issue here, and the first question, which you also ignored. But more than that, the issue you are attempting to get across is moot, for it has already been answered, which you also overlooked in an attempt to glamorize you intelligence. Said answer to you asking for definition is of that which is not of the original contents of my post comes from my original post stating:
If you are not going to deal with the principle essence of my original post dealing with the existence of an unknown source with logic, which would give you a platform to deal with the definitive effect, or result of your "sources" of the unknown, the buck stops here with me. You want to continue this conversation, deal with my Talking Head. I no longer give you power to disrupt my presentation -in your words to proceed "outside the question." Take note of my signature.the existence of an unknown source which is the inertia for the activity of sentient living in the physical.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
-
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm
Re: Genius Types
Logic can only take us to the point of understanding the dependent origination of name and form and consciousness: rationality is dependent on irrationality for its existence and vice versa, therefore, neither named activity of consciousness can be righteously assigned absolute status.
Since the absolute produces both logic and love and neither production can claim ownership of the absolute, we as conscious beings of both can use/enjoy both.
Since the absolute produces both logic and love and neither production can claim ownership of the absolute, we as conscious beings of both can use/enjoy both.
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Genius Types
Looks bitter! Perhaps a glimpse of what is driving some of your philosophy at the bottom?jufa wrote:Diebert, you can slip and slip all you want, but this is your pundit, not mine.... tighten the self placed noose around your neck ...
Don't lie Jufa, you wrote: you must first define how do you know "there are sources - causality as principle".And you no one ask you to prove anything
Every system of thought or mathematics has its postulates or axioms. Of course one can disagree on which they are or how to word them when using informal languages. But "causality" seems pretty much uncontested to me.and by you making such a ridiculous statement: "Causality as postulate only needs a word or a thought. No proof," only tighten the self placed noose around your neck concerning my position of only your words of assumption.
It doesn't matter. Your position has been demonstrated so many times to be flawed at the core. Also your method of argumentation has been shown to be aggressive, immature and quite confused overall. At times even needlessly mean spirited and overly defensive, not to mention your strange difficulty to write normal sentences as if your thought process does not keep up somehow. Try using simpler structures. Pace your self.If you are not going to deal with the principle essence of my original post dealing with the existence of an unknown source with logic, which would give you a platform to deal with the definitive effect, or result of your "sources" of the unknown, the buck stops here with me. You want to continue this conversation, deal with my Talking Head. I no longer give you power to disrupt my presentation -in your words to proceed "outside the question." Take note of my signature.
Re: Genius Types
“Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.” ~ Apple Inc.
Re: Genius Types
That advertisement is not directed to those the words describe.Kunga wrote:“Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.” ~ Apple Inc.