After philosophy: authenticity

[Russell Parr]

Ego transcendance means an acquired understanding that undermines attachment to the temporal. It is a meditation on our most basic being that has a fundamental connection with reality as a whole, while disregarding the rest as temporal fluff. Not in order to completely do away with temporalities, mind you, but to cease clinging to them, to put them in their proper place within a way of living.

Being - heritage - locale - tradition - continuity - disposition. These are not transcendable. This is the stuff of existence, and 'authentic existence' is defined by noticing within existence what is real or valuable. One finds in this (in these facts of existence) the coded keys that must be deciphered to glean an image of 'metaphysic'.

A metaphysic in this sense is only attainable as idea or suggestion when it is achieved inductively from a situation: the situation of being - heritage - locale - tradition, et cetera. One must have a 'situation' for analysis, and the ideal situation, for us, is our European situation, which actually means our very selves.

First off, I would agree that "being - continuity - disposition" are not transcendable.

I understand metaphysics to be something more basic. It is, first and foremost, that within us in which identifications originate. It is the very first movement of consciousness. From there, premises are acquired, become assumed, and built upon. This is where the rest of what you mentioned, heritage - locale - tradition, come in.

To propose 'ego transcendence' is absurd insofar as people (this means: person = being - heritage - tradition - locale and self) do not appear in transcendent terms, and they are not transcendent to anything. And they are not 'transcended'. They are realnesses. They represent tangibles. And to see them requires tangible skills, the skills of tangible analysis.

I think that understanding our own traditions, heritage, etc. is important insofar as learning who we are, and why we are the way we are. From there we should proceed to see through them.

One cannot locate a transcendence. One views the tangible, the present (what is present and viewable) and one transcends it to a metaphysical perspective that feeds self-understanding and presence-in-the-world. If it functions against that, I suggest, it is 'acidic' and 'destructive'.

To visualise 'ego transcendence' is absurd and the idea itself, as explained, in not productive to self-actualization. Yet to see in transcendent terms is a high attainment.

What you see as acidic and destructive is to me a true self-actualization. That is, of course, self as it relates to the Ultimate.

I don't know why you insist on clinging onto culture and tradition. These are ultimately irrelevant to 'being' on a fundamental level, and usually serve only to cause a divide among people. We could only hope the human race grows in order to see through all these superficial labels, be it European, Christian, etc. and work together with an understanding of our commonalities as a basis.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Ego transcendance means an acquired understanding that undermines attachment to the temporal. It is a meditation on our most basic being that has a fundamental connection with reality as a whole, while disregarding the rest as temporal fluff. Not in order to completely do away with temporalities, mind you, but to cease clinging to them, to put them in their proper place within a way of living.

I don't think I have ever misunderstood what is meant by 'ego-transcendence', and I do also understand it as an 'acquired understanding', a perspective, and an orientation into which one is inducted. It obviously connects to other understandings and attitudes which fit in with a more-or-less Buddhist orientation. I don't think you like it that much, and you do seem to 'cling' (your own word) to the definition you establish, but most of this paragraph can be challenged.

I understand metaphysics to be something more basic. It is, first and foremost, that within us in which identifications originate. It is the very first movement of consciousness. From there, premises are acquired, become assumed, and built upon. This is where the rest of what you mentioned, heritage - locale - tradition, come in.

The term 'metaphysic' is enormously complex, in fact. I have not come across the definition you have just offered. I can imagine, too, that what I understand as your Buddhist metaphysics (the basic tenets of Buddhism) would necessarily require this definition. And you'd have to go to work on that metaphysic to loosen attachment, etc.

I think that understanding our own traditions, heritage, etc. is important insofar as learning who we are, and why we are the way we are. From there we should proceed to see through them.

I can honestly say that I fully understand why and how you'd move from point A to point B in your example. And I also understand what you mean, and why you say, that 'seeing through them' is your objective. No new information here.

What you see as acidic and destructive is to me a true self-actualization. That is, of course, self as it relates to the Ultimate.

It follows, naturally, that dissolving ego attachments, and 'seeing through' identifications, is required for the 'self-realization' that you desire or hold as valuable. Any other view would be in operation against your own established tenets.

I don't know why you insist on clinging onto culture and tradition. These are ultimately irrelevant to 'being' on a fundamental level, and usually serve only to cause a divide among people. We could only hope the human race grows in order to see through all these superficial labels, be it European, Christian, etc. and work together with an understanding of our commonalities as a basis.

Of course you don't know why! From your outlined perspective it is 'counter-intuitive' and outrightly illogical.

The structure that you present here is a 'metaphysic' in one of the senses of the word metaphysic. There are operative ideas which determine how you view things, and yourself, and feelings, and your relationships, and indeed your very existence in this plane of manifestation. These dovetail in with ontological understandings. This edifice you have established is rather simple (few moving parts) and yet it can and does influence and in a sense determine how you will live life.

All of these assertions can be challenged, and in my view they require to be challenged. I cannot say that they are 'wrong', because they are in their essence choices that you make, a choice of a lens through which you view things.

You do not seem to want to look into the mechanics, as it were, of these views, and thus it would be (according to Spider Mother) 'abusive' of you to do so, but alternatives exist, and rather severe criticism can be offered.

My endeavour is to react against your position, which I regard as a pathological choice as-against aspects of our present (not so much 'sickness' but perhaps rather disorientation, and yes, 'pathology' is somewhat strong, though pathologies certainly exist in our world and you-plural certain recognise and identify them).

When I say 'react against your position' I mean call up out of myself, and also out of our of idea-world, our heritage of self if you'll permit the term, a response that counters your position in absolute terms. I seek an antidote to it. You call this 'ego-clinging' and other such terms like delusion, ignorance, etc. In one rather imperious gesture you wipe this perspective right off the board.

All this I understand!

These are all borrowed terms which our friend David made a great deal of hay with.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I don't think I have ever misunderstood what is meant by 'ego-transcendence',

hahahaha.

It is literally impossible to understand unless you have had the personal experience/insight. Otherwise, any description is not it. Can't you wrap your mind around that point?

All you're really saying is "I don't believe in it, and I don't believe it is some absolute path as you claim."

Over and over. You have no intention of ever taking a more personal look. You refuse to believe it even temporarily, and thus test it for yourself, since that empathetic trait is reserved for the wise.

List me ten books, I say: "I'll read them and regard them in whatever manner you like during that learning experience".

Suggest to you a meditative investigation, you say: "No, you zealot".

[Russell Parr]

You do not seem to want to look into the mechanics, as it were, of these views, and thus it would be (according to Spider Mother) 'abusive' of you to do so, but alternatives exist, and rather severe criticism can be offered.

I would say the complete opposite is true. How would I not know the mechanics, having worked with these thoughts for as long as I have? The whole point of the proposed philosophy is to apply it thoroughly onto oneself. By the way you describe the process, being "acidic" and all (which is the nicest way you put it), indicates that you can't withstand the pain of such introspection. If you were able to get through it, let it sink in, you would see at least some of the benefits, but it seems clear that you are unable. What you deem as self-destructive, many of us see as a liberation. You attack others to compensate for your own shortcomings, which explains the degree of violence by which you do so.

As long as you've been around, it should be clear to you that these thoughts aren't for everybody. It's very curious that you feel so threatened by them. The antidote you seek isn't even necessary, as only a tiny percentage of the population were and will ever be capable of what we promote. Therefore your addiction here must be as masochistic as it is sadistic. You keep fighting a battle you can't possibly win. You like to pretend that we are on the verge of destroying all of humanity's worldly values. Or that we are the spearhead of such a movement. Do not fret! The uphill battle is ours, as the world is, and more or less has always been proliferated with precisely what you are a proponent for, and what we are against. You've already won!

But of course, I'm sure you've heard all this before. I've barely anything new to offer you, if anything at all. I've no doubts that I'm just giving you more ammo. I guess I had to get this off my chest.

I do not care for the casual discourse that you usually partake in, as you are doing now. To me, it is a veil while you rear up for your next attack, for how could you not? As vehemently as you oppose these ideas, your presence here must irk you progressively until the next inevitable outburst. So from here, for now, I wish you adieu, and to gtfo.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I become intrigued by the notion of 'sadism'. The cruelty of thought. The cruelty of decisiveness. The cruelty of reasoning. The cruelty of sharply articulated idea. Absolute cruelty. The Sadism of the Absolute.

I vow to become an Absolute Sadist of Idea. That can be a liberation too!

[Russell Parr]

Perhaps it can.

I realize I might've been a bit over the top myself, particularly at the end there. I can't say I didn't mean any of it, but my intolerance doesn't have to tolerated either. So there's that.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

In spite of what Seeker and you seem to assume, and though it is different from a strict and rigorous Buddhism (this is what I assume you practice, or the closest description, or in any case an adequate general reference), I am in a certain sense a student of an Indian school of thought. An Indian metaphysical school might be a better way to put it. Similar to what I often hear round these parts, it views 'the world' as an unstable platform, and proposes that one can understand the dynamics of this platform through understanding the function and interrelationship of the 'gunas' (modes of nature). It proposes a very definite contemplative practice which is, in its essence, the understanding of a metaphysical structure and avoidance of 'material entanglement'. The object - as with what I understand of your path - is to avoid the traps of the contingent and attempt to forge or seek a relationship with Being of an eternal force or reality. It is a practice that is carried on within a specific visualisation and a way of seeing reality. (I hear something similar when you speak of the tenets of your view).

Contemplation is not unfamiliar to me, and such visualisations as I have just described of 'this plane of manifestation' are not unfamilar to me either. I am not implying equality or sameness of metaphysical understanding, just pointing out that there is similarity.

But where I differ is that I think that certain aspects of these Indian schools of thought (Buddhism and Zen are of course offshoots of the Indian metaphysical school), is that I think that they 'strayed', if you will, or rather that they never succeeded in gaining what is the inverse or converse of 'metaphysical power', which is 'material power'. Science might be the general term of reference but of course it is much more. My critique is based not in an 'absolute rejection' of the ideas, the metaphysic or the visualisation (a specific way of visualising reality), but in 1) the relationship to the self and 2) the relationship of the self to the phenomenal world.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I thought today that the 'help desk' could better be named 'The Spider Pit' and the victims you send there to feed on before you eject them might be macabre monuments to the result of this 'philosophy'. ;-)

Funny. My own view, using those terms for the online representation of posts as fractured "persona", would be more closer to removing fat garden spiders from a presentable living room, not a place they'd find the sustenance they crave anyway, just a place where light and movement would confuse them further, but, since they are living things, not to squash them but let them crawl away in the back yard. But when they don't take the hint, ejecting them with a bit more force remains an option. The central element here is my idea of how the living room should look like. It has a certain purpose, a certain presentability and hygiene. Furthermore the above describes some of the reasoning behind some ejections of the past: the view that somebody is really misplaced in thought, time and orientation when it comes to the forum topic, only confusing themselves and others further if they stay, demonstrated by increasingly incoherent and repetitive contributions. Obviously it's not something that could ever be agreed upon, by definition, with the subjects.

Philosophy, spirituality, and religion-in-essence or 'of essences', is in my mind the precise topic. And at the core of it is value. If you cannot locate and define value, I reckon you'd be generally rudderless, at least in respect to the philosophical and existential values I'd be interested in defining.

Yes, we're all generally "rudderless", beyond obvious causality. But that word implies some ship being banged around on the surf of life. This is only true in terms of attachments and the emotional life as a result. For some that is life but it doesn't have to be.

The 'death' that concerns me, is that these various positions will end nihilistically because they are in essence destructive to self.

So what? Who gets exactly hurt? The only one who gets hurt around here is you trying to wrap your head around it :-) And some psychiatric patients who come and bring their wounds with them. Obviously that never will end well, wherever they go, whatever they end up believing or doing. Once a person lived for a while (I never get the impression you've lived much outside a book) he'd know that in the world many people are a mess, with or without crazy beliefs, nihilism, family, jobs or philosophy books.

This has not to do with 'me', that is your mistake. If you could make it so, a good part of your battle could be won though, wouldn't it? This is often turned by you into a personal debate with cries of 'abuse' and such.

But it is since the issue is very much about "self", notions of "self", the ego, the idiot cosmos and so on. It's not because it's that only in your case.

Now, 'thick skulls' - your term not mine - is interesting because the 'religious nutter', often as a general rule, cannot and will not deal in higher ideas and ideals, but tends to dogmatic positions, and is often unprepared philosophically.

Of course you'd use more sophisticated phrasing like "your head stuck up your own asshole" and "trying to bash into your skulls" (actual quotes).

So, yes, it is hard to get through a 'thick skull' of that sort but it is not so much thickness or density but rather lack of preparation, and lack of desire to understand philosophy and spirituality and religion in the context of 'our present'.

Yes, but as usual you're ending up with something that anyone could say about everything. It's true for 99.99% of the world. It's a big challenge for the remainder. It would imply as well you "understand" philosophy, spirituality and religion" to a high degree in our context. Which is also heavily doubted by nearly everyone you have tried to communicate with. You understand something all right but a little can be way more dangerous, it swells the head, although it's often more the heart, really and other excitable, dumb organs...

You interpret what I think and write as 'harassment', and you succeed in getting this to stick, but that is not my focus.

It's not really harassment, it's more like abuse of forum availability for your personal needs added to some mild repetitive insult of most of its members and the general aim of the forum. But that's all right. The biggest abuse of truth is you trying to create the image that you are a nice, regular representative of normality while you are actually one of the biggest freaks who frequents the place. Get that into your skull!

But it all implies purpose, directive principle or goal to be in place, somewhere, in some agent or collection of agents.

Yes indeed.

Which is at the core of your illusions, which is the core of your "being" and naturally you're going to try to find a system to justify believing it.

But where I differ is that I think that certain aspects of these Indian schools of thought (Buddhism and Zen are of course offshoots of the Indian metaphysical school), is that I think that they 'strayed', if you will, or rather that they never succeeded in gaining what is the inverse or converse of 'metaphysical power', which is 'material power'.

It seems to me that you've never understood the schools you cite beyond some cherry-pick. It was not a lack of success: it was often a thorough understanding of the illusion and self-delusion at work to get involved with the material to the level it could be called power, as power is always illusion, the dynamic between two which is in fact "many things".

Any advance in the "material" is about forgetting and repressing various insights. This to make possible "material desire" and various dreams, which so far have fuelled the world of exploration and potential advance. Although a lot of luck and circumstance is at work too. Since I've written quite a lot, as well in emails, about my view on illusion as engine, I don't have to explain right now why I do not blindly condemn it. But in the context of wisdom it's definitely a stumbling block. This is why our age appears to become more idiotic in a sense. The illusions finally have gobbled up everything to the degree that is has become our whole world. It has become "existence" in terms of the simulacrum. It's unclear to me if you have any idea of the scope we're talking about here and the depth. It's not even intellectually fully conceivable since the intellect is as well a powerful cause of the illusion, way more often than its challenger.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

You are a very possessive spider! I am interested at a zero-level in your interpretations of me and of interjecting yourself in this way as you do. The force of your personal conundrum, and the trap you find yourself in, may inspire or impress others, but it bores me. In a post in that spate of your recent 'rearrangements' and fiddlings - subsequently deleted - you opened with 'Alex, my Nemesis, fool...'

'Alex Jacob on the brain', is how Leyla put it. Get him out of your consciouness.

I was involved just recently in a conversation with Pam which you bizarrely interrupted. You are doing wonderful, productive work in 'Talking to a Wall'. Continue there. And cease engaging me, s'il te plait. Pretty please?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It's mind blowing how obvious Gustav's foolishness is.

"Possessive"
"bores me"
"bizarrely interrupted"

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

'Authenticity' is a good starting point to approach an overwhelmingly difficult 'topic', which is of course the very life we have, the self we are, the way we organise ourselves metaphysically to be in this world (or not to be in it). All the questions that come up here on GF are vital and important ones, but more than that it is the thrust and the intensity of asking questions that demand answers. It seems to me that there exists a basic dichotomy and division that is prominent within 'our own traditions' (putting to one side Indian metaphysics and their derivatives), and it hinges in how the 'self' is defined, and then how this 'self' shall engage with the world and in what way. Contemplation beyond any doubt is vital activity, but contemplation is not an alternative to - here the common cliche - to getting on with the business of life. Contemplative and 'spiritual' activity, looking inward, self-analysis, and a general psychology-of-self, is relevant. And this aspect of self is vitally connected with every point at which our self connects with the phenomenal world. 'Transcending' the self, or the ego, or the phenomenal world, or becoming inactive, or dismissing that aspect of self-in-world which is 'scientia', seems to me a vital error. I would say that it is a semantic and linguistic misstatement. In this, the phrase itself needs to be corrected and the endeavour needs to be redefined and restated.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

:)

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I can say that this:

Any advance in the "material" is about forgetting and repressing various insights. This to make possible "material desire" and various dreams, which so far have fuelled the world of exploration and potential advance. Although a lot of luck and circumstance is at work too. Since I've written quite a lot, as well in emails, about my view on illusion as engine, I don't have to explain right now why I do not blindly condemn it. But in the context of wisdom it's definitely a stumbling block. This is why our age appears to become more idiotic in a sense. The illusions finally have gobbled up everything to the degree that is has become our whole world. It has become "existence" in terms of the simulacrum. It's unclear to me if you have any idea of the scope we're talking about here and the depth. It's not even intellectually fully conceivable since the intellect is as well a powerful cause of the illusion, way more often than its challenger.

...can be taken as a group of Questions instead of a large, generalizing concluding statement. This is why the analysis of 'metaphysics', and of determining presuppositions and apriories, is sensible work. Myself, I fundamentally disagree with the conclusion of this statement, but I appreciate the vision that allows the articulation of it as question. Too, I laugh when the term 'wisdom' is hauled out. The use of this word on this forum and that the term gets passed from one hand to another as a 'definite possession', a thing attained and assumed to have been attained, finished and done with, is amazingly laughable. Actually, and for me, this inspires contempt. I am not sure if the issue of 'wisdom' should be put aside, and there are indeed Occidental 'wisdom traditions' which make attempts to propose what is 'wise', but the use of this word, here, is to my ears quite inappropriate. To say this though tends to rile the local residents. 'Question thee our Wisdoms!?'

With sheer and absolute violence, with terrifying sadism, I attack the core of the assumption of 'wisdom' as 'embroidered robe' on the back of a fool. But the question 'What is wisdom in this life?' Is not a bad one.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Too, I laugh when the term 'wisdom' is hauled out. The use of this word on this forum and that the term gets passed from one hand to another as a 'definite possession', a thing attained and assumed to have been attained, finished and done with, is amazingly laughable. Actually, and for me, this inspires contempt.

Yeah, you feel contempt. Again you clearly admit your own ignorant tendencies.

How dumb is this guy?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

It always boggles me that someone exposed to so many pointers toward truth cannot see truth.

An interesting statement ...

A 'bogle' is a phantom or goblin, and what does it mean to run up against something that so 'boggles the mind'?

The issue here is epistemological and (once again) revolves around value: what one values, why one values it, and how one comes to decide about values, to evaluate.

According to you, your realizations began approximately at age 17 and now, some 5 years later, you are a fully-fledged Wisdom Teacher of what surely must appear to you as the most profound Wisdom Tradition being enunciated on the planet right now.

You've a tough row to hoe, son!

[Pam Seeback]

Alex: It looks to me like a total dead-end. Dead-ends do not become immediately visible as such.

Dead-ends only if one studies mysticism rather than becoming a mystic.

One notices a dead-end usually at a later point. Kids will pick up this shite and run with it, and my contention is that it is only later that the mistakes made will become apparent. That is a bit harsh I know but it is an honest statement of what I see.

This is what you see because, by your own admission, you have not gone all the way vis a vis the mystic way.

You perform a magic trick which in my view is a 'dialectical sin' by wiping all such and any such considerations off the board. Not only do you destroy 'metaphysic' (whatever that means for you) but you destroy mind and intellect. Seeker is notable in doing this, too, and with religious relish and zealousness. Yet I doubt that either of you really understand what you are doing and why.

I fully understand what I am doing. I am seeking full immersion in spirit consciousness/the causality/the transcendent life (the Real, the Authentic). If you sought the same, you would come to see that because spirit consciousness is the source of everything, it destroys nothing. With regards to the intellect, the mystic's intellect or will of thinking is most certainly not destroyed, rather it is immersed in or is one with the transcendent life. The same rule of thumb goes for metaphysics: destruction is not at all the intent, simply understanding its place as the fuel for surrender of the intellect that seeks rather than sees and does.

This is how you express it:
Quote:
Being focused on consciousness is to perceive consciousness as a thing. Which starts the story or metaphysics of consciousness. The story or metaphysics of consciousness is the blockage. The blockage causes tension, the tension causes the hunt for another story, round and round we go. When tension and metaphysic-hunting are present, clarity of insight is obscured. What do I mean by clarity of insight? The natural arising of the causal patterns that form each moment of awareness.

Well, if that is your starting point, the enunciation of your predicate, then it should be quite clear what needs be done. You worship in some sense a cessation. At other times I have called it 'death'. Simply put, it takes you out of any 'world' that I know, understand and value, and into the 'world' (of unending rounds of speech-arcana and language-gibberish) of your delight. And it is clearly a delight. It is the delightful place where you choose to be and to reside.

Take a another look at what I said: natural arising of the causal patterns. Arising = cessation?

If you were the age of Seeker or Russell just imagine the years and years of delightful language-gibberish you'd have in front of you. The thread 'Talking to the wall is not Genius' could go on to Page 10,000 and maybe 100,000. So much language-pleasure to be extracted there, such perfection of an absurdist dialectic. But, it is possible (as Mr D has recently said) to 'grow up'. In my view 'growing up' is also sobering up and taking stock.

Since you have admitted not being a mystic and do not exhibit inclinations to becoming a mystic, I understand why you think mystics speak gibberish. My question to you is one I have asked in the past, why condemn that which you do not understand?

You simply cannot know, and you do not know, how numerous aspects of this endeavour you outline is connected to destructive actions and activities and in what precise sense it is an 'acid'. To see that requires a metaphysical vantage (and a 'master metaphysician'). I desire to be counter-acid.

A mystic does not require (and certainly does not benefit from or is changed by) analysis by a non-mystic. Feel feel to try though. :-)

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
Authentic: not false or copied; genuine; real (dictionary.com)
The authentic quest or the quest for the real is the quest to break free from all thoughts systems, be they cultural, scientific or philosophical. Therefore, any quest of trying to understand a thought system is the inauthentic quest.

Diebert: It's hard to for me to envision anyone breaking away from the very thing defining us, that is: anything that might be authentic or genuine about ourselves or relating to our life; our sense of what's "real".

By break free I mean transcend as our means of identification. "Sense" of what's real is what must be understood so it can be put to rest.

After mastering physics comes metaphysics, after mastering philosophy comes... what? Perhaps stopping to look for afters and befores? The mind itself, the core of awareness is this very inquiry, this curiosity and quest. Why the heart pumps, the lungs breath and the mind turns and overturns. Go with it or when it's time, make room for those who will. Understanding this is not more authentic than not understanding this. Exactly that demonstrates the freedom.

The mind seeks these things, of course, this is its natural way, its necessary way. Only by inquiring as to the true nature of things and of self does is one raised up 'beyond' inquiry and into knowing. This is not a frivolous realization because it resolves all questions about reality vs. illusion (as if there are two). The seeking is the fire of doubt that blazes away doubt.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

By break free I mean transcend as our means of identification. "Sense" of what's real is what must be understood so it can be put to rest.

The mind seeks these things, of course, this is its natural way, its necessary way. Only by inquiring as to the true nature of things and of self does is one raised up 'beyond' inquiry and into knowing. This is not a frivolous realization because it resolves all questions about reality vs. illusion (as if there are two). The seeking is the fire of doubt that blazes away doubt.

But Pam, the mind, how it identifies, makes distinctions between sleep and awake, truth and illusion, by its ability to doubt, offset and becoming self-aware, will not be put to rest. It cannot be put to rest. At best one can understand somewhat of what it tries to do, what it's doing. That path is called wisdom and has no ending. If one should speak of liberation like you do, it needs to be done in terms of letting go of your last certainty, your last temptation, your last resting place. Because the only thing you could care about is wisdom but who knows why? The idea of transcending that is the final illusion as life itself always moves by the care it holds, what it values and what not.

[Russell Parr]

Wu wei means to "do without doing". Keep in mind that the "do" is not negated.

From the Tao Te Ching — thirty-seven:

• Tao abides in non-action,
  Yet nothing is left undone.
  If those in power observed this,
  The ten thousand things would develop naturally.
  If they still desired to act,
  They would return to the simplicity of formless substance.
  Without form there is no desire
  Without desire there is tranquility.
  And in this way all things would be at peace.

[Pam Seeback]

Wu wei means to "do without doing". Keep in mind that the "do" is not negated.

From the Tao Te Ching — thirty-seven:

• Tao abides in non-action,
  Yet nothing is left undone.
  If those in power observed this,
  The ten thousand things would develop naturally.
  If they still desired to act,
  They would return to the simplicity of formless substance.
  Without form there is no desire
  Without desire there is tranquility.
  And in this way all things would be at peace.

I couldn't have said it any better. And in this peace, Lao Tzu so eloquently speaks his wisdom.

Diebert: But Pam, the mind, how it identifies, makes distinctions between sleep and awake, truth and illusion, by its ability to doubt, offset and becoming self-aware, will not be put to rest. It cannot be put to rest. At best one can understand somewhat of what it tries to do, what it's doing. That path is called wisdom and has no ending. If one should speak of liberation like you do, it needs to be done in terms of letting go of your last certainty, your last temptation, your last resting place. Because the only thing you could care about is wisdom but who knows why? The idea of transcending that is the final illusion as life itself always moves by the care it holds, what it values and what not.

I agree that the final illusion as life itself is moves by the care it holds, what it values and what not, and yes, this care is wisdom of the eternal and infinite/ultimate reality, but I am not why this wisdom would cause doubt and not rest. Perhaps we hold a different view or understanding of what rest in the context of wisdom of the infinite means. I know you have spoken of grace in previous posts. Would not the experience of grace from which wisdom of the infinite flows be just this final 'thing' between the infinite and the finite mind/consciousness/body/soul? I realize that one who rests in grace must, out of necessity to awaken, cause doubt in the minds of those who do not but that is not the same experience as being doubtful/of doubt.

[jufa]

Authentic: not false or copied; genuine; real (dictionary.com)

The authentic quest or the quest for the real is the quest to break free from all thoughts systems, be they cultural, scientific or philosophical. Therefore, any quest of trying to understand a thought system is the inauthentic quest. Some insights on the quest for the authentic life:

No man is born seeking to break free from the attachment that is the natural effect of thought system-conditioning. Attachment to the inauthentic is given before detachment from the inauthentic is sought.

The quest for the authentic life is a slow burning awakening and not a thought (of enlightenment) that comes 'out of the blue.'

Those seeking absoluteness are unconsciously seeking authenticity.

Have read the majority of the posturing herein, and because of read, and experienced stances being expressed goes back and forth, it would be, to me, an injustice to impose myself without first addressing the initial statement. Authentic quest, I find, is acting from ones experience. Whatever happens in this world, or in discussion, ones experience is their truth, and irrespective of another person[s] doubt or opposition to the experience one express, such doubt and opposition is disingenuous when compared to any other descriptions because similarity presents only assumptions of another's experience, and is never accurate in objective visions, nor subjective feelings. What one has experience belongs to them only. No one else can claim any truth or untruth as to it happening.

This leads to philosophizing. Philosophizing is not a true religious, nor scientific occurrence when interjected with what others have experience. Sure relativism is an expression of deferred experience of similarity, but then, one can simulate rain, but not get wet. Therefore, authentic philosophy belongs only to the one who has experience what they now project for others to think upon, but cannot be anything but a false dichotomy when another use that written by another as anything other than reference, or to enhance one own experience expressed.

No one can prove, or authenticate experience because of uniqueness of observation of angles, and digestion of perception from those angles. So in discussions, I've found, to change minds, one must present a new and better trail to analyze which has not been a part of ones consciousness, thus ones thinking. How many trails can the human mind discover, and where will these trails take one, and mean when death ends the experience of obtaining anything when the grim reaper reaches into ones bosom and bring out the heart?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com