GENIUS FORUMS

kowtaaia wrote: The manifestation of truth only leaves innocence as its aftermath, when thought again arises.

Such is the state of moving into the true realm. It's a step past the intoxication.

And that would be one point for the QRS contention that women are "herdly."

QRS can't tell masculine from feminine.

kowtaaia wrote:

DQ: This is a major problem with Kow's idea that enlightenment is essentially a state of no-thought. He will always lose his enlightenment the moment he has a thought. It is a fragile, limited attainment.

K: To bad he never said or implied that!

DQ: You have said a number of times that non-duality can manifest (the meaning of this is still unclear) when the self and its thoughts are absent. The non-dual may "visit", as you once put it - again, the meaning of this is not clear.

K: Please provide a reference of kow ever saying: "the self and its thoughts". Instead of looking at what is being pointed to; you interpret from ignorance and disagree with your own misunderstanding.

DQ: You have said a number of times that the non-dual visits when "you" are not. You have also said that non-dual manifests as the absence of thought. I don't know why you are playing this game of pretending that you didn't say these things.

So please deal with my question above with sincerity, preferably with compelling, well-thought out reasons.

K: Anyone that cares to read back can see that you are rephrasing kow statements according to your limited understanding. eg."Visits" was used one time and explained to you, subsequently. The phrase " the non-dual visits when "you" are not." has never been used. The phrase "non-dual manifests as the absence of thought." has never been used. Kow has NEVER said "the self and its thoughts."

On page 6 of this thread, you wrote .....

The phrase "The non-dual may visit, but no one visits the non-dual." means that you (being the conditioned), cannot meet, experience, undergo, go to, cannot be when the non-dual is manifest, because it only manifest when you are not.

And on page 7 .....

The non-dual is a state that is either manifest or not manifest. Its manifestation is the total absence of thought, the psychological reality, the ego. You cannot be there.

It was these comments which started my questioning of your understanding of non-duality in the first place.

Now I know you like being evasive to the max, but this is ridiculous. Who are you trying to kid? What is the point of this game-playing? Do you even know?

Please realize that many people have privately cautioned that David Quinn is the ban king when he's called on his bullshit.

I will be charitable and say that you've been misinformed.

Occasionally, I have to boot people off because they are either spamming or trolling, otherwise the forum risks losing its focus. It is standard administrative practice, a form of pruning. I've probably been required to do it about a dozen times over the years.

And here I am having to do it again. The two issues facing me at the moment is: (a) why is a seemingly intelligent, well-informed fellow like yourself repeatedly engaging in such evasive behaviour and game-playing, and (b) should it be considered "trolling"?

It's not your opposition to my views which worries me. I don't have a problem with, say, Bo or Unwise, who also think I am full of bullshit, because at least they are somewhat sincere in their interactions with people. They at least treat people as human beings and make an attempt to explain their views. They don't fiddle around with people, feeding them slight hints and ultra-brief responses, (like feeding crumbs to chooks) and then become all abusive and start accusing people of misunderstanding what you have said. It is this kind of game-playing that I object to. I consider it to be sub-human behaviour. Even a little insane.

Having a conversation with you like having a conversation with a cunning fox. I can see intelligence in there, but it is almost impossible for anyone to engage in it because of the endless defensive manouveuring and the overwhelming desire you have never to be pinned down on anything. I don't see an innocent child of truth when I look at you. I see someone who hides behind a spiritual mask and snarls at anyone who tries to take it off.

The reason why I would consider you a "troll" is because you post quite a lot and I can easily see the forum getting bogged down in your game-playing on a regular basis. You did it with Scott, you are doing it with me, I can see you doing it in the future with anyone who challenges your views in any way. I don't see how this benefits the forum.

And so in short, I really think you should leave - at least for a while. You're more than welcome to come back in the future, if you are willing to cast that mask aside and become more open with people. As I say, I think you're are an intelligent fellow, with probably a high IQ, but at the moment you're impossible to deal with.

-

David,

Some of your rephrasings are worse than others. You will NEVER be able to give an example where 'kow' said or implied in any way, shape or form: "The self and its thoughts." That's your delusion, not kowz. You still have not acknowledged that you made a false statement. It's been quoted at least twice already, so there's no point in reposting it.

Do what you will to save face, but don't expect everyone to believe your bullshit reasons.

Based on my two 10+ page threads (Do all children want immortal egos & what is death?) dealing with kow, I have come to suspect that the reason dealing with him is so difficult is because he has a very, very precious treasure that noone else on earth that he knows of has. The treasure being: literal immortality/life-everlasting.

Why is it such 'good news' that awareness is a field not generated by the brain?

David, Kow is evasive and abusive towards anyone who is not willing to submit to his brand of bodhisatva-ism, a brand which involves him as the prime bodhisatva.

His personality is very similar to Jiddu Krishnamurti. Not only did JK always have to be right, but JK, if you read his writings very closely and follow his life closely, seemed to have worked out some sort of sensibility of there being an indestructable transcended consciousness.

There is a DVD called "what is it that dies". Slim chance of anyone here ever seeing it, but if you watch JK's absurd social skills dealing with the group of people he was discussing with on that DVD, you will find that it is incredibly similar to Kow's.

Why can't Kow just say: I believe in a cosmic consciousness outside of the brain, an impersonal consciousness that I am, a consciousness that is everlasting and immortal.

Because if kow does that, then no one will bother paying attention to him anymore.

If what I am saying is true, I don't see much chance of Kow just plainly stating it. Especially considering how his confession will look in contrast to this analysis. He will realize that other people understand him better then he undestands himself.

It would be unbearable for him.

This is just my theory. And of course, he'll probably never admit

Iolaus wrote: However, so many people, self included, have noted a sharp difference between what is understood in a conceptual way, a book learning, wordish way, and the actual experience of it being so. After which the person says, Oh! So now I get it! And I thought I understood it before.

I describe this other way of knowing as a perception (...) - a full-on experience that is more than just intellect - had to happen.

Hi Anna, good to read you again.

Though I understand what you try to aim for with your words I find them confusing. It's perhaps a matter of semantics but not an unimportant one. You appear to use 'perception' as a form of intuition or higher level of insight. I rather use the term for any recognition of sensory stimuli. This way we can build a picture of increasingly 'higher' or more abstract ways to deal with raw perception. Because of the complexity of mental processes abstractions are being created to bring order, reason and logic as tools to help with proper recognition and interpretation of our experiences which can be so overwhelming, or perhaps is overwhelming us most of the time. Not to mention sometimes our perceptions are already handicapped on a lower physical level, like brain damage, lack of proper stimulation and so on.

If we'd look at the common use of the word intellect (dictionary.com)

a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. See Synonyms at mind.

Then we could envision the mind, or the intellect as the top of the whole mentation pyramid. The most abstract, most conscious bit. But this apex is nothing without a sound structure below it: it's all seamless. The apex will be highest and most profound only when the whole structure supports this.

Perhaps you can see that in this line of thinking there's no 'other way of knowing' available. All ways are there to start with and you can try to work bottom-up or top-down, all reflecting on each other as it develops. The observation that someone's intellectual grip on things is limited or delusional is not saying anything really about intellect vs 'direct experiencing' or understanding. It only says that the whole process must be poorly developed.

Cory,

Why can't Kow just say: I believe in a cosmic consciousness outside of the brain, an impersonal consciousness that I am, a consciousness that is everlasting and immortal.

So what? Lots of people believe that.

Diebert,

Though I understand what you try to aim for with your words I find them confusing. You appear to use 'perception' as a form of intuition or higher level of insight. I rather use the term for any recognition of sensory stimuli.

Actually, I really mean something closer to sensory stimuli, but yet with a difference. Perhaps it is a form of intuition or higher level insight, but it's not thought based. Rather, one actually sees it that way. And I'm saying that the experience of a new perception had to happen before the intellectual understanding could follow and align.

I think in some people a form of spiritual vision can develop. You look at a person and see everything anyone else would, but you see deeper into them. I don't quite know how else to explain it, but motivations and thoughts become more apparent. The interactions of the higher selves become slightly visible.

Then we could envision the mind, or the intellect as the top of the whole mentation pyramid. The most abstract, most conscious bit. But this apex is nothing without a sound structure below it: it's all seamless. The apex will be highest and most profound only when the whole structure supports this.

Very well, so you want the thing to be seamless. First of all, in this seamless whole, why is one aspect at the top of the pyramid? But even if we do call it the highest, you do agree that without all parts functioning, there is lack of progress.

Perhaps you can see that in this line of thinking there's no 'other way of knowing' available. All ways are there to start with and you can try to work bottom-up or top-down, all reflecting on each other as it develops. The observation that someone's intellectual grip on things is limited or delusional is not saying anything really about intellect vs 'direct experiencing' or understanding. It only says that the whole process must be poorly developed.

Well, if there are only some parts of the whole mind working, then those nonworking or rarely working parts give rise to the idea that there is another way of knowing things, when suddenly they kick in.
If the whole process is poorly developed, then it means that intellectual understanding in the absence of the other parts working does say something about the inadequacy of intellect alone.
As to bottom-up versus top-down, that's just what I am thinking. (Perhaps more like left-hand, right-hand.) Either way can work, and if it's a bit lopsided in one direction for a while, that'll right itself eventually. So long as they from time to time come to each other's aid and shore one another up. The intellectual makes the experiential consciously understood and the experiential makes the intellectual into something real.

Iolaus wrote:

DQ: It should be obvious that the Totality can never come into being or disappear.

Iolaus : How do we know it couldn't disappear?

DQ: Because it is not a form. Only forms can appear or disappear.

Iolaus: That's just words. I can see why the totality cannot come into being, but I don't see why it couldn't all just fold up and disappear.

It's not just words. It is logical understanding.

If you truly understood the reason why the Totality can never come into being in the first place, then the possibility of it folding up and disappearing would never enter your head.

The Totality is not an "it" in the first place. It has never been an "it"; it can never be a "non-it". It was never born and thus it can never die. This is emptiness. This is the unconditioned.

DQ: I was talking about what really is the case at the summit, not about what people happen to believe or experience while climbing up there.

Iolaus: yes, you were, but how people get there is important.

Applying your intellect to the truth with all your heart, all your mind, all you soul, and all your strength is how you get there. That is the only way to obliterate the ego and truly become free.

Worrying about having "experiences" is little more than egotism and gluttony - kind of like putting notches in your belt. If you simply strive to understand the ultimate truth with all the strength you can muster, the "experiences" will soon follow of their own accord, and you'll have the wisdom to not get harmed by them.

DQ: If there is any cognition at all - such as, "this must be nirvana", or, "look, there are no thoughts happening", or, "this is beyond conceptualizating", etc - then one is experiencing concepts and thoughts.

Iolaus: Yes, those are all thoughts. And I think thoughts work pretty well without words also. Animals do quite well, making decisions and so forth without language.

Their thoughts and their understandings are severely limited, of course.

DQ: There is no such thing as non-duality in the sense you mean here.

Iolaus: Lao Tzu said there is.

If he did, he was misleading you.

DQ: You can call it what you want, but if the mystical experience doesn't cause a person to push on into genuine enlightenment, (and in most cases, for various reasons, it doesn't), then what is the good of it?

Iolaus: Part of the problem here is that there is such a huge amount of material, of data, about so many kinds of experiences, which are brought about by myriad causes, into individuals of varying capacities and intentions. But I am saying that kensho is a mystical experience. What I am talking about is an experience that involves more than 'learning about.' In the end, I don't think you can be enlightened without something experiential.

Sure, but equally so, one cannot be enlightened without a perfect intellectual understanding. The two arise together. There can be no experience of enlightenment without a perfect intellectual understanding and one's intellectual understanding cannot be perfected without experience.

For example, a limited understanding of Reality might cause a person to image that non-duality is something apart from them, something to strive for, as though it were some kind of hidden reality. They might then squander their lives trying to meditate, stop their thoughts, practice rituals, become humble, do good deeds, or whatever it may be, in order to try and reach this non-duality. If their intellectual understanding was better, they would easily recognize this as a case of chasing mirages. They could put their time to better use and travel down a path which is closer to Reality, closer to enlightenment. And so on.

In the end, an experience devoid of intellectual content, no matter how sublime or crude, is just a bit of glitter. It quickly recedes into the past and the experiencer of it is none the wiser.

DQ: Most people become even more fanatical and close-minded after having a mystical experience,

Iolaus: That isn't the case at all. It must happen sometimes I suppose. Many, many people have been taken out of their fundamentalism or spritual deadness by a mystical experience. It is the lack of good mystical experiences that keep people in the churches and temples.

The trouble is, people who have mystical experiences still have massive egos. They are no less egotistical than anyone else in society. They still require nice straight lines, firm dogma, secure beliefs, etc, to reassure their egos. So even though their mystical experience might cause them to leave their dead religion behind and abandon conventional society, they still need to latch onto something else which is just as equally crude and reassuring to their egos - e.g. standard encyclopedic Buddhism with its Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Middle Way, and so on. One sees this all the time.

The most fanatical people on this planet are often those who believe that they have experienced something incredibly special in their lives. You only have to look at them once and you can see that their egos will never ever let it go.

It's really only those who are fortunate to become attached to reason, as opposed to some kind of fixed dogma, who have a chance of avoiding this particularly deep pitfall.

-

A few days ago, Pye wrote:

Everyone has an organic sensation in which they are most driven to abide and maintain. This "sense" of things - this total feeling - is not only not-excluded from thought, but is indeed made-up of thought as it resides in the body. So don't be worrying about locating your "mind." You think with your whole organism.

Everyone is busy about maintaining their organic sense of things, even and especially as new data comes in (or is refused entrance). This, that I will call a "subjective equilibrium," is just that -- private to each organism, and defended and abided within, regardless of what it consists, be it drugs or truth. In no way does "equilibrium" mean to imply "balance" - except as it refers to the individual organism. Some people's "balance" may come from its being upset, again and again, or upsetting the subjective equilibrium of others whilst defending their own. This last might describe what people are doing arguing on a philosophy forum.

For the quick-take, Kierkegaard's thunderous statement that "Truth is subjectivity."

David Quinn assembles here those descriptive features that best answer to the equilibrium he most desires: the portions of Buddhism that he finds significant to his sense of things; the nurturing of his other sense-making sentiments, such as a dismissal of the feminine (and women); the admiration of a group of philosophers held together by heroic sentiment more than shared substance; and he is especially fond of the sensations that come from the words "truth" and "sage;" he has a high, if not worshipful estimation of the work of human reasoning, and most everything modern in thought is not to his tastes -- it upsets his equilibrium. David's equilibrium requires that what he has subjectively gathered be objectively existent, which means he assumes what he has gathered will stand as objective truth after his organism is gone.

David knows the Kierkegaard quote above, as he has correctly stated on numerous occasions that nothing takes place outside of the mind. Yet David's equilibrium requires that what is taking place inside of his mind is indeed outside of it for all to see, and even eternally.

Ah, but you see, David's equilibrium coincides with the equilibrium of truth-consciousness and thus it is perfectly possible for those with an equilibrium for perceiving truth to become aware of the truths which he is already aware of in his own equilibrium.

Or to put it another way, the fact that all perceived realities are subjective doesn't negate the fact that truth is necessarily present in all perceived realities. For example, the truth that all things are caused is something which is absolutely true in all perceived realities, regardless of whether the perceiver is perceiving this truth or not.

With such a cobbled assortment of his sense of things, he has lots of defending to do of his overall view. Frankly, I admire the project for its effort and complexity. At least a great deal of his substance is high-caliber, even if it contains its own internal contradictions.

What contradictions?

I have found, through the year or so I've posted (and the two or so I read), that David is one of the most romantic philosophs I've encountered in modern times. Kevin even moreso. They both seem to hold high sentiments for heroes and sages and self-isolated beings; the thoughts and work of the old. David's equilibrium runs as much on sentiment as it does substance, and this has been helpful to understand when reading him. This site is representative of his sense of things, and so even though a great seriousness can attach itself to philosophy, it must be remembered that it comes from David (and I guess Kevin) alone. David and Kevin's "objective" truths will not be here after they are gone.

Do you imagine that cause and effect will disappear when Kevin and I are gone? Or that 1+1 will cease equalling 2?

What about Kierkegaard's objective truth that "truth is subjectivity"? How did this manage to remain in existence after his death? Even now, a hundred and fifty years later, you still seem to think it's true.

And what about your objective truth above - namely, that "David and Kevin's objective truths will not be here after they are gone"? Will that too disappear after your death? And if so, will this mean that Kevin's and mine objective truths will magically spring back into existence again?

I'm sorry, Pye, you are a sweet thing and you do have some interesting things to say, but really, when it comes down to it, you're as mad as a hatter. :)

-

.

David writes:

Ah, but you see, David's equilibrium coincides with the equilibrium of truth-consciousness and thus it is perfectly possible for those with an equilibrium for perceiving truth to become aware of the truths which he is already aware of in his own equilibrium.

All of this remains in the realm of subjects and subjectivity. Surely this "truth-consciousness" does not exist in an unembodied cosmic form, as you have tried to argue against kowtaaia?

Or to put it another way, the fact that all perceived realities are subjective doesn't negate the fact that truth is necessarily present in all perceived realities. For example, the truth that all things are caused is something which is absolutely true in all perceived realities, regardless of whether the perceiver is perceiving this truth or not.

You still have a perceiver in this, too.

What contradictions?

Well, you could start by explaining why the heroic Lao Tzu's Tao upon which you greatly lean undergoes cosmetic surgery in your philosophy in order to have the feminine removed . . . .

Do you imagine that cause and effect will disappear when Kevin and I are gone?

Are you an "Objectivist" David? This is Ayn Rand territory.

Or that 1+1 will cease equalling 2?

Again, an descriptive operation of subjects. Being as there are no 2's extant in the world . . . .

What about Kierkegaard's objective truth that "truth is subjectivity"? How did this manage to remain in existence after his death? Even now, a hundred and fifty years later, you still seem to think it's true.

Again, other subjects have carried this forth.

And what about your objective truth above - namely, that "David and Kevin's objective truths will not be here after they are gone"? Will that too disappear after your death?

Most assuredly. Unless, as I originally mentioned, another subject after me takes it on to the letter. Still and all, it can only ever be theirs.

And if so, will this mean that Kevin's and mine objective truths will magically spring back into existence again?

Not without you around to sense and state them.

I'm sorry, Pye, you are a sweet thing and you do have some interesting things to say, but really, when it comes down to it, you're as mad as a hatter. :)

Perhaps I am to you as you are to the social services of Australia.

And thanks for the charming condescension ;)


.
[edit: typo and a wink]

Pye wrote:

DQ: Ah, but you see, David's equilibrium coincides with the equilibrium of truth-consciousness and thus it is perfectly possible for those with an equilibrium for perceiving truth to become aware of the truths which he is already aware of in his own equilibrium.

P: All of this remains in the realm of subjects and subjectivity. Surely this "truth-consciousness" does not exist in an unembodied cosmic form, as you have tried to argue against kowtaaia?

No, you're right to say that it exists only within the realm of subjective consciousness. But you're wrong to conclude from this that truth itself is subjective.

Objective truth doesn't exist in unembodied cosmic form - here we can both agree. However, where we differ is that I recognize that objective truth does exist as something which is necessarily true in all possible subjective realms. Such truth is "objective" because it can never be undermined by any form of subjectivity. It exists within subjectivity and yet, at the same time, can never be affected or altered by it.

When Kierkegaard asserted that "truth is subjectivity", he didn't mean it in the sense that truth is changeable and relativistic. He meant it in the sense that truth only becomes meaningful when one develops a subjective relationship with it. It is only meaningful to the degree that we embrace it with our whole being and make it our life. In this, he was speaking against Hegel's more academic notion of uncovering objective truth as a kind of alien prize to be kept firmly distant in the imagination.

DQ: Or to put it another way, the fact that all perceived realities are subjective doesn't negate the fact that truth is necessarily present in all perceived realities. For example, the truth that all things are caused is something which is absolutely true in all perceived realities, regardless of whether the perceiver is perceiving this truth or not.

P: You still have a perceiver in this, too.

Yes, the perceiver is there, and the objectivity of truth is also there as well (in the sense that objective truth is necessarily true in all possible worlds). Both are there.

It is like looking at reflected objects in a mirror. We can uncover certain truths about these objects - for example, that each reflected object is finite in extent and does not embrace the totality of all there is - without having to negate the other truth that all these objects are mere reflections in a mirror.

We can smash the mirror to pieces and all the reflected images will disappear. But even if we do this, we cannot smash the truth that these objects were finite in extent. It is something which remains eternally true. And the truth that all reflected objects in all mirrors in the Universe are finite in extent can never waver as well. It is something which is true in all possible mirrors, and in all possible worlds. In this sense, it is objectively true.

DQ: What contradictions?

P: Well, you could start by explaining why the heroic Lao Tzu's Tao upon which you greatly lean undergoes cosmetic surgery in your philosophy in order to have the feminine removed . . . .

The whole of Lao Tzu's writing comes from a deep, consistent consciousness, which is wholly unfeminine. It is probably one of the most advanced collection of verses ever written, and in my experience, one of the most misunderstood. There is nothing there which supports the feminine (according to my conception of the feminine) in any shape or form.

For example, consider these lines from the Tao Te Ching:

Heaven and earth are ruthless.
They see the ten thousand things as dummies.
The wise are ruthless;
They see the people as dummies.

There is nothing remotely feminine about this. It is cold, logical, inhuman, lofty, dispassionate. It is masculinity gone mad.

That is how the whole book should be read.

DQ: Do you imagine that cause and effect will disappear when Kevin and I are gone?

P: Are you an "Objectivist" David? This is Ayn Rand territory.

I'm not an Objectivist, not a Subjectivist. I reject both.

What do you call yourself, Pye?

DQ: Or that 1+1 will cease equalling 2?

P: Again, an descriptive operation of subjects. Being as there are no 2's extant in the world . . . .

Yes, there are no 2's beyond the mind. But at the same time, the logic underpinning 1+1=2 can never be falsified in any field of mind. In that sense, it is objectively or absolutely true. There can never be an instance in which it is not true - either in the mind or beyond.

DQ: What about Kierkegaard's objective truth that "truth is subjectivity"? How did this manage to remain in existence after his death? Even now, a hundred and fifty years later, you still seem to think it's true.

P: Again, other subjects have carried this forth.

Okay, and in the same way, subjects will necessarily carry forth the basic truths which Kevin and I talk about. They will continue to do so as long as the human race lives and, indeed, as long as there is any subjective consciousness at all. They cannot help but to do, because these truths are built into the very fabric of what it means to be conscious.

-

.

David wrotes:

For example, consider these lines from the Tao Te Ching:

Heaven and earth are ruthless.
They see the ten thousand things as dummies.
The wise are ruthless;
They see the people as dummies.

There is nothing remotely feminine about this. It is cold, logical, inhuman, lofty, dispassionate. It is masculinity gone mad.

But David, this one verse among 80 others for which the feminine as subject is repeatedly interlaced and interdependent with the masculine, and in fact, Tzu's overall recommendation is for "knowing the white, but keeping to the black," (28); aggression and striving (masculine) are continuously warned against; he directly asks the sage if in opening heaven's gate, he is "able to play the feminine part" (10); and that the root of heaven and earth are "the doorway of the mysterious feminine" (6); and that even nature itself moves the majority of time in soft ways ("For Heaven-and-Earth cannot make such violent things last long / how much truer of the rash endeavors of men") (23); and even to "Drop wisdom, abandon cleverness" (19), on and on. Seriously, are we reading the same book?

There is nothing there which supports the feminine (according to my conception of the feminine) in any shape or form.

What about Lao Tzu's conception of the feminine? It's supported through and through. You must have some serious disagreements with him on that score, at the very least. He would have some serious disagreements with you, no doubt, as well. Or do you mean to say that when Lao Tzu says "feminine," he really means "masculine"?

David: The whole of Lao Tzu's writing comes from a deep, consistent consciousness, which is wholly unfeminine. It is probably one of the most advanced collection of verses ever written, and in my experience, one of the most misunderstood.

So really, this is just an excellent example of how it is not content that holds together your philosophy here, but form. It is not what Tzu has said, but that he has said it, or how he has said it, or something, anything but what he is saying. This is error 101 in substance; it's the kind of mistake romantic natures are often apt to make.

There is something else that causes you to hang the Tao in along with the other of your greatest-hits list, and it is not logic through and through. It is your sense of things, and yours alone. You might own up to that one day in the kind of great heaving subjective seizure of self that 2 of your other heroes - Nietzsche and Kierkegaard -- highly recommended.


.

If you truly understood the reason why the Totality can never come into being in the first place, then the possibility of it folding up and disappearing would never enter your head.

The Totality is not an "it" in the first place. It has never been an "it"; it can never be a "non-it". It was never born and thus it can never die. This is emptiness. This is the unconditioned.

The Totality cannot come into being because matter and energy cannot cause themselves, because nothingness (which has never 'existed') cannot turn into somethingness. The only possibility for the Totality is that it is uncaused. How such a thing can be eludes me. Perhaps if I had some inkling, then I would understand why it cannot cease to be. But I don't.

Worrying about having "experiences" is little more than egotism and gluttony - kind of like putting notches in your belt. If you simply strive to understand the ultimate truth with all the strength you can muster, the "experiences" will soon follow of their own accord, and you'll have the wisdom to not get harmed by them.

I can agree with this.

Their thoughts and their understandings are severely limited, of course.

The reason I bring up animals is that people often falsely downplay the amount of thinking and cognition they are capable of. So when you stop imagining that only language constitutes thought, it helps to understand what thought is.

DQ: There is no such thing as non-duality in the sense you mean here.

Iolaus: Lao Tzu said there is.

If he did, he was misleading you.

The one becomes two, the two become three, and the three become the ten thousand things.

The trouble is, people who have mystical experiences still have massive egos.

You know, I don't have as dismal an assessment as you, but essentially you are right in what you wrote. I think that the ego or delusion of such people is indeed less after the experience, but that what happens is they still have so very far to go, and most people just have no intention of going very far. So rather than using their experience to probe and question and getting as much mileage as they can, they quickly scramble into the nearest likely-looking story with which to reassure themselves that reality is not too strange after all.

.

David's Tao:

Heaven and earth are ruthless.
They see the ten thousand things as dummies.
The wise are ruthless;
They see the people as dummies.

Same lines from John C. H. Wu translation:

Heaven-and-Earth is not sentimental;
It treats all things as straw-dogs.
The Sage is not sentimental;
He treats all his people as straw-dogs.

A "straw-dog" is, well, not a real dog. It is a "stuffed" dog, just like the stuffed animals children have, and so as a dog, it is not much to be reckoned with. Can't really bark or bite; has no real teeth. We accuse people of setting forth a "straw-dog" when they have placed before us something that they consider substantial/fearful/intimidating, but that we really see is unsubstantive - made of straw. Not much to be reckoned with.

So David's translator (who is it, but the way? The Tao's been translated by more people into more languages than the christian bible! [translated based upon the translator's sense of things :)]) -- is using "dummies" in this way, like "straw-dogs." We might think that things/people are something to be seriously reckoned with, but they're not, for the sage. This "dummies" above is not the colloquial insult "dummy" (or, "masculinity gone wild") but rather an expression of the sage untroubled by the people and things around him. He sees them for the not-much-to-be-reckoned-with that they are. And as for the sage, well, heaven-and-earth, in turn, sees the same about him.



.

Iolaus,

Cory: Why can't Kow just say: I believe in a cosmic consciousness outside of the brain, an impersonal consciousness that I am, a consciousness that is everlasting and immortal.

Iolaus: So what? Lots of people believe that.

Well that's exactly the factor that we need to consider when trying to understand Kow.

These "Lots of people" who believe in cosmic consciousness outside of the physical brain, according to kow I'm sure, are all deluded people who are trapped in what Kow likes to call: "mere belief". The idea of cosmic consciousness that these people have is a mere extension of their ego, it is a delusion founded on mere belief.

You'll notice that Kow's use of language is very, very particular, he's almost abominably picky in what he judges to be an acceptable expression.

This is his way of distinguishing himself from the deluded believers in cosmic consciousness.

And it is also his way of always being above the person he is speaking to.

And if you agree with what he is saying, then he will most likely accuse you of 'merely believing'.

One is almost always guaranteed to come out of a conversation with kow as either a) a loser, or b) a loyal disciple like beebuddy (and hence a loser)

it's a lose-lose situation dealing with kow.

There's actually a third scenario where, when Kow is taking a beating from an opponent, an audience member may say something in defense of kow. In that situation, the audience member becomes someone who kow joins with - -but only until the debate is over. If he were to get into a one on one discussion with that person who was previously supporting him, he would, before long, be in disagreement with them as well.

This is at least how he has behaved on this forum so far.

Pye wrote:

David's Tao:

Heaven and earth are ruthless.
They see the ten thousand things as dummies.
The wise are ruthless;
They see the people as dummies.

Same lines from John C. H. Wu translation:

Heaven-and-Earth is not sentimental;
It treats all things as straw-dogs.
The Sage is not sentimental;
He treats all his people as straw-dogs.

A "straw-dog" is, well, not a real dog. It is a "stuffed" dog, just like the stuffed animals children have, and so as a dog, it is not much to be reckoned with. Can't really bark or bite; has no real teeth. We accuse people of setting forth a "straw-dog" when they have placed before us something that they consider substantial/fearful/intimidating, but that we really see is unsubstantive - made of straw. Not much to be reckoned with.

So David's translator (who is it, but the way? The Tao's been translated by more people into more languages than the christian bible! [translated based upon the translator's sense of things :)]) -- is using "dummies" in this way, like "straw-dogs."

That's right. Both terms, "straw dogs" and "dummies", point to the core truth that people are fundamentally empty of motivation and free-will. They are lifeless puppets whose every movement is guided by the pull of Nature's strings. They are listless automatons, entirely unresponsive and static, except for the movement temporarily breathed into them by the workings of causality. They are a species of the dead, as is the sage himself.

The reason why this perception is wholly unfeminine is because the feminine mentality can only thrive in relationships with other people. Perceiving everyone as lifeless dummies or straw dogs would only suck the life out of their feminine mentality. They wouldn't be able to function at all.

It is as if the masculine impulse completely takes over and smothers the feminine out of existence, a crime infinitely worse that, say, rape and murder. You are literally murdering the whole of humanity, and even yourself. It is masculinity gone mad.

-

Incidently, the translation of the Tao Te Ching that I use is by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English. For its simplicity, directness and sense of poetry, it is easily the best translation I have come across.

-

Pye wrote:

DQ: For example, consider these lines from the Tao Te Ching:

Heaven and earth are ruthless.
They see the ten thousand things as dummies.
The wise are ruthless;
They see the people as dummies.

There is nothing remotely feminine about this. It is cold, logical, inhuman, lofty, dispassionate. It is masculinity gone mad.

P: But David, this one verse among 80 others for which the feminine as subject is repeatedly interlaced and interdependent with the masculine, and in fact, Tzu's overall recommendation is for "knowing the white, but keeping to the black," (28); aggression and striving (masculine) are continuously warned against; he directly asks the sage if in opening heaven's gate, he is "able to play the feminine part" (10); and that the root of heaven and earth are "the doorway of the mysterious feminine" (6); and that even nature itself moves the majority of time in soft ways ("For Heaven-and-Earth cannot make such violent things last long / how much truer of the rash endeavors of men") (23); and even to "Drop wisdom, abandon cleverness" (19), on and on. Seriously, are we reading the same book?

We are, but I'm not sure that you are interpreting these statements correctly. See below.

DQ: There is nothing there which supports the feminine (according to my conception of the feminine) in any shape or form.

P: What about Lao Tzu's conception of the feminine? It's supported through and through. You must have some serious disagreements with him on that score, at the very least. He would have some serious disagreements with you, no doubt, as well. Or do you mean to say that when Lao Tzu says "feminine," he really means "masculine"?

I dare say that he was referring to metaphysical principles here, rather than psychological ones. It was common for the Chinese back then to speak of the "masculine" as being the active/dominating principle of Nature, and the "feminine" the passive/submissive principle. Lao Tzu was simply making use of this schemata to point to the basic workings of Nature.

Nature is both active and passive. It is active in the sense that it is constantly creating and destroying forms. And it is passive in the sense that it is unchanging, timeless and still. The sage is fully aware of both these attributes and fully in tune with them.

That is, "he knows the black, while keeping to the white", and he "opens the gate of heaven, while playing the feminine part".

He actively serves the cause of wisdom, understanding and manipulating causality to this end - and at the same time, he dwells deeply in the stillness of Nature's timelessness where nothing can harm him.

The Feng/English translation says:

The valley spirit never dies;
It is the woman, primal mother.
Her gateway is the root of heaven and earth.
It is like a veil barely seen.
Use it, it will never fail.

Some of the others passages that you quoted above can now be addressed:

- aggression and striving (masculine) are continuously warned against ...

Well, according to you, Lao Tzu can't be warning against the masculine because he embraces both.

What he is really warning against here, in these kinds of passages, is unintelligent and unrealistic forms of behaviour. He warns against "striving on tip-toe", for example. Kelly Jones would be an example of someone who could benefit from this sort of advice - she is far too aggressive and active in her striving for her own good; she hasn't yet planted roots into the hidden depths.

- nature itself moves the majority of time in soft ways ("For Heaven-and-Earth cannot make such violent things last long / how much truer of the rash endeavors of men") .....

Ditto.

- "Drop wisdom, abandon cleverness"....

Don't hoard treasures and parade them around the place like a vain woman, I think he is saying here. Give up trying to impress your peers. Give up trying to be something. Empty yourself of utterly everything, including all of your knowledge and attainments. Begin each moment anew, completely innocent and fresh.

It sounds like very good advice to me.

Being a writer of wisdom, he certainly wasn't asking people to abandon the cause of wisdom itself - only the urge to gain worldly or egotistical benefit from it.

DQ: The whole of Lao Tzu's writing comes from a deep, consistent consciousness, which is wholly unfeminine. It is probably one of the most advanced collection of verses ever written, and in my experience, one of the most misunderstood.

P: So really, this is just an excellent example of how it is not content that holds together your philosophy here, but form. It is not what Tzu has said, but that he has said it, or how he has said it, or something, anything but what he is saying. This is error 101 in substance; it's the kind of mistake romantic natures are often apt to make.

There is something else that causes you to hang the Tao in along with the other of your greatest-hits list, and it is not logic through and through. It is your sense of things, and yours alone.

No, it is timeless, conscious understanding of ultimate truth, accessible to all who are interested.

Your own sense of things, which has largely been shaped by postmodernist theory, is leading you astray here. You don't seem to have any empathy or feeling for what conscious understanding of truth means. There are mental blocks there.

You might own up to that one day in the kind of great heaving subjective seizure of self that 2 of your other heroes - Nietzsche and Kierkegaard -- highly recommended.

Would you say, then, that the "sense of things" enjoyed by the likes of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard contains no more understanding and clarity of insight than, say, the "sense of things" of an average accountant or hairdresser?


-

David wrote:

Lao Tzu wrote:The valley spirit never dies;
It is the woman, primal mother.
Her gateway is the root of heaven and earth.
It is like a veil barely seen.
Use it, it will never fail.

Some of the others passages that you quoted above can now be addressed:

Pye wrote:- aggression and striving (masculine) are continuously warned against...

Well, according to you, Lao Tzu can't be warning against the masculine because he embraces both.

What he is really warning against here, in these kinds of passages, is unintelligent and unrealistic forms of behaviour. He warns against "striving on tip-toe", for example. Kelly Jones would be an example of someone who could benefit from this sort of advice - she is far too aggressive and active in her striving for her own good; she hasn't yet planted roots into the hidden depths.

Thanks, David.

Perhaps you mistake anxiety for real aggression. I think what happens is that relaxing into Truth and allowing things to be what they are edges into the territory of living the life of a cipher. It soon becomes easy to forget how evil a drifty consciousness is. Letting go of "my life" becomes equivalent to going with the flow, because there is still the urge to drift and fall asleep. So i tend to keep using force and violence to "slap myself awake".

Hakuin's stories of his drive and real determination put me to shame. I guess i confuse his will with feeling rather than with reasoning.

Any comments?

.

David writes:

Your own sense of things, which has largely been shaped by postmodernist theory . . . .

Oh, pa-leeze . . . you be puffing this out of thine rigid hine . . . .

But thanks for the translation info, and the other interesting stuff. I'll leave you to your categorical mas/fem activities, dear spinmaster ;)


.

You don't think that your views are 100% postmodernist in outlook? You really believe that your views differ in some way?

I wonder what other people think. Can anyone here see any non-postmodernist elements in Pye's thinking?

-

No. I think Pye should just bugger off, disappear into the ether or whatever it is post-modernists do.

David Quinn wrote: I wonder what other people think. Can anyone here see any non-postmodernist elements in Pye's thinking?

Perhaps just as many as there are non-romantic elements in yours, David.

Pye seems stubborn in her suspicion that a person's nature and background is always the main shaping force of any content in their reading and writing. It's a form of cautious relativism that is one of many coats the hanger of post-modernism has to bear.

But when it comes to translating writings like the Tao Te Ching, one always has to create as well, instead of just read or interpret. And before one knows it whole of heaven and earth is affirming the position of the former - now rich - gold digger; everything has turned to gold.

Lao Tzu could have been ignorant about many things but the alchemy of time and language ambiguity may then have transformed his writing, appearing now being done wholly conscious in the eyes of a David Quinn. It's the genius of an author to touch upon waters so deep and still the surface starts reflecting ten thousand possibilities, confusing the many.

Truth is life, and is not ashamed to transcend some of the original intentions, leaving all relativists reeling. Tao always was way bigger than Lao alone.

.

David writes:

You don't think that your views are 100% postmodernist in outlook? You really believe that your views differ in some way?

1. I know that they are different because I know what postmodernism -- as an "-ism" -- is, and you do not. As a project, it is about analytics - linguistics - and our use of them. No one is stating over and over, as you do, that postmodernism is all about the relativity of truth. It's about the tools used to be able to say anything of the what-is -- their efficacy, security, nuances or faults. We now know that words are not made of eternal stone and that they depend upon context for their living breath.

2. Postmodern is also a neutral label of description of the age in which we live. I guess if you hate everything about the age in which we live, then you can hate everything postmodern. But 1. above will align your attacks on academia a little better to what it actually is that they are doing, as an "ism."

3. Okay, I'll play either/or with you: If I am 100% postmodern, and all your readers are not, then absolutely nothing I have written here over the last year would have made any sense to anyone or been agreed with in any way.

4. Either/or thinking prevents you from seeing the subtleties of this.

5. Philosophical subjectivity is not relativity -- you miss the subtleties here as well. Here is an object or a circumstance: One person makes an observation about it; another makes a sharper observation about it; a third even even sharper one, and so on. So there is an object to say something about, but only subjectivities to hone in on it to varying degrees. Philosophical subjectivity is not "I'm okay; you're okay" (although really, this is true!). This is the beauty of Kierkegaard's thunderous statement: it does not say "Truth is subjective"; it says "Truth is subjectivity. There is a river of difference flowing between.

6. You could be considered a postmodern philosopher on a couple of grounds: One is situational, because you live during this so-named era (a neutral description, I assure you, coming right after what was called the Modern" age) and call yourself a philosopher. And secondly, your philosophy is built of prior philosophies, distilled and assembled to your sense of things -- a phenomenon postmodernists call "pastiche" -- where we can "paste" together at will things that have already existed into new configurations, according to our sense of things. We can do this because this is to where human mind has developed, where priorly, we could only take musings from authority on their authority, and as-is.

7. I'm a thinker, David. This means that I can traverse any number of philosophical ideas for their merit (or not) and not feel categorically threatened by any one of them. I go where my float ball rises the highest.

8. In the great heaving seizure of subjectivity, one understands that subjectivities live and die alone, and this fact does not prevent one from occupying that space thoroughly. The great fear of being a temporal thing is overcome, and one does not try suckling at the nipple of eternity in various ways in hopes of avoiding this. One owns up to oneself, and in this condition - paradoxically - is freed to see more about the world outside of them, instead of all the busyness about protecting the permanence of the world within. On the one hand, I think you have achieved the more alacritous outward glance; on the other, you still seem ruled by aligning yourself with permanence.

9. Good luck in raising an anti-postmodern army, with the support of your prince :)


.

p.s. finals' week. prince will get his wish temporarily, as I bugger off into 105 final term papers, ten pages each . . . .

I was going to keep my mouth shut, but I just read that [edit: Pye's post, directly above this one] and saw, essentially, "postmodernism is whatever the hell I, or anyone else, wants it to be (being both a philosophic movement and 'neutral' description of this era); and, being so, I'm convinced that it, and all its major assumptions, is correct."

So, it appears that YOU agree with David that you are a postmodernist. I guess that means I'm forced to.

Now, whether or not David is a post-modernist is an entirely different question. I tend to think David is rather Platonic in his thinking... if Plato could be considered a post-modernist, then David could, as well. Personally, though, I would disagree with that judgement. My experience with post-modernists is that they are much closer to the pre-Socratic sophists than any genuinely coherent, novel movement that could only have arisen in our contemporary age.

In fact, I might even go so far as to say David's style of thinking is actually a reaction to "post-modernist" thinking, in much the same way that Socrates's thoughts were a reaction to the Sophistry and stupidity of his own age. Every philosopher needs to pull himself out of the murky water that attempts to redefine itself every generation (but that, somehow, stay roughly the same across continents and centuries).