GENIUS FORUMS

Laird wrote:So then the things that are not part of the mind must exist in an external reality.

There is only one reality, and it isn't independent of thought.

Kevin Solway wrote:There is only one reality, and it isn't independent of thought.

Yar, we've been here before and I've discovered that what you seem to mean is that all things are interdependent - since thought is a thing then nothing is independent of thought and since all things comprise reality then you can finally make the claim that reality is dependent on thought. The problem as I've already pointed it out to you is that your selection of thought is arbitrary. You might equally say that "There is only one reality, and it isn't independent of this ant." So your statement isn't particularly revealing of what's special about thought and mind. Dan, on the other hand, goes further by actively denying that there are things that are separate from mind. This does make mind quite special. It seems that the two of you are divergent after all.

Actually, I've just thought of a question that might be revealing. Above I suggested that you believe that a thought is a thing. But perhaps you don't, so let me ask you: is a thought a thing?

Laird wrote:Dan, on the other hand, goes further by actively denying that there are things that are separate from mind.

The reason nothing is separate from mind is that all things are causally connected.

Above I suggested that you believe that a thought is a thing. But perhaps you don't, so let me ask you: is a thought a thing?

A thought has boundaries, therefore a thought is a thing.

Kevin: The reason nothing is separate from mind is that all things are causally connected.

But that is true for all things; hence could I say that the reason nothing is seperate from a chair is that all things are causally connected? So what point have I exactly made about the "mind"?

And again... if you please... this discussion would make much more sense to me if “mind” were defined.

If “it” (the mind) doesn’t contain anything (as you claim); what exactly is “it” then?

Sapius wrote:what exactly is “it” then?

Perhaps he is saying that his mind is a chair?

I feel like a chair

.

Laird:

There's quite a bit worth addressing in your last lengthy post. I'll start with this:

Yeah, they're both pretty darn alluring - women and paradox have a certain mystique. I don't know about needing women (although I wouldn't be here if one hadn't given birth to me) but they sure are nice to be around (nice is an understatement).

The bolded statement is certainly true in a self-as-solid-object sense, and therefore not without usefulness to such a self. However, one of the best philosophical ideas I've seen anywhere, ever, is expressed rather nicely by Kevin in one of the radio shows on the Thinking Man's Minefield. It's about [drum roll]... beginnings and endings; particularly in respect of the self.

It's supremely interesting to me that you have these three things (italicised) in the same sentence as they relate, obviously, to "you." It's also here that I see the same fundamental form of misogyny that you protest against, even though I know that is not how you intend it. The difference, really, is a question of truth. Where would you be if women (and paradox) were not so mystical and alluring?

Leyla, nice to have you back in the discussion, I enjoy being subjected to your critiques.

Leyla Shen wrote:[O]ne of the best philosophical ideas I've seen anywhere, ever, is expressed rather nicely by Kevin in one of the radio shows on the Thinking Man's Minefield. It's about [drum roll]... beginnings and endings; particularly in respect of the self.

It is a very interesting idea but for all I know in some respects it's misleading: at the most fundamental level, reality might be discrete. In respect of self as you know from prior discussions in this thread I'm very open to the possibility of a "discrete" self - i.e. a soul - but regardless, most of us seem to acknowledge (at least I do) that for practical purposes, we can meaningfully talk about a "self" despite the fact that we might not all invoke the same boundaries for that self.

Leyla Shen wrote:It's supremely interesting to me that you have these three things (italicised) in the same sentence as they relate, obviously, to "you."

Quite true.

Leyla Shen wrote:It's also here that I see the same fundamental form of misogyny that you protest against, even though I know that is not how you intend it. The difference, really, is a question of truth. Where would you be if women (and paradox) were not so mystical and alluring?

Well, first I'm charged with arrogance, now misogyny. What's next - dishonesty?

Leyla, I've also come to the conclusion that this says something about our different attitudes to life (truth) and I'm unwilling to accept your charge. So let me explain where I'm coming from a little more clearly, then I'll try to guess at where you're coming from, and then I'd like you to tell me whether you still see me as a misogynist.

I've been a vegetarian since I was twelve. I'm now thirty. In all that time I've had no second thoughts about my decision, except for the occasional concern over nutrition. There are many different reasons that people become vegetarian - health is one, another is the effectiveness of land use. The reason that I became vegetarian is respect for life. I oppose unnecessary termination of human life against the will of the subject and I extend this precept to all life. Yes, I include vegetation in this, so I stress the word unnecessary in my above sentence, because I have not as-yet found a way to live without food, and I therefore choose to have killed for the continuation of own existence that form of life which I believe has least to gain from being alive.

So much for a justification of my vegetarianism. Why did I bring it up at all? Because it illuminates a quality that seems to be innate in me, that I affirm and that I try to foster: reverence. This whole thing is just brilliant! Don't you agree? Yes, we might ultimately be able to explain the intimate workings of DNA and relate it to various aspects of the body, and perhaps even explain how DNA itself came to be, but all that that's going to do is to deepen my respect for the specialness of the process. In other words, I think that life is pretty special, and humans being the most complex of life's manifestations, I think are most special. And women, being a complement to my own nature, and no more or less special than men, I nevertheless find more alluring than men due to my sexual proclivity. The very fact that these feelings of reverence and attraction are in me I find pretty amazing in itself, but I find them appropriate, desirable and very useful (well, OK, sometimes unrequited attraction is not so useful, but I can often channel that into intrigue and deeper respect).

So in answer to your question (where would I be if women were not so mystical and alluring?): I would not be. I would be a totally different person. But really, the implication in your question seems to be that I should want to be that different person. Now, I think a lot about life and myself, and I have considered such a perspective. It seems to run something like this:

We can't really ultimately explain how the universe came about, but we shouldn't need to even try - it's enough to know that it exists and to assert that there is no explanation: it simply is. And there's nothing particularly special or mysterious about that. And we know that life can be explained through Darwinism. So there's nothing particularly special about that. We should take a completely practical attitude: this works, that doesn't, so do this. Just run through your life as though you were a complex machine, for that's all that you are.

So now to answer the implication in your question: do I want to be a person with that attitude? I do not. I see no benefit to it and I find its sterility uncompelling. I can take the pros of that perspective (to constantly consider causal relationships and to try to effect the best ones) and retain my own sense of mystery. Let me though, ask you in return (since you seem to think that I should want to change): what compelling advantages do you see in dropping my sense of mystery and reverence?

Finally, to why I think that you see my attitude as misogynistic. I have the feeling that you think that a woman (you in particular) should not be automatically revered, but should be revered on the basis of an understanding of her own unique reasons for being special - perhaps you think that I should understand the power of your critical faculties, the sharpness of your humour, the strength with which you conduct your everyday life, before I am qualified to express respect for you. Well, OK, those things are certainly going to deepen my reverence for you, but, you being a human being, and in particular a woman, I am going to have a naturally high level of reverence for you anyway, and I don't apologise for or retreat from that attitude, and I don't consider myself a misogynist for holding it.

Sapius, welcome back after your brief absence.

Sapius wrote:And again... if you please... this discussion would make much more sense to me if “mind” were defined.

I will attempt a definition, but as always it's provisional:

The intangible non-physical construct that consciousness inhabits and in which thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc arise. As well as these things arising in the mind, they are to some extent controlled by mind, so that it is not merely a container but also a force.

Prince Charming wrote:

Leyla, nice to have you back in the discussion, I enjoy being subjected to your critiques.

And naturally, Laird, it is a pleasure being in your sadistic servitude.

Leyla Shen wrote:[O]ne of the best philosophical ideas I've seen anywhere, ever, is expressed rather nicely by Kevin in one of the radio shows on the Thinking Man's Minefield. It's about [drum roll]... beginnings and endings; particularly in respect of the self.

Laird: It is a very interesting idea but for all I know in some respects it's misleading: at the most fundamental level, reality might be discrete. In respect of self as you know from prior discussions in this thread I'm very open to the possibility of a "discrete" self - i.e. a soul - but regardless, most of us seem to acknowledge (at least I do) that for practical purposes, we can meaningfully talk about a "self" despite the fact that we might not all invoke the same boundaries for that self.

Can we? Do you think that in these two brief exchanges between us, we have talked a meaningful self between us? Not so far, I say. But there's always time. Let's see how we go:

Leyla posits for consideration self as boundaries with beginnings and endings, much like the boundaries between the Laird self and Leyla self in this discussion but extended to selves such as the immortal self, mortal self, intelligent self, feminine self, etc, ad nauseum. Find the beginning and ending (boundaries), name the self--except, here, I find this immortal self gets particularly interesting. This immortal self has the boundary not of wisdom, reason, intelligence, stupidity, beauty, ugliness; it has the boundary of immortality, a contrast only to mortality, without which it cannot exist. Its boundary is the very ending of beginnings and endings. So, Laird, one’s immortal self can only arise together with, and in contrast to, one’s mortal self/selves. If there were such a thing as an immortal, discrete Laird, in what way could you--as the very immortal soul itself--identify it as such between physical lifetimes? What would be stopping you if not your very own mortal boundaries?

If it is that you can exist after physical death, then it must be that you have existed before physical birth. Yet you say, earlier, that if not for your mother, you would not be here. I would think that for a person wanting to know such a thing as an immortal soul beyond mere belief and fantasy, they would first have to relinquish such an idea as a mortal beginning--as a beginning through their biological mother-- as well as an existence that takes respite in paradox; a mere object in the eyes of an alluring and mysterious other.

What say you?

Do you really want to be born into immortality?

It is a thing truly to die for.

Laird wrote:Sapius, welcome back after your brief absence.

Sapius wrote:And again... if you please... this discussion would make much more sense to me if “mind” were defined.

I will attempt a definition, but as always it's provisional:

The intangible non-physical construct that consciousness inhabits and in which thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc arise. As well as these things arising in the mind, they are to some extent controlled by mind, so that it is not merely a container but also a force.

Thanks for the welcome… I wonder if Kevin agrees to your definition though, otherwise you two may be discussing it from the opposite sides of the river.

The mind… I agree it is a force, and it may be intangible or non-physical, but it is perfectly understandable, and in my opinion that is what counts. I have expressed my understandings on the same in your other thread – effects on reality.

---------

Selam, Leyla

[Leyla referred to me as] Prince Charming

Do be sure to furnish my Rapunzel, or to at least direct me in the general direction of her tower. I won't promise to ascend the ladder but it would be nice to at least know that she exists.

Laird: Leyla, nice to have you back in the discussion, I enjoy being subjected to your critiques.

Leyla: And naturally, Laird, it is a pleasure being in your sadistic servitude.

Oh, I don't know that sadistic is the right word - there's more pleasure (and intrigue) than pain. But if you truly desire to cause me pain...

Laird: [M]ost of us seem to acknowledge (at least I do) that for practical purposes, we can meaningfully talk about a "self" despite the fact that we might not all invoke the same boundaries for that self.

Leyla: Can we? Do you think that in these two brief exchanges between us, we have talked a meaningful self between us? Not so far, I say.

Do you see the irony that you're posing such a question containing the word "we"? And that interspersed through your later question and assertion are words like "you", "us" and "I"? Are these words meaningless?

Leyla Shen wrote:If there were such a thing as an immortal, discrete Laird, in what way could you--as the very immortal soul itself--identify it as such between physical lifetimes? What would be stopping you if not your very own mortal boundaries?

Do you really mean "between" or do you mean "during"? If you mean "between", then I have absolutely no idea - I'm not even sure what it would mean to be between lives. If you mean "during", as your later sentence seems to imply, then I can only be encouraged by the assertions of certain Buddhists that they have become "enlightened" or at least neared such a state, which I imagine would include an understanding of immortality. I have considered following a strenuous Buddhist path but doubts and other experiences hold me back.

Leyla Shen wrote:If it is that you can exist after physical death, then it must be that you have existed before physical birth. Yet you say, earlier, that if not for your mother, you would not be here.

Right, "self" is a word with different senses. I was using it in a mortal, here-and-now-in-the-physical-body-and-brain sense.

Leyla Shen wrote:I would think that for a person wanting to know such a thing as an immortal soul beyond mere belief and fantasy, they would first have to relinquish such an idea as a mortal beginning--as a beginning through their biological mother

There are again different senses of "know". I would of course like to know my soul in the most intimate sense of "being directly aware of it", but perhaps this is simply what being conscious is? Then there is the intellectual sense of understanding what a soul is and how it works. In this sense I suggest the possibility that I could "know" that the immortal soul "enters and inhabits" a body to become mortal. It's a difficult one to maintain, because of (as you point out) problems of beginnings and endings - at what point does a soul enter and leave a body? - but it's one possibility. A more plausible possibility in my opinion is the idea that there is only one soul that we all share, and that that soul is God's. We could then imagine that this soul inhabits every part of reality, or at least of consciousnesses (it might in fact be the very essence of all consciousness), so there is then no longer a need to postulate a beginning and an ending of inhabitation.

Leyla Shen wrote:... as well as an existence that takes respite in paradox

I'd say instead "takes sustenance and wonder from paradox".

Leyla Shen wrote:a mere object in the eyes of an alluring and mysterious other.

So perhaps there's a way to avoid duality, but right now I'm stuck in that viewpoint and - despite its limitations - it has a lot of potential.

Leyla Shen wrote:Do you really want to be born into immortality?

It is a thing truly to die for.

Nicely put. I've noticed that you have a great sense for poetic irony. Oh, sorry - you don't like Prince Charming, do you?

Selam, Sapius. What news does the world bring?

~

Laird:

Do be sure to furnish my Rapunzel, or to at least direct me in the general direction of her tower. I won't promise to ascend the ladder but it would be nice to at least know that she exists.

Lo! Best ye not, lest the mysterious vixen sever those shimmering scarlet locks mid ye high ascent!

Oh, I don't know that sadistic is the right word - there's more pleasure (and intrigue) than pain. But if you truly desire to cause me pain...

[pulls out the scissors]

Do you see the irony that you're posing such a question containing the word "we"? And that interspersed through your later question and assertion are words like "you", "us" and "I"?

Well, hm. Given that I have a great sense for poetic irony, I guess it was not poetic irony.

Are these words meaningless?

What philosophically significant meaning do you see?

Do you really mean "between" or do you mean "during"?

“During” is fine, too.

If you mean "between", then I have absolutely no idea - I'm not even sure what it would mean to be between lives.

Well, I had certainly not intended to refer to some Biblical heaven, hell or purgatory!

What I meant was between individual lifetimes as characterised by each discrete self, i.e. the common thread between Jack, John and Jill is Laird.

If you mean "during", as your later sentence seems to imply, then I can only be encouraged by the assertions of certain Buddhists that they have become "enlightened" or at least neared such a state, which I imagine would include an understanding of immortality. I have considered following a strenuous Buddhist path but doubts and other experiences hold me back.

Can you specifically tell me more about the roots of your imaginings with respect to an understanding of immortality and the assertions of certain Buddhists.

Right, "self" is a word with different senses. I was using it in a mortal, here-and-now-in-the-physical-body-and-brain sense.

Yes, and I am attempting to cultivate a discussion of it in all senses, including the ultimate.

There are again different senses of "know". I would of course like to know my soul in the most intimate sense of "being directly aware of it", but perhaps this is simply what being conscious is?

I might be able to respond to that if I knew what you mean when you say “soul.” For example, I can’t even begin to make any sense out of the idea “know my soul.” What makes you think there is reason to believe that there is some “soul” you possess, or that inhabits you, for you to know? Or are such thoughts based on some sort of corporeal experience?

Then there is the intellectual sense of understanding what a soul is and how it works.

Well, yes--logically, that makes sense. But such an understanding is not forthcoming. Perhaps I can’t see it because “I have no soul”?

In this sense I suggest the possibility that I could "know" that the immortal soul "enters and inhabits" a body to become mortal.

Why do you put the terms “enters and inhabits” into quotation marks, but not the term “mortal”?

It's a difficult one to maintain, because of (as you point out) problems of beginnings and endings - at what point does a soul enter and leave a body? - but it's one possibility.

Maybe the root problem is with the idea of an immortal soul entering and leaving a body?

A more plausible possibility in my opinion is the idea that there is only one soul that we all share, and that that soul is God's.

Well, I guess that’s convenient!

We could then imagine that this soul inhabits every part of reality, or at least of consciousnesses (it might in fact be the very essence of all consciousness), so there is then no longer a need to postulate a beginning and an ending of inhabitation.

All that imagining just to resolve the inhabitation factor of an immortal soul into a mortal body?

I'd say instead "takes sustenance and wonder from paradox".

Heh. Of course you would!

So perhaps there's a way to avoid duality, but right now I'm stuck in that viewpoint and - despite its limitations - it has a lot of potential.

Can you express its potential in less than four sentences? (Alright, I'll allow you a maximum of six.)

Nicely put. I've noticed that you have a great sense for poetic irony. Oh, sorry - you don't like Prince Charming, do you?

Well, I have nothing against him personally, you understand. He’s useful on the same level of fiction as Woman is.

Selam, Sapius. What news does the world bring?

Well… Leyla, fortunately… we have not obliterated ourselves… as yet. I do see some ray of positive hope, though :)

Laird, you asked:

“What compelling advantages do you see in dropping my sense of mystery and reverence?”

In the context of this thread and this discussion, I will translate that question as follows: what compelling advantages do I see in [you] dropping your sense of mystery and reverence for women? And, in reply, I offer you personal experience. I have not once, ever, been able to maintain any sort of worthy respect from any man with whom I have been in an intimate relationship because to keep me, I must retain—for such a man—that sense of alluring mystery. It is commanded in so many overt and insidious ways, and so blind to reality, it simply is not funny! For instance, several of my ex lovers are in the habit of calling me at relatively regular intervals for years after we have broken up. One of the most common terms of endearment to have graced my ears from these deaf men, who have never known one another in order to be in any sort of accurate agreement on such a thing, is “baby-doll.” Baby-doll? I mean, seriously—me? At 41, and with all my f’ing and blinding, it’s amazing that I can still be a baby-doll, don’t you think? That’s pretty mysterious and alluring, I reckon. And it comes with the usual, “You know I love you, don’t you?” And I am talking about YEARS after the break-up event, which in every case had to end so severely (boy, can I tell you some stories)—because any other attempt simply failed outright—that I was convinced that bloke would never talk to me again. But, no. "I" am still “baby-doll.” And "I" am still “loved.”

What is it with you people and plastic toys?

You boys just don’t like having your “mysteries” taken away. (Oh, how doth you all protest when we few smack you in the face with them!) It’s like an unspoken law, you know?

Fucking intriguing, alright!

Naturally, I have also been a cupcake, princess, a goddess and—“lala.” I’m kind of partial to “lala,” though. I got that one from an ex who once had me pushed up against a brick wall by the scruff of my neck whilst I wondered, feet dangling aimlessly, “Hm. What’s wrong with this picture?” He was also the one who nicked the number plates from my car during the night in an attempt to keep me under house arrest! And 10 years my junior.

Mystery, allure, intrigue—fantastic!

What is there of me to affirm?

Now, I’m fairly certain your brand of reverence wouldn’t quite play out the same way. Then again, maybe that’s why you seem to be the reluctant participant in matters of love and relationships, after all…

(I am summarizing the rest of your post and will reply as soon as I can.)

Leyla,

I don't get it. You start off by calling him Prince Charming - or more accurately you really started with that coochie-coo song link (or whatever the title was), the flip out when he responded to your flirting? Why do you flirt if you don't want an aroused response? Laird was actually pretty tame with you - but what gives on your provocation? You're intelligent, so I'm sure you know what you are doing when you are doing it (although I did not realize it when I made the comment earlier something like "do you realize that when you say something like that, guys watch your butt as you walk away?").

Decide what you really want and then give clear signals about what you really want. There are enough assholes out there that will take advantage of us when we are giving clear signals. What do you get out of provoking pain on yourself? That at least this time you are in control, in a way, because you provoked it? This time Leyla, you are the one poking sleeping bears with sticks. Does it help you in any way? It could, or it might not - so don't take that as an accusation. I just want to know what you are really doing with this.

Actually, Elizabeth, if you were capable of noticing anything beyond that which fuels your jealousy, you would have noticed that Laird has been wiggling his feminine butt since he got here--and long before Coo-ca-choo!

Can you blame me for noticing, and you for not?

To express an idea with due circumspection, one must have relegated it wholly to one's past; one must no longer be preoccupied with it.
--Friedrich Schlegel

To express an idea with due circumspection, one must have relegated it wholly to one's past; one must no longer be preoccupied with it.
--Friedrich Schlegel

Leyla, it took me a while to understand it, but it really makes good sense.

Leyla,

Jealousy? When I was a kid I had one jealous bone in my body, but I had it removed. I don't get jealous. Laird is my friend, and nothing more - other than that I have regained my universal love for all people. I don't love Laird any more or less than I love you, I just love you differently because you are different people. If you are attracted to Laird, I would actually like that. Kelly revealed that he would like a girlfriend, and you and he are both in Australia - although I don't know how close together you two live. Now I'm not trying to force either of you on the other - but perhaps the two of you should meet up. Kelly also mentioned that it is beneficial to discuss philosophy in person with someone. Maybe you could just get together to discuss philosophy in person. He's a good guy, and at the very least he makes a good friend. If something more than that works out between you - great. If not, oh well - friendship is certainly good enough.

Jealousy! That's it! Thank you Leyla. That's when the abuse got so bad in my marriage. My ex always thought his mother didn't like him, but she and i got along fine. Yeah, she drove me nuts at times, but overall i really liked her. He told me that he thought his mother liked me better than she liked him. That was it. He was jealous of me because of his mother. It's so clear to me now.

Elizabeth, in reply to your previous post:

Jealousy? When I was a kid I had one jealous bone in my body, but I had it removed. I don't get jealous. Laird is my friend, and nothing more - other than that I have regained my universal love for all people. I don't love Laird any more or less than I love you, I just love you differently because you are different people.

Yes, the sixties’ idea of free love certainly resolved that fine little human dilemma. No wonder you and he/‘im/shim/she/it/’e/’ee/stupit get along.

I love you, too.

Psychedelic, man.

If you are attracted to Laird, I would actually like that. Kelly revealed that he would like a girlfriend, and you and he are both in Australia - although I don't know how close together you two live. Now I'm not trying to force either of you on the other - but perhaps the two of you should meet up. Kelly also mentioned that it is beneficial to discuss philosophy in person with someone. Maybe you could just get together to discuss philosophy in person. He's a good guy, and at the very least he makes a good friend. If something more than that works out between you - great. If not, oh well - friendship is certainly good enough.

Oh my fucking God. Are you serious, Elizabeth? Fucking speechless. You‘d make a great mother!

What makes you think that we would be able to discuss philosophy with any more depth in person than on this forum? Because Kelly said so? Because body language is paramount? What? What is it about Kelly that sees her benefit from “face-to-face philosophical discussion”?

If she were to meet with you in person, how much philosophical progress do you think would be made and for whom?

You obviously have not grasped the magnitude of the problem.

And, finally, what makes you think I’d attend a serious philosophy forum for the purposes of finding “friends,” let alone lovers?

Wow.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Jealousy! That's it! Thank you Leyla. That's when the abuse got so bad in my marriage. My ex always thought his mother didn't like him, but she and i got along fine. Yeah, she drove me nuts at times, but overall i really liked her. He told me that he thought his mother liked me better than she liked him. That was it. He was jealous of me because of his mother. It's so clear to me now.

Please, God, don't let me be the only one who sees the cruel irony in this.

That would be just too painful.

Laird: Do be sure to furnish my Rapunzel, or to at least direct me in the general direction of her tower. I won't promise to ascend the ladder but it would be nice to at least know that she exists.

Leyla: Lo! Best ye not, lest the mysterious vixen sever those shimmering scarlet locks mid ye high ascent!

Be yond maid virtuous beyond reproach - that our Prince doubts not. More doth our Prince wonder at the sacred bond - be it of such strength as to quell his wandering freedom-lust, and of what irresponsibility might he be accused to seek out this tryst knowing that in stamina he might be found wanting?

Laird: Oh, I don't know that sadistic is the right word - there's more pleasure (and intrigue) than pain. But if you truly desire to cause me pain...

Leyla [pulls out the scissors]

[holds out the piece of string for you to sever the untangleable knot]

Laird: Are these words meaningless?

Leyla: What philosophically significant meaning do you see?

How did the qualification "philosophically significant" enter the equation?

Laird: If you mean "between", then I have absolutely no idea - I'm not even sure what it would mean to be between lives.

Leyla: What I meant was between individual lifetimes as characterised by each discrete self, i.e. the common thread between Jack, John and Jill is Laird.

Jack, John and Jill are other aspects of my soul? When Jack reads my words, he is consuming that which he himself produced?

Leyla: Can you specifically tell me more about the roots of your imaginings with respect to an understanding of immortality and the assertions of certain Buddhists.

The roots are a moderate-depth study of the religion as part of the "Studies in Religion" subject in my final two years of high school. I've since visited a couple of times some Buddhist worship centres and a retreat community.

The imaginings themselves are vague. "Enlightenment". To me this implies the realisation of all that I seek. The Big Answer to all of the questions of existence. On the other hand I get the impression that even the original Buddha's realisations were of a more practical, psychological nature than would be capable of satisfying my ultimate questionings. Zen with its idea of koans that upon breaking through illuminate ultimate reality fills me with more hope in the real possibility of ultimate understanding - this would include immortality I imagine.

Leyla wrote:What makes you think there is reason to believe that there is some “soul” you possess, or that inhabits you, for you to know? Or are such thoughts based on some sort of corporeal experience?

I addressed this as best I can in my reply to Sapius's first post in the thread "The effect of thoughts and needs on reality". To summarise - yes, it is based on consideration of my everyday corporeal experience: that consciousness is an inhabitation of perspective and that I cannot presently imagine being able to explain my experience of it as "inhabitation" in emergent terms.

Laird: Then there is the intellectual sense of understanding what a soul is and how it works.

Leyla: Well, yes--logically, that makes sense. But such an understanding is not forthcoming. Perhaps I can’t see it because “I have no soul”?

It's possible that you and I are different in this respect, and that my inability to convey my personal understanding stems from such an horrific reality. But I don't take that possibility seriously. I can only comment that such an understanding is presently likewise beyond me - but not beyond speculation.

Laird: In this sense I suggest the possibility that I could "know" that the immortal soul "enters and inhabits" a body to become mortal.

Leyla: Why do you put the terms “enters and inhabits” into quotation marks, but not the term “mortal”?

Because I know and can communicate effectively what I mean by mortal - its characteristic is death. I am less certain what I mean by the phrase "enters and inhabits" e.g. would "takes control of" or "possesses" be more accurate?

Laird: It's a difficult one to maintain, because of (as you point out) problems of beginnings and endings - at what point does a soul enter and leave a body? - but it's one possibility.

Leyla: Maybe the root problem is with the idea of an immortal soul entering and leaving a body?

Indeed, and yet as I describe in the other thread, there are a couple of phenomena that point to the likelihood of at least a mind that is separate from the physical brain - lucid, vivid dreams and astral travel.

Laird: A more plausible possibility in my opinion is the idea that there is only one soul that we all share, and that that soul is God's.

Leyla: Well, I guess that’s convenient!

In the same way that convenient is a convenient word for you to use there? They are both possible explanations or descriptions of something that each of us perceive.

Leyla Shen wrote:All that imagining just to resolve the inhabitation factor of an immortal soul into a mortal body?

So what then is the alternative, which deals effectively with both the experience of inhabitation and of the phenomena that I referred to above?

Can you express [the potential of duality] in less than four sentences? (Alright, I'll allow you a maximum of six.)

When there is other there is potential for relationship with other. My experience of other involves the unknown, or mystery. A relationship with mystery is subtle, complex, (dis)satisfying, ever-changing and wonder-ful. A relationship with the known is comforting and sometimes equally satisfying.

Leyla Shen wrote:: Well, I have nothing against [Prince Charming] personally, you understand. He’s useful on the same level of fiction as Woman is.

Useful and worthy of emulation, or merely useful?

Leyla Shen wrote:Laird, you asked: “What compelling advantages do you see in dropping my sense of mystery and reverence?”

In the context of this thread and this discussion, I will translate that question as follows: what compelling advantages do I see in [you] dropping your sense of mystery and reverence for women? And, in reply, I offer you personal experience.

In my opinion the experience that you offered described partners who were in some important ways disrespectful. That you felt that you were being treated as a doll and did not appreciate this treatment, and that your partners did not know this (or at least did not care) is proof enough of their lack of respect. Apparently the question "how does she feel about the way that I treat her?" did not arise in their minds, let alone the intention to seek an answer to it from you. Reverence has consequences and lack of care is not one of them. In fairness to them, I'd suggest that actually they suffered more from a lack of sophistication of understanding than from a lack of love and respect (is this implication of my own sophistication arrogant? I don't think so - I acknowledge many men whose approach is more sophisticated than my own)

Leyla Shen wrote:What is it with you people and plastic toys?

I am not one of those people.

Leyla Shen wrote:Naturally, I have also been a cupcake, princess, a goddess and—“lala.” I’m kind of partial to “lala,” though.

I could consider them to be respectful if that was how you genuinely wanted to be addressed and thought of. It clearly is not (or at least the first three are not), nor would I have expected you to appreciate them given what I know thus far of your personality. I would rather have expected that you would find them patronising. Respect is learning what another person appreciates most and then treating him/her accordingly, within the parameters of what one finds personally acceptable, and providing one's own possibilities for the other's consideration. It's partly about negotiating.

Leyla Shen wrote:What is there of me to affirm?

How might I answer that honestly and sensitively without a further charge of femininity? And why in any case should that charge disturb me? Because I'd rather think that I have come close to balancing my masculine and feminine natures - it's troubling to consider that I might be further from this goal than I'd like to believe.

Leyla Shen wrote:Now, I’m fairly certain your brand of reverence wouldn’t quite play out the same way.

Then it seems that you are coming to understand me.

Leyla Shen wrote:Then again, maybe that’s why you seem to be the reluctant participant in matters of love and relationships, after all…

I think that the reason has more to do with our Prince's quandry as described above, as well as other less flattering personal conceptions that I don't wish to discuss publicly, lest I open myself further to the charge of femininity.

Sapius wrote:

To express an idea with due circumspection, one must have relegated it wholly to one's past; one must no longer be preoccupied with it.
--Friedrich Schlegel

Leyla, it took me a while to understand it, but it really makes good sense.

Yes, indeed. It is a good one.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Sapius wrote:

To express an idea with due circumspection, one must have relegated it wholly to one's past; one must no longer be preoccupied with it.
--Friedrich Schlegel

Leyla, it took me a while to understand it, but it really makes good sense.

Yes, indeed. It is a good one.

Indeed, but not always on target for everyone. For some of us to relegate something wholly to the past, one must first understand it.

Nothing is ever "relegated wholly" to one's past, but, yeah, hindsight is 20/20 and one must know something in order to teach it (or preach it, as the case may be).