GENIUS FORUMS

Dennis Mahar wrote:I said earlier it's the theory of no-theory.

Then it will be opposed, naturally!

are you pissed?

Feeling attacked? That's because you're assembling a self in your zen which causes others to oppose it.

Dependant origination...

Diebert,

Alright, let’s flesh this out with a bit more context then and see what happens. Nietzsche makes direct reference to evolution when he points out that each being has created something “beyond itself”. For man, the predecessor is, of course, the ape. He then castigates man for his present valuing of happiness and contentment, asking them if that is where he wants to go, back to being an ape and recommending instead that envision what is in this wise beyond him (man); the Overman. Here we can see that ape-values for man would be valuing what is “smaller” and, as you imply, in Nietzsche to value you something greater would necessarily be to value what is to come after him in the evolutionary line (Overman). So, the “evolutionary” implication here is that since what he was (ape, and all preceding evolutionary forces) is still a part of him, so too is what he will be (“Overman”). “Why not?” asks Nietzsche, as he walks around in the dark with a lantern proclaiming, “God is dead! And we have killed him".

A lantern. A lantern and the shadow of the “holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned bleeding to death under our knives”.

And then, “Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us – for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

They are some very clear statements about who has done what.

Nietzsche’s problem is clearly not that man values something smaller, but that he hasn’t grasped the magnitude of what he himself has done! And nihilism is the result of not having done so.

So, yes:

D: Nietzsche proposes that every society losing its "sun" or replacing it with something too little enters its last stage of decadence, worship of detail and generally small concerns.

However, on the basis of the above, this certainly does not follow:

D: The Sun diminishes in power because man loses his values to something smaller!

And therefore:

D: Notice how this works in complete opposition with your earlier statement.

No.

D: In other words: size does matter :-)

Indeed. Is that a firm, heavenly body you're pointing at me, or just an intangible ball of gas? (:

Better not to confuse the squeaky voices from sucking on helium balloons with the life and light of the Sun, though!

Feeling attacked?

cluster of typos on your part. (unusual on your part)
possibly pissed.

That's because you're assembling a self in your zen which causes others to oppose it.

others assembling a self in opposition.
cuts both ways
so what?
nothing broken.

Dependant origination..

Dennis Mahar wrote:cluster of typos on your part. (unusual on your part)

Yeah, the typos are usual but normally spelling control takes care of them. Normally I compose longer texts and care better for the details.

Others assembling a self in opposition. Cuts both ways

Yes. But that was my view all along, not yours. Why not read more carefully what is being said to you next time?
Anything you position, for agreement, for theory, for theory-killing theory assembles position and self. Thank god for opposition.

Here's some Hakuin to ponder over:

• This ... is attainment of the final state of complete tranquillity. Everything is settled. Everything is understood. Nothing doubting. Nothing seeking. There is no questioning at all. They will not venture a single step beyond this, terrified they might fall and tumble down into a hole. They tread the long pilgrimage of human life as if they were blind from birth, grasping their staff with a clutch of death, refusing to venture forward an inch unless they have it along to prop them up. --source

Yes. But that was my view all along, not yours. Why not read more carefully what is being said to you next time?

The response was and is a line of reasoning:

Does for and against matter?

Anything you position, for agreement, for theory, for theory-killing theory assembles position and self. Thank god for opposition.

Are you really 'held' in that?
Is it a justifier?

Hakuin is talking about an End that needs no justification.
An End to it.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Does for and against matter?

You brought up "change" and that's the context where the interplay between position and opposition matters.

Are you really 'held' in that? Is it a justifier?

"It is what it is", remember your words? What does it matter now if it's really held or a justifier? Because I say it?

Make up your mind

Hakuin is talking about an End that needs no justification. An End to it.

He was not being kind when he was quoting these nihilistic zen practises. Do you get why he opposed it? Check out the source link to get the proper flow.

Not wishing to speak ill of the dearly departed.

Alex was on the 'horns of a dilemma'.

He had to satisfy his much vaunted readership.
He had to satisfy the requirements of the forum founders.

Are we gonna flick thru' the Nietzsche album and pull out 'happy snaps'.
Perhaps we can do philosophy.
The point of Nietzsche is 'horns of dilemma'.

What is Agrippa's trilemma.
What is Nagarjuna's tetralemma.

Tools?

Dennis,

If you have one set of premises that supports a different set of premises, then you have coherence. And that is knowledge.

If your set of premises does not support any other set of premises, then you have incoherence. A circle. A hoola-hoop you can’t wiggle out of.

So, the question is, does your set of premises support any other set of premises, my dear?

What you have is meaning that is 'held'.
As Pye puts it 'chocolately-middles'.

Satisfaction.
meaning maker.

And what do you have?

He's got a lot of insightful one-liners such as 'meaning maker'. (no sarcasm)

Many of which sum up the various forms of clinging people exhibit, whether it is motive for social approval or to ideas which require an infinite regress of justifications, hence his repetition of causes/conditions when confronted with almost anything.

What I've noticed is that he supports discussion and displays or implies various opinions and views in a subtle way, yet cannot answer with the affirmative when asked any question regarding anything even remotely specific. Refuting that he has an opinion, while putting it on display.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: The moment you think you have "agreement" or "OK", delusions are born with it.

That may be true often but not always. For example if someone were to agree with your statement above, would that be a delusion?

This outlook leaves you in a position that does not allow for thorough communication. Any inferences made would be ignored, not allowing the possibility to use those inferences to expound on truths.

Leyla,

Nietzsche was on the horns of a dilemma.

He's not considered an existentialist, rather a father of existentialism.
That line of reasoning posits 'Who are you Being?'
A prior recognition is that Universe lacks intrinsic meaning.
That's why he said we are Literary Philosophers (meaning makers).

Who are you Being?
nerdy herd guy (yuk)
ubermensch (chocolaty-middle, blithe spirit)

What it means is, I give you a first edition Zarathustra, you fall into a swoon, I get into your knickers.
Winning formula often used.

Dennis Mahar wrote:The point of Nietzsche is 'horns of dilemma'.

Nietzsche was concerned with change. So there was a need for opposition and analysis. Then he proceeded to analyze religion, culture, spirit and history.

He opposed old morals and encouraged new ones. He announced death, no a murdering of God and concluded we needed something to prevend nihilism to descend.

Dennis Mahar mentioned "change" but he puts out "it is what it is" and "it isn't what it isn't". That doesn't work: it needs opposing. Perhaps then...

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: The moment you think you have "agreement" or "OK", delusions are born with it.

That may be true often but not always. For example if someone were to agree with your statement above, would that be a delusion?

If someone would start to agree with that statement, they'd find a way to oppose it. Just like you did! But would that still be called "agreement"? :-)

This outlook leaves you in a position that does not allow for thorough communication. Any inferences made would be ignored, not allowing the possibility to use those inferences to expound on truths.

This is about the most fundamental dialectic: position <-> opposition -> change. You are not in one position or opposition, participants are enrolled in a process. It's very thorough and universal. But the delusions are still born with resting in one place. There is no such place.

I don't know why you think I think change is not 'it is what it is, it isn't what it isn't'. (whole of life)
how could change be assumed to be outside 'it is what it is, and isn't what it isn't.
quit flogging a dead horse.

He opposed old morals and encouraged new ones

He was imagining new possibilities for 'who you are being'.
a literary philosopher.
on one horn was slavery, on the other freedom as he conceived it.

Nietzsche:

a means to an end.
to what end?

in order to.
for the sake of?

Dennis Mahar wrote:I don't know why you think I think change is not 'it is what it is, it isn't what it isn't'. (whole of life). How could change be assumed to be outside 'it is what it is, and isn't what it isn't.

In the context you raise, change becomes a meaningless term. One empty state turning into another empty state. Like flogging a dead horse indeed.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:He's got a lot of insightful one-liners such as 'meaning maker'. (no sarcasm)

Many of which sum up the various forms of clinging people exhibit, whether it is motive for social approval or to ideas which require an infinite regress of justifications, hence his repetition of causes/conditions when confronted with almost anything.

What I've noticed is that he supports discussion and displays or implies various opinions and views in a subtle way, yet cannot answer with the affirmative when asked any question regarding anything even remotely specific. Refuting that he has an opinion, while putting it on display.

And isn't the point that what is referred to in buddhism as "enlightenment" could not be a cessation of either one or all of the five aggregates and the life and living that springs from them, but rather a natural -- or, wise -- appearance of them. Otherwise, we might just as well call any ascetic enlightened; or indeed anyone who has minimal capacity for discernment. So, let's take discernment (since this forum values thinking in particular). When engaged in a conversation with a Bodhisattva, would his wisdom and enlightenment not be the appearance rather than absence of discernment itself, or does it take two people for one of them to be wise and enlightened?

Dennis Mahar wrote:Leyla,

Nietzsche was on the horns of a dilemma.

He's not considered an existentialist, rather a father of existentialism.
That line of reasoning posits 'Who are you Being?'
A prior recognition is that Universe lacks intrinsic meaning.
That's why he said we are Literary Philosophers (meaning makers).

Who are you Being?
nerdy herd guy (yuk)
ubermensch (chocolaty-middle, blithe spirit)

What it means is, I give you a first edition Zarathustra, you fall into a swoon, I get into your knickers.
Winning formula often used.

Lol

Somehow I think that has more to do with who you are being, than who I am being! (Great poem, though ))

In the context you raise, change becomes a meaningless term. One empty state turning into another empty state. Like flogging a dead horse indeed.

What has meaning till you provide the meaning.
Hello ?
ring a ding ding.
You have to show up.
dependent arising.

Dennis Mahar wrote:What has meaning till you provide the meaning. Hello ? Ring a ding ding. You have to show up: dependent arising.

You cannot escape you own context and your own meaning, your own showing up, your own ring ding ding.

The curse for any preacher of emptiness: they make a little nesting. Ending up minimizing opposition, ending up opposing change.

Death knell.

Dennis, here's a quote for you that Matt Gregory posted to the forum some time ago, and that I was reminded of again fairly recently:

A laywoman was studying with Ta-hui while Wan-an was head monk at Ta-hui's temple. Over Wan-an's objections, Ta-hui allowed the woman to stay in the monk's quarters, on the grounds that "she was no ordinary woman." Finally, at Ta-hui's insistence, Wan-an went to talk with her. She asked if he wished a worldly encounter or a spiritual one. He indicated the latter, but when he entered her room, he found her lying flat on her back, completely naked. "What kind of place is that?" said Wan-an, pointing at her. "The place whence all the buddhas of the Three Worlds, all six Zen partriarchs, and all the venerable priests in the land have emerged," she replied. "Would you allow me to enter?" he asked. "It isn't a place donkeys and horses can go," she said. Wan-an was unable to reply. "The meeting is over," she said, turning her back to him.

And, no. You can't have my knickers.

And, no. You can't have my knickers.

I wasn't suggesting that.

Down at a philosophy school years ago I saw Nietzsche freaks swooning maids with devastating Nietzschean rhetoric that got them laid.

Nietzsche as a means to an end.
to what end?

Philosophy and the mating game works out.

The curse for any preacher of emptiness: they make a little nesting. Ending up minimizing opposition, ending up opposing change.

Death knell.

cuts both ways
nothing broken.

Dennis Mahar wrote: to what end?

In the space of 30 minutes on a show there was: "ugly" photography, real quidditch, parkour, vaulting, hell-preaching, crossdressers, people training to be ball-collectors at wimbledon, and many more.


What is the commonality you see between all of these? The 'thing' or delusion present in all of these examples?