GENIUS FORUMS

put a bit of effort into it seeker!
what happens exactly.

A condition 'Late!' occurs in the mind of both parties.
what happens next.

There's a kind of thinking about the condition 'Late!' that has 'Late!' show up as brokenness.

get the drift?

Story time it is.

On time fellow is sitting, the two spot each other as the late arrival is walking toward.
On time fellow doesn't feel right just sitting there so gets up and meets half way.
There's an awkward approach varying depending on the people. They might be looking around at other objects while only glancing at the subject, perhaps flashing a smile. "Hey! sorry I'm late, took me forever to find parking! Have you been here long?"
"Hey no no it's fine, I've only just gotten here." Some walking in whichever appropriate direction commences.
"So how have you been?".. "Good good, a bit stressed with *whatever* but excited for *whatever*"
Onwards they go bla bla, this might be a good example of boy meets girl, circumstances vary..

Though really the whole experience seems like an odd one, it would have been average a while ago when it was still in you to call up friends and want to meet. If I was given an appointed place and time, chances are I wouldn't think it my 'duty' and say so before hand. Unless of course there were circumstances calling for it or it was someone you were well acquainted with, different answers maybe.

There's a kind of thinking about the condition 'Late!' that has 'Late!' show up as brokenness.

get the drift?

Yeah I got the brokenness the first time. Perspective,attachment, loss, good/bad, on plan, plans crushed. Consciousness carving up distinctions. Meaning making. Meaningless. Dependent origination. Causes/conditions.

That the drift? And don't worry I'm not so naive to expect any of this leads to a fresh point. That would be against the point.

Yeah I got the brokenness the first time. Perspective,attachment, loss, good/bad, on plan, plans crushed. Consciousness carving up distinctions. Meaning making. Meaningless. Dependent origination. Causes/conditions.

That the drift? And don't worry I'm not so naive to expect any of this leads to a fresh point. That would be against the point.

That kind of expression is a stream of consciousness expression speaking of an intuitive grasp.
I've no doubt you have a grasp.
Not saying its broken.

As a submission I'd like to suggest from your kind of grasp you put the other participants in a form of the prisoner's dilemma.
You guys should ditch thinking like me 'cos thinking is useless.
otherwise,
you're deluded.

I reckon Leyla's saying different strokes for different folks arsehole fuck off.

It is a designated possibility for the forum that thinking things thru methodically generates clarity.
Thinking things thru' methodically isn't broken like you might be suggesting it is.

Look, I'm hearing you, and I'm not suggesting one can't explain or describe this with a higher degree of clarity. What I've said is simply that it's a communication or description of what we 'see'/experience.

The problem with making such a simple comment is that it's simple, stupid.
Hence it is almost argued against, as if its plainness means clueless. Its merit for a display of intelligence is judged by contestants. How is one then supposed to start from the beginning?

Because of my stating that such knowledge is only a result and part of these appearances that are known first hand, you assume I'm trashing the possibility for further insight. Yet on the contrary, you would have seen me ask many times, what is it we agree on, where can we go together, what are the certain truths we can establish that survive beyond the ordinary conceptual attachment. Then I'll state a few simple things. Again "me against you" continues. Or "I already know this better".

What I'm trying to say is that you actually just don't believe me. I do not think any significant "thinking things thru' methodically" can exist starting from a position in which people haven't yet openly established common ground for the 'obvious' and how these are derived from what we 'see'.

Or if relevant truths are ignored- such as that there is no control over which thoughts/concepts arise- as irrelevant because they apparently suggest insight isn't possible and hence my right hand is blind to my left and I'm accusing another of being deluded for not recognizing this in their own experience of knowledge.
Again it comes down to a decision or belief, are they playing games, is this a deception and a contest? Or is there a possibility for open discussion which ties together what is known despite the undesired implications.

I do not think any significant "thinking things thru' methodically" can exist starting from a position in which people haven't yet openly established common ground for the 'obvious' and how these are derived from what we 'see'.

The common ground is dependent arising.
its always/already a done deal.

looking in that light.

But not the only common ground

There's a kind of thinking about the condition 'Late!' that has 'Late!' show up as brokenness.

The kind of thinking I have about 'Late' in which it doesn't show up as broken is this:

The other party is 'late'....it is what it is and it isn't what it isn't.
it is 'suchness'
dependently arisen.

The other party will offer up a regress of justifiers concerning 'late'.

I recognise 'late' is empty (causes/conditions)
the regress of justifiers are meaningless.

it's empty and meaningless.

If I have any afflictive emotion concerning 'late', that too is empty (causes/conditions)

Truly,
it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.

I don't deny it, but I think the intuition 'empty and meaningless' comes from more. The understanding that we create distinctions that don't otherwise exist, and assign identity to various parts of the whole, such as branch,trunk,tree which ultimately meld together as undifferentiated is clearly part of it.
The more to it, is the recognition of the infinity of all the worlds a show, players on the stage. The unending stream of events which include only people that lack ego, you can see the empty puppetness. You can see the empty puppetness of your own body,speech,thought. No matter who it is, Einstein or engineers, nothing is done or created by any of their own accord or in themselves.
Who would have thought, the destruction of attachment to seeing form as self is followed by an awareness that the rising and falling of the world is 'not your concern', unaffected entirely. This is how 'empty and meaningless' and 'illusory and dream-like' is presented to me - in the awareness that it continues despite.

I don't deny it, but

the but seems to indicate something's broken.
that's not the kind of thinking being conveyed.

the means to an end or 'canoe' is a kind of thinking that copes successfully with suffering.

the condition 'late' is dependently arisen,
there's no guilty party,
there doesn't have to be a song and dance on that score.

Well it doesn't. It's only an insight on 'empty and meaningless' that isn't solely dependent on dependency.

I get what you're saying.

with trumpets and fanfare:
the end in itself, the end in itself, the end in itself.
don't need a means to an end, don't need a canoe.

yet the left hand is saying:
the means to an end is stop thinking, thinking is useless.

it looks like scrambled eggs.

Dennis Mahar wrote:..it is what it is and it isn't what it isn't.

This is my complaint: stuff like that sounds exactly like some deadbeat housewife's thinking: not effortless but just some "dead spot" one arrives at, when no effort is undertaken. Defeatism instead of determinism! Better to stretch to people how hard it really is! Otherwise it's pure delusion wrapped as Zen. It's only what it is if you've been able to take yourself out. Otherwise it never is what it seems as you'll be changing yourself with it.

a complaint is dependent arising.
what else could it be?
how hard does it have to be.

no need for a song and dance Diebert.

Sounds like a complaint. You made that assumption from my expression of the truth that thoughts/concepts arise in the same 'spontaneous' or uninfluenced manner as any other appearance.

Forgetting a truth simply because it appears to have undesired implications? It doesn't say anything like 'thinking is deluded'. If you aren't denying it, then what's the issue.

For one who knows brokenness isn't inherently existing you sure act like it is. For example, you break up and differentiate thoughts/ideas as if they are somehow different or are in their own personal category.


Hearing most engaged in a group discussion is like listening to the squawking of very loud birds. A desire to speak.

it is what it is, dependent arising.

it isn't what it isn't, existing from its own side.

cannot be refuted.

seeker,
get over it, 'ruffled feathers' are not the business of the forum.

A complaint.
Yet desire, clinging and delusion are.

A complaint.

Not a complaint.
everything is always/already fine.
it's a possibility of seeing eye to eye on this without twisting and turning:

it is what it is, dependent arising.

it isn't what it isn't, existing from its own side.

Yet desire, clinging and delusion are.

So what?

Russell wrote: What interests me is that it appears that there was a transition in history when the characters and stories of religion ceased to be taught as merely symbols, and then became literal historical records. Was it by some other cause than vested interests (i.e. egomaniacs) that Christianity was constructed by "borrowing" different aspects of various spiritual, astrological, and numerological teachings of old, and literalizing them?

It's one of the most interesting questions: how and when did people solidify the stories and the beliefs. Judaism comes to mind since it's a remarkable example of a "literazing" and borrowing of Great Stories serving to make one Self greater. The actual cause might be related to the development of human consciousness, some kind of side effect? As if the Object comes into focus as the result of the horizon itself shrinking: the field of vision warping the field of reality and perspectives? For the development of science however this might have been great in the 18th and 19th centuries, the "microscopic age".

It all gets rather anthropological, postmodern and theoretical from here. So the challenge is to tie it to some metaphysics, to what we can actually know and perceive about reality and ignorance in the most simple terms. Human culture evolves and maybe also the fantastical error.

By removing God from ourselves, and therefore our divinity, children raised under such teachings undergo subtle yet profound trauma, in which uncertainty and pessimism plagues the rest of their lives. Having learned that we are all 'born sinners', there is the lack of confidence in our own thinking. In placing our authority infinitely beyond ourselves, there is the lack of motivation to cause truly beneficial change.

In my own case it was not the idea of being a born sinner, I still was more an optimist than children not being raised religiously (although the "sinner" might be a cultural infection). But I do think there's generally an atmosphere of not being encouraged to challenge the mind, to push oneself further, to explore and think on your own two feet. There's a culture of "borrowing", to take on faith as if childhood never ends.

I think the point of old religion was to unite, educate, and enlighten our ancient, primitive societies. The point of modern religion, as we now know it, is to create a docile, easily manipulated people for elitist interests.

There's a conflict between religion and the mind in both cases. Perhaps one of the most powerful and simple way to conceive of "mind" is to see it as opposition. Or even opposition against reality. Whatever is. No way to make peace with reality without getting rid of mind (however some make peace with their own opposition against reality - different thing).

The old "devil" is the primordial opposer and there the Luciferian version of our own mind is born. Challenge God, really? The old religions at their best were uniting in opposition to mindless and chaotic forces around them. Religion is at its best as revolutionary and contradictory force. Even now the Christians pine for the times they were oppressed and their beliefs actually made a difference. What you see nowadays is religion becoming its own opposition at best. But mostly flat out contradictory and hiding their own opposition to reality so it becomes harder even to oppose anything about them. This is part of the docile, harmless image that's being projected for its own protection against the forces it once nurtured.

Dennis Mahar wrote:A complaint is dependent arising. What else could it be? How hard does it have to be?

No need for a song and dance Diebert.

The mind is what the mind does, in opposition. Fear is the mind killer. What are you Dennis, a mind killer? A baby killer?

Perhaps you made peace with your own opposition to reality. But you can't and won't ever be able to make peace with reality itself. Your mind does not allow it.

Diebert?

It is what it is, dependent arising.
It isn't what it isn't, existing from its own side.

OK?

Dennis Mahar wrote:It is what it is, dependent arising. It isn't what it isn't, existing from its own side. OK?

But things are never what they seem. Why do you oppose, Dennis?

• We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.
  
  There is a harmony in the bending back as in the case of the bow and the lyre.
  
  -- Heraclitus

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:

Pont. Max. Marx wrote:The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

This is a good quote to get back on topic. What does he mean with "moving around himself"? Moving around a "true self" or "higher ideals"? Religion used to explain the world in terms we could relate to but in the last centuries it's closer to some form of scientific materialism which tells us how things "behave" and what's important because we can relate to that better. the old religion has become a mixture of traditionalism, art and mysticism. So now we have instead of Spirit and spirits the modern Object and objects?

Well, as you know, the Sun has been prominent in mythology long before monotheism as the “light”; that which illuminates and makes clear the path (“orbit”) of all things. The ultimate heavenly body (“god”). Hence, in the absence of the Sun, Nietzsche's walking around with a lantern as he declares “god is dead!”

When Nietzsche later asks, “Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?” he questions whether the species is sufficiently “enlightened” to orbit it itself without believing in something greater than himself, something divine.

Nietzsche’s reference to the looming shadow of god is a reference to the appearance of the secular state; a formidable power absent the light of “god”—a shadow of its believer civilians—who, in one and the same enactment of the secular state, enact themselves as both civilian (religionist) and as citizen (atheist) and, in doing so, dethrone god from the seat of power and turn him into a mere article of private interest.

Marx’s reference to religion as man’s illusory Sun and Nietzsche’s reference to the looming shadow of god are levelled at the relation between atheism, religion and the role of the secular state. They both see the same struggle. However, Nietzsche focuses his criticism on the disappearance of the light—man’s internal world—whereas Marx’s criticism is directly concerned with the shadow itself—man’s external world. And this is the sum of their differences. To express it more interestingly perhaps, as the more general discussion would have it turn out, is to consider this in the light of your reference to Weininger earlier, too. That I could just as well here identify Marx as the philosopher and Nietzsche as art.

Nietzsche, like an oracle of Nature, sees the coming of the Overman, and Marx, the war.

Is Heraclitus dependent arising?

What I'm looking for is inherent existence.
coming up with more and more dependent arising isn't what I'm looking for.

Can you help Diebert?