Kelly,
Ever read "Leaves of Grass"?
Truthfully truthful truth Truth.
One dimension of it, anyway.
Kelly's Truth Paper
Cosmic Consciousness
Last edited by sevens on Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
bert wrote:
Enlightenment - i.e. true enlightenment, the enlightenment of the buddhas - is not a sensual experience, but a transcendent one which only arises when one's abstract powers become so highly refined that, after devouring the basis of everything in existence, they proceed to devour themselves, leaving nothing behind. That is, it only arises through a highly-developed process of rationality.
It is evident, given what you have written on the forum, that you have no inkling of this higher path. You only seem to know about cruder forms of mysticism and their obsessive focus on altered states.
-
You are confusing certain kinds of altered states of consciousness with enlightenment. This, in turn, is causing you to misunderstand the nature of the spiritual path.I said...reasoning is useless to put in contact with reality.
All reality being more abstract than actual as a para-ideal we know of but can not grasp.
We come closest by a unison of the senses.The result,by suitable emotional chanelling can express any abstracts which can not be defined in thought.
Enlightenment - i.e. true enlightenment, the enlightenment of the buddhas - is not a sensual experience, but a transcendent one which only arises when one's abstract powers become so highly refined that, after devouring the basis of everything in existence, they proceed to devour themselves, leaving nothing behind. That is, it only arises through a highly-developed process of rationality.
It is evident, given what you have written on the forum, that you have no inkling of this higher path. You only seem to know about cruder forms of mysticism and their obsessive focus on altered states.
-
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Since your "realization" a couple of weeks ago, you have somehow managed to become even more vain and preening. Your spiritual mask has become even more fixed. Your words even more overt in their pseudo-Zennish obscurity.
It's not enough to hide away in the clouds all the time. You have to come down into the towns and cities, where the dirty humans live, if you want to communicate wisdom properly.
Look at this story from the Zen tradition:
-
It's not enough to hide away in the clouds all the time. You have to come down into the towns and cities, where the dirty humans live, if you want to communicate wisdom properly.
Look at this story from the Zen tradition:
As for bert, he is openly advocating that reason and abstraction are entirely useless for the purpose of becoming enlightened. The reason he advocates this is because he is very attached to those kinds of heavenly altered states whose arisal is hindered by the employment of reason and abstraction. Ultimately, what he is interested in is, not truth, but in having a good time.- Flowers rained down on Subhuti. The gods whispered to him "We are
praising you for your discourse on emptiness".
"But I have not spoken of emptiness" said Subhuti.
"You have not spoken of emptiness, we have not heard emptiness",
responded the gods. "This is true emptiness".
Blossoms showered upon Subhuti as rain.
-
-
MKFaizi
-
MKFaizi
I just don't think your statement that the thread had descended into drivel was accurate at that point. What annoys me is the frequency that you make comments like this when they don't seem appropriate. Everyone has different viewpoints and mindsets as a result of different causes. If we were all enlightened there would be little discussion. There are always new ways to look at things (if you know you don't feel enlightened at least).
You can say anything you like about me as long as you give reasons.
What worth is my opinion to you?
Not much, but you do sometimes say things that I think have merit or are interesting.
You can say anything you like about me as long as you give reasons.
What worth is my opinion to you?
Not much, but you do sometimes say things that I think have merit or are interesting.
-
sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
I wrote:
What I find most interesting is the question of why women take up philosophy in the first place. It could only be for one of two reasons: they take it up for the same reason they take up anything else – to enhance their femininity; or, they take it up because they doubt that love and happiness is of any real value. Deciding which of these two is the real driving force, is difficult to know. I suppose what is needed is more time to see what happens. As the old adage tell us - the proof is in the pudding - and at present, we’re only at the ‘sifting the flour’ stage.
* * *
Some may say that it is sexist to conclude that women have but two reasons for getting into philosophy, and that women “are people too†and therefore should be given equal respect and encouragement - but I don’t think so. Women have no place in philosophy what-so-ever. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, as to their motivation, is being very generous indeed. The consequences of allowing women to enter this domain may prove, at best - a waste of time; at worst – more womanly nonsense to be added to the ever expanding nonsense doing its utmost to smother Truth.
Ah, but we may yet be pleasantly surprised. A female may become a true philosopher - proving me, and all the skeptics, wrong.
And then what?
Well, nothing.
Men can only be philosophers.
Sue
p.s. Oh, I forgot one piece of info that could make the above a little more interesting to those of you that are at present adjusting ‘your boys’. Whilst you're there, remember that you and your manhood are absolutely useless unless you give up your girlie ways and instead direct your life towards an all out attempt to live according to Truth. Otherwise, you may as well chop them off. It would be far more honest.
Kelly wrote:So being born female doesn’t totally exclude you from spirituality, but it does place upon you difficulties that, having been born male, you may not have had to endure.
I agree that females have less capacity for endurance, but we are yet to know if this will cause them to fail in their attempt at enlightenment. We know the degree of masculinity needed to become a philosopher is extremely high. It is so high, that maybe a few men may reach it, but most will be left behind. Knowing this, yet still continuing in one’s quest, could make all the difference.I think that being born female means one has less capacity to endure difficulties at all.
What I find most interesting is the question of why women take up philosophy in the first place. It could only be for one of two reasons: they take it up for the same reason they take up anything else – to enhance their femininity; or, they take it up because they doubt that love and happiness is of any real value. Deciding which of these two is the real driving force, is difficult to know. I suppose what is needed is more time to see what happens. As the old adage tell us - the proof is in the pudding - and at present, we’re only at the ‘sifting the flour’ stage.
* * *
Some may say that it is sexist to conclude that women have but two reasons for getting into philosophy, and that women “are people too†and therefore should be given equal respect and encouragement - but I don’t think so. Women have no place in philosophy what-so-ever. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, as to their motivation, is being very generous indeed. The consequences of allowing women to enter this domain may prove, at best - a waste of time; at worst – more womanly nonsense to be added to the ever expanding nonsense doing its utmost to smother Truth.
Ah, but we may yet be pleasantly surprised. A female may become a true philosopher - proving me, and all the skeptics, wrong.
And then what?
Well, nothing.
Men can only be philosophers.
Sue
p.s. Oh, I forgot one piece of info that could make the above a little more interesting to those of you that are at present adjusting ‘your boys’. Whilst you're there, remember that you and your manhood are absolutely useless unless you give up your girlie ways and instead direct your life towards an all out attempt to live according to Truth. Otherwise, you may as well chop them off. It would be far more honest.
an unplanned latent portraying - as in natureBert is speaking about expressing abstraction, in and through, the senses.
Direct perception of transcendent knowledge - through abstraction.
no man.As for bert, he is openly advocating that reason and abstraction are entirely useless for the purpose of becoming enlightened.
What we need is relationing,not religion.
I think its interesting that Marsha has two children, Sue one, and Kelly none, and that they devoted themselves to wisdom at ever younger ages and in ever increasing degrees. I see this as mirroring the societal trend for males to be less masculine and females to be less feminine. I think we're seeing the power of these influences, those directions that the sexes are taking.
It has been a pervasive trend during my life for males to be castigated on all fronts, and yet, for females to be encouraged to foster certain masculine qualities. The duplicity and selectivity is horrendous, but to be fair, it is born of a somewhat genuine attempt to achieve an ideal. Ignorance is simply in the way. The problem is their ideal resides between the sexes rather than at the ultimate realisation of masculinity, which is far beyond the prevailing paradigms.
I find some males born in the 1940's to have a strong grasp of masculine qualities. To challenge an oppressor, to speak against the grain, will generate appreciation from them for being a man, and they will speak against the females that smudge and bludgeon those efforts. They see women as weak, immoral and manipulative, and that man must control her. Those born in the 1970's have no idea what has been lost. They have been raised as man haters. These and later born males are our pool of young male stock, perhaps more poorly prepared for the spiritual life than in earlier times.
It seems that the time of the hippy movement was when the traditional values were given the toss and the whole male-female paradigm went on a journey of change and discovery. This all has considerable implications for wisdom, because the more these qualities become mixed, the more challenging it will be to differentiate important traits.
It has been a pervasive trend during my life for males to be castigated on all fronts, and yet, for females to be encouraged to foster certain masculine qualities. The duplicity and selectivity is horrendous, but to be fair, it is born of a somewhat genuine attempt to achieve an ideal. Ignorance is simply in the way. The problem is their ideal resides between the sexes rather than at the ultimate realisation of masculinity, which is far beyond the prevailing paradigms.
I find some males born in the 1940's to have a strong grasp of masculine qualities. To challenge an oppressor, to speak against the grain, will generate appreciation from them for being a man, and they will speak against the females that smudge and bludgeon those efforts. They see women as weak, immoral and manipulative, and that man must control her. Those born in the 1970's have no idea what has been lost. They have been raised as man haters. These and later born males are our pool of young male stock, perhaps more poorly prepared for the spiritual life than in earlier times.
It seems that the time of the hippy movement was when the traditional values were given the toss and the whole male-female paradigm went on a journey of change and discovery. This all has considerable implications for wisdom, because the more these qualities become mixed, the more challenging it will be to differentiate important traits.
Battle of The Sexes: A Big Bang
New man and new woman will not have names. Their minds will be unified to their cosmos. The cosmos. Through this cosmos, their ports will be purified. The full capacity of the brain will be utilized. The mind will be seen for what it is.
Everyone will be their own special brand of genius.
In this modern age, technology and spirit, will lead the way.
Everyone will be their own special brand of genius.
In this modern age, technology and spirit, will lead the way.
Last edited by sevens on Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Come on
Australian tennis star, Leyton Hewitt, fires himself up by shouting at himself to - “come on!†It has a similar affect on those Hewitt supporters up in the stands, causing them to cheer him on all the more.
* * *
Now, there is absolutely no evidence to support what I am about to say, but what the heck –
Sevens, your philosophic passion is phenomenal.
Sue
* * *
Now, there is absolutely no evidence to support what I am about to say, but what the heck –
Sevens, your philosophic passion is phenomenal.
Sue
-
sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Rhett,
Your eloquent history of the lost of masculine values during the last century, was most edifying. It reminded me of the men I knew as a child; grandfathers, uncles, cousins, brothers and my father. They all had a clear position to play in the family unit and, even as a little girl I had regard for them as men. My grandfathers were both pioneer-types, both fought in WWI, and both made lives for themselves, and later for their families, built on their own sweat and blood. My father’s generation, were perhaps less defined by the pioneer spirit, and more by the technological changes occurring during WWII. After the war, many men were tired and disillusioned, and perhaps even then they could hear the sounds of change about to envelop them.
The women of my family also had their roles; fitting in beside their men and making our home a warm and welcoming place. The men may have been the “bossâ€, but the women were the ‘kingpin’ in all our lives. The men’s hopes and dreams were taken up by the women as their own, and they lived to make those dreams a reality for their men, and for their children.
So what happened in the sixties? I think the hippy revolution occurred because men, whose lives were heavily burdened by their experiences during the many years of war and change, were too tired to hold on any longer, and just let go. And their letting go, caused Victorian ethics, which were still honoured in the fifties, to be quickly replaced by the philosophy of personal happiness. Once that happened, those men just didn’t have the spirit to turn things round again.
As you say, over the last thirty or forty years we have seen a horrendous waste of time and energy gone into the worship of women and the feminine, at the expense and debasement of males and masculinity.
Masculinity is given smaller and smaller avenues to travel in and develop along; it amazes me that it continues at all.
Sue
p.s. I have two children: a boy thirteen and a girl twenty-three.
Your eloquent history of the lost of masculine values during the last century, was most edifying. It reminded me of the men I knew as a child; grandfathers, uncles, cousins, brothers and my father. They all had a clear position to play in the family unit and, even as a little girl I had regard for them as men. My grandfathers were both pioneer-types, both fought in WWI, and both made lives for themselves, and later for their families, built on their own sweat and blood. My father’s generation, were perhaps less defined by the pioneer spirit, and more by the technological changes occurring during WWII. After the war, many men were tired and disillusioned, and perhaps even then they could hear the sounds of change about to envelop them.
The women of my family also had their roles; fitting in beside their men and making our home a warm and welcoming place. The men may have been the “bossâ€, but the women were the ‘kingpin’ in all our lives. The men’s hopes and dreams were taken up by the women as their own, and they lived to make those dreams a reality for their men, and for their children.
So what happened in the sixties? I think the hippy revolution occurred because men, whose lives were heavily burdened by their experiences during the many years of war and change, were too tired to hold on any longer, and just let go. And their letting go, caused Victorian ethics, which were still honoured in the fifties, to be quickly replaced by the philosophy of personal happiness. Once that happened, those men just didn’t have the spirit to turn things round again.
As you say, over the last thirty or forty years we have seen a horrendous waste of time and energy gone into the worship of women and the feminine, at the expense and debasement of males and masculinity.
Masculinity is given smaller and smaller avenues to travel in and develop along; it amazes me that it continues at all.
Sue
p.s. I have two children: a boy thirteen and a girl twenty-three.
Sue: …Whilst you're there, remember that you and your manhood are absolutely useless unless you give up your girlie ways and instead direct your life towards an all out attempt to live according to Truth.
God I find comments like this ridiculous. All you enlightenment wantabes have made Truth into something objective, what a laugh!
The core QRS teachings are not TRUTH, they are just tools for thinking more holistically.
Women have no place in philosophy what-so-ever.
And another pathetic comment – throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Your (and Kelly’s) submission to what the QRS have said is disgusting. Fucking nuns!!. It is true that women are not good at deep philosophy, but that does not mean that they cannot learn some level of wisdom from philosophy.
Masculinity is given smaller and smaller avenues to travel in and develop along; it amazes me that it continues at all.
The cause of this does not stem from women though. The cause is actually technology and the need for a larger group with more complex lifestyles to have tighter organisation and to maximise the use of available resources.
And I don’t think men really create new technologies to please women, which is what the QRS would say, that is simply one of the factors, the masculine will to power is the key factor.
God I find comments like this ridiculous. All you enlightenment wantabes have made Truth into something objective, what a laugh!
The core QRS teachings are not TRUTH, they are just tools for thinking more holistically.
Women have no place in philosophy what-so-ever.
And another pathetic comment – throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Your (and Kelly’s) submission to what the QRS have said is disgusting. Fucking nuns!!. It is true that women are not good at deep philosophy, but that does not mean that they cannot learn some level of wisdom from philosophy.
Masculinity is given smaller and smaller avenues to travel in and develop along; it amazes me that it continues at all.
The cause of this does not stem from women though. The cause is actually technology and the need for a larger group with more complex lifestyles to have tighter organisation and to maximise the use of available resources.
And I don’t think men really create new technologies to please women, which is what the QRS would say, that is simply one of the factors, the masculine will to power is the key factor.
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
I don't think it has anything to do with hippies. Hippies were a very, very small minority, at least here in the U.S. I think the whole last century can be explained by economics. We're still adjusting to the industrial age. Pretty much everybody is rich now and amusement is cheap and widely available. Masculinity is useless when you're comfortable. It has to be exercised or it will wither away.
Last edited by Matt Gregory on Fri Nov 25, 2005 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Jamesh wrote:
Sue
You mustn’t be good with tools then.The core QRS teachings are not TRUTH, they are just tools for thinking more holistically.
Woman can learn nothing, as your above comment signifies.It is true that women are not good at deep philosophy, but that does not mean that they cannot learn some level of wisdom from philosophy.
No, it is caused by people like you - who will not stop blowing kisses and waving at women long enough to see, that with each minute you waste doing so, you are creating more bad karma for men.The cause of this does not stem from women though.
No. See above.The cause is actually technology and the need for a larger group with more complex lifestyles to have tighter organisation and to maximise the use of available resources.
The “masculine will to power†can only truly be masculine if it is powered by Truth; otherwise it is just a slave to woman.And I don’t think men really create new technologies to please women, which is what the QRS would say, that is simply one of the factors, the masculine will to power is the key factor.
Jamesh - you wear your heart on your sleeve. Some women find that attractive, but what’s popular now-a-days is the carefree, fun-loving type. Try that next time you're out. (Don’t miss Agony Aunt’s helpful hints in coming posts.)Your (and Kelly’s) submission to what the QRS have said is disgusting. Fucking nuns!!.
Sue
-
MKFaizi
Rhett,
Your post was well written and thoughtful -- most welcome.
But I wonder -- you consider men born in the '40's to be more masculine; taking stands against this thing or that thing; challenging oppressors.
Please keep in mind that my intention here is not to discuss politics but do you consider George W. Bush to be that sort of man? He was born in the '40's and he thinks of himself as challenging oppressors and fighting against evil.
I think he is delusional. I don't think he is masculine. I think he is a lying pussy.
I also do not believe that women should be controlled by men. I think that women should be encouraged to outgrow their dependence on men. I think that men should be encouraged to outgrow their dependence on women.
I can well appreciate your contention but I think the human race is slowly advancing rather than going backward. I think that the time of the manly man is well into the past. A man no longer has to be a hog in order to be considered a man.
The cat is well out of the bag now. I am female and there is no way in the world that I would allow a man or anything else to decide what I will do or think or say.
I do not think a man needs to dominate woman in order to consider himself a man. That's bullshit. Taliban medieval bullshit. Why should I or Kelly or Leyla or Sue content ourselves with dominance by anyone?
I cannot speak for the others but I certainly will not content myself in such a way.
I am not interested in going back in time. I am not interested in being a house wife -- to ruling some ungodly roost with a matriarchal hand.
I am bloody sorry that men have become pussies but, I beg your pardon, that is not the fault of anyone but themselves. If the ladies are such pissers, then, the guys need to bug off. Don't fuck and don't impregnate. You can't be charged with rape or have to pay child support if you stay out of their pants.
How hard is that? The whining is pathetic.
Get over pussy and stop the belly-aching. You want a masculine world, then stop being a whimp and start promoting masculinity -- for everyone.
We are not going backward into "Leave It To Beaver." This is the real world. War injuries are hideous -- no heroes like on D-Day. There are no oppressors as clearly dilineated as Hitler. The John Wayne era is over.
Faizi
PS -- Hippies were quite misogynistic. Barefoot and pregnant all the way.
Your post was well written and thoughtful -- most welcome.
But I wonder -- you consider men born in the '40's to be more masculine; taking stands against this thing or that thing; challenging oppressors.
Please keep in mind that my intention here is not to discuss politics but do you consider George W. Bush to be that sort of man? He was born in the '40's and he thinks of himself as challenging oppressors and fighting against evil.
I think he is delusional. I don't think he is masculine. I think he is a lying pussy.
I also do not believe that women should be controlled by men. I think that women should be encouraged to outgrow their dependence on men. I think that men should be encouraged to outgrow their dependence on women.
I can well appreciate your contention but I think the human race is slowly advancing rather than going backward. I think that the time of the manly man is well into the past. A man no longer has to be a hog in order to be considered a man.
The cat is well out of the bag now. I am female and there is no way in the world that I would allow a man or anything else to decide what I will do or think or say.
I do not think a man needs to dominate woman in order to consider himself a man. That's bullshit. Taliban medieval bullshit. Why should I or Kelly or Leyla or Sue content ourselves with dominance by anyone?
I cannot speak for the others but I certainly will not content myself in such a way.
I am not interested in going back in time. I am not interested in being a house wife -- to ruling some ungodly roost with a matriarchal hand.
I am bloody sorry that men have become pussies but, I beg your pardon, that is not the fault of anyone but themselves. If the ladies are such pissers, then, the guys need to bug off. Don't fuck and don't impregnate. You can't be charged with rape or have to pay child support if you stay out of their pants.
How hard is that? The whining is pathetic.
Get over pussy and stop the belly-aching. You want a masculine world, then stop being a whimp and start promoting masculinity -- for everyone.
We are not going backward into "Leave It To Beaver." This is the real world. War injuries are hideous -- no heroes like on D-Day. There are no oppressors as clearly dilineated as Hitler. The John Wayne era is over.
Faizi
PS -- Hippies were quite misogynistic. Barefoot and pregnant all the way.
-
sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
It has multiple meanings.To begin with(a good start):What we need is relationing,not religion.
I’m with bert. What we need is more relationing – what ever the heck that is?
Sound good – need more.
find out your own desires and beliefs,for you are the only one who knows the path.
Religion always has a wrong self-righteousness.
through the unison of the senses gives by personal sentiment an appreciation.This appreciation has to be taken through emotional channeling to find associations that expresses nuances and abstracts that can not be defined in thought.Quote:
an unplanned latent portraying - as in nature
Is that something like unplanned pregnancy, or what?
-
sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Bert wrote:
Being brought up in any society means you inherit a set of beliefs, which have proven successful in keeping that group together. Whatever set of beliefs are placed before you, you must accept them, or risk expulsion from the group. The family unit is at the heart of this indoctrination, making it very difficult for any member to ever break free. This is made obvious when you consider the teenager: they push and shove at their bounds, fighting to make a life of their own – then they grow-up, get a job, find a partner, and talk about how they can best protect their assets, and how being loved and showing compassion are all that really matter in life.
Some people tell me that they're not like that; that they have broken free from their societies beliefs, and are now living the life of an individual.
But it’s difficult to believe a word of it, and for good reason -
People are a restless mob; always looking for something more, something new and special. Each new generation thinks they have discovered “new ideasâ€, of which they pronounce as advancements on the past generation’s moldy old offerings. This happens over and over again, with each generation setting out their new found truths as - the “awakening of a new ageâ€.
Of course, all that really happens is: the new generation gets hold of what’s old, shakes it up a bit, turns it inside out, and then repackages it as “something more meaningfulâ€.
I must add though, most of the 'repackaging' done now-a-days shows just how dumbed down the process has become. Vague sentiments such as the one you’re fostering Bert, “find out your own desires and beliefs,for you are the only one who knows the pathâ€, sounds very New Age.
Like most people, you desire a belief system that works for you. That’s fine - as long as you don’t confuse your emotional longing with the cold hard battle to break free from all false beliefs and vague desires. That’s the “path†that interests me. It’s also a path that, though hardly used, other adventurous souls have traveled down before, making it a little easier for those few strong hearts, intending to travel it today.
Kierkegaard was one of those adventurous souls who strove to make clear the path. He lived in a time, when all around him believed themselves to be Christians; patting each other on the back for their lucky inheritance. Yet Kierkegaard wrote, to become a Christian, one had to endure the greatest of sufferings and carry the heaviest of burdens; and that was just the first step. Something, the good people around him found laughable.
* * *
Sue
I’m a great believer in looking at where desires and beliefs come from, before I'd allow them to shape my life. A “good startâ€, is looking at why we have beliefs in the first place.It has multiple meanings.To begin with(a good start):
find out your own desires and beliefs,for you are the only one who knows the path.
Religion always has a wrong self-righteousness.
Being brought up in any society means you inherit a set of beliefs, which have proven successful in keeping that group together. Whatever set of beliefs are placed before you, you must accept them, or risk expulsion from the group. The family unit is at the heart of this indoctrination, making it very difficult for any member to ever break free. This is made obvious when you consider the teenager: they push and shove at their bounds, fighting to make a life of their own – then they grow-up, get a job, find a partner, and talk about how they can best protect their assets, and how being loved and showing compassion are all that really matter in life.
Some people tell me that they're not like that; that they have broken free from their societies beliefs, and are now living the life of an individual.
But it’s difficult to believe a word of it, and for good reason -
People are a restless mob; always looking for something more, something new and special. Each new generation thinks they have discovered “new ideasâ€, of which they pronounce as advancements on the past generation’s moldy old offerings. This happens over and over again, with each generation setting out their new found truths as - the “awakening of a new ageâ€.
Of course, all that really happens is: the new generation gets hold of what’s old, shakes it up a bit, turns it inside out, and then repackages it as “something more meaningfulâ€.
I must add though, most of the 'repackaging' done now-a-days shows just how dumbed down the process has become. Vague sentiments such as the one you’re fostering Bert, “find out your own desires and beliefs,for you are the only one who knows the pathâ€, sounds very New Age.
Like most people, you desire a belief system that works for you. That’s fine - as long as you don’t confuse your emotional longing with the cold hard battle to break free from all false beliefs and vague desires. That’s the “path†that interests me. It’s also a path that, though hardly used, other adventurous souls have traveled down before, making it a little easier for those few strong hearts, intending to travel it today.
Kierkegaard was one of those adventurous souls who strove to make clear the path. He lived in a time, when all around him believed themselves to be Christians; patting each other on the back for their lucky inheritance. Yet Kierkegaard wrote, to become a Christian, one had to endure the greatest of sufferings and carry the heaviest of burdens; and that was just the first step. Something, the good people around him found laughable.
* * *
Can the emotions be trusted?through the unison of the senses gives by personal sentiment an appreciation.This appreciation has to be taken through emotional channeling to find associations that expresses nuances and abstracts that can not be defined in thought.
Sue
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
sue hindmarsh wrote:
Did it fail because men left their homes to fight the war in the care of women whom they had so long controlled? Where's the masculine foresight and insight in that?
Having decided that women were weak, immoral and manipulative they yet chose to go fight a war and leave their male children -- the entire future -- in the care of such creatures?
Doesn't sound very masculine to me.
I think that's a fair conclusion to reach. However, what is not being fully considered here is the fact that that 40s masculinity "failed" nonetheless.So what happened in the sixties? I think the hippy revolution occurred because men, whose lives were heavily burdened by their experiences during the many years of war and change, were too tired to hold on any longer, and just let go. And their letting go, caused Victorian ethics, which were still honoured in the fifties, to be quickly replaced by the philosophy of personal happiness. Once that happened, those men just didn’t have the spirit to turn things round again.
Did it fail because men left their homes to fight the war in the care of women whom they had so long controlled? Where's the masculine foresight and insight in that?
Having decided that women were weak, immoral and manipulative they yet chose to go fight a war and leave their male children -- the entire future -- in the care of such creatures?
Doesn't sound very masculine to me.