GENIUS FORUMS

Cory, previously you wrote:

What he means, IMO, is that, well first, 'God' is the totality and being the totality it is beyond good and evil. The reason God (the totality) is beyond good and evil is because good and evil are 'things' and the totality is not a thing. The totality is wise because it doesnt know things, because it has no counterparts to contrast itself with, or anything with. God, not being subject to things, cannot by virtue have any knowledge.

God, the totality, wisdom, is unknowing.

A human being can know this, and by knowing this he knows nothing.

More recently you wrote:

What is this 'it' that is wise? Who is this 'someone' that is wise?

Exactly. You will re-note this comment as part of a whole idea (rather than several separate, disconnected ideas) proceeding from the original statement on the subject of God:

If God is not a thing and therefore cannot be either good or evil, that it cannot be wise. Likewise, it cannot be knowing or unknowing. To know that the Totality is not a thing, one must know what a thing is. So, one makes such a distinction only to abandon half of it in the name of wisdom?

If God is not subject to things, then he cannot speak for he cannot be asked a question. Who was it, then, that said there was no other wiser than Socrates?

It was either wisdom or stupidity--what reason would any other form have?

They are both a part of “God,” “God’s” selflessness notwithstanding.

As I understand it, wisdom is beyond the reality of things, [snip]

Not to the wise. To the wise, it is the most valuable manifestation of the infinite whilst it is egotistically valued. Later, it is merely and precisely who they are. That is, it grows from degrees of uncertainty ever closer to complete certainty.

…it is beyond good and evil.

If by beyond you mean greater than, I concur, since wisdom is necessarily a sublime understanding of both good and evil and, in the same way, either beyond or not beyond “the reality of things.”

L: Likewise, it cannot be knowing or unknowing. To know that the Totality is not a thing, one must know what a thing is.

C: But by realizing you can't know what a thing is, you realize the nature of the totality. The infinite is seen in the finite. I know these things as they should be known, and by knowing things in this way, I am wisely unknowing. Most people know things in the way they shouldnt be known, and by knowing this way, they are fools unknowingly.

1. There is a mountain. 2. There is no mountain. 3. There is indeed a mountain.

There is indeed a vast difference between the mountain in 1 and the mountain in 3. Yet it is very clear to me that the idea that the mountain does not exist belongs categorically in 2 and, on that basis, I say you are probably at the tail end of 2 in your understanding of this.

By realising the finite nature of things, you realise the infinite. The mountain is still a thing which is a mountain; it is not and cannot be anything else. It does not disappear with your “unknowing” of it. What disappears is the unconscious separation of it from other things or unification of it with other things.

The only reason to call this “unknowing the thing” is in the context of a belief that the thing is in fact other than it appears. But, if it is the case that a thing is other than it appears, how can there possibly be 3--how can it possibly be known that there is indeed a mountain?

For contemplation:

1. There is a self. 2. There is no self. 3. There is indeed a self.

What do you think of this?

GOOD, EVIL & WISDOM

Therefore, the individual ends up really seeing the mountain (thing). This is exactly why Socrates can say, for example:

For this fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of knowing the unknown [fear of death, the thing, IS the appearance and this thing IS “the pretence of wisdom”]; since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is there not here conceit of knowledge, which is a disgraceful sort of ignorance?

And this is the point in which, as I think, I am superior to men in general, and in which I might perhaps fancy myself wiser than other men, - that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know: but I do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil and dishonorable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil.

Is he arguing, then, for his own life or for his own death? Is he arguing for things he did not know, or for things he did; and, in this, was he wise, good or evil in your estimation?

C: I would like to explore the relationship thought has to perception.

Yes, and I would definitely like to further explore it (and Socrates’ abundantly stimulating The Apology which, I must confess, I read for the first time) with you. I shall get back to it as soon as I can.

.

Leyla: Cory, previously you wrote:

Cory: What he means, IMO, is that, well first, 'God' is the totality and being the totality it is beyond good and evil. The reason God (the totality) is beyond good and evil is because good and evil are 'things' and the totality is not a thing. The totality is wise because it doesn’t know things, because it has no counterparts to contrast itself with, or anything with. God, not being subject to things, cannot by virtue have any knowledge.

God, the totality, wisdom, is unknowing.

A human being can know this, and by knowing this he knows nothing.

Leyla: More recently you wrote:

Cory: What is this 'it' that is wise? Who is this 'someone' that is wise?

Leyla: Exactly. You will re-note this comment as part of a whole idea (rather than several separate, disconnected ideas) proceeding from the original statement on the subject of God:

Leyla: If God is not a thing and therefore cannot be either good or evil, that it cannot be wise. Likewise, it cannot be knowing or unknowing. To know that the Totality is not a thing, one must know what a thing is. So, one makes such a distinction only to abandon half of it in the name of wisdom?

I think it’s like Chang tzu said: The fish trap exists (the thing, the word, the definition, logic) because of the fish(truth); once you have caught the fish, you can forget the trap. Words exist because of meaning; once you have grasped the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?"

We use logic (make distinctions, definitions, use words) to find truth, and if we use logic properly, everything is destroyed, including logic.

leyla wrote: If God is not subject to things, then he cannot speak for he cannot be asked a question. Who was it, then, that said there was no other wiser than Socrates?

It was either wisdom or stupidity--what reason would any other form have?

Who was it, that told Socrates there was no other wiser than Socrates? Honestly, I was under the impression that it was a woman, who was regarded as an oracle.

Leyla wrote: They (wisdom and stupidity) are both a part of “God,” “God’s” selflessness notwithstanding.

Ok, so your definitions, your notions of stupidity and wisdom seem real to you in some way, but you can’t totally know stupidity, or wisdom, they are inherently unknowable. Likewise you can’t totally know what you are. Stupid people are those who know. Wise people are those who know that they don't know, and proceed to make careful empirical judgements based on appearance only.

Is wisdom some ‘thing’ or manifestation to pursue? Perhaps, being wise is simply being beyond something and nothing, good and evil, knowing and unknowing, pleasure and pain.

Pursing after a thing that isn’t a knowable thing, will send you going round and round in circles.

Cory: As I understand it, wisdom is beyond the reality of things, [snip]

Leyla: Not to the wise. To the wise, it is the most valuable manifestation of the infinite whilst it is egotistically valued.

Wisdom as a ‘valuable manifestation’ that is egotistically valued?……..is it really wisdom you have in your sights on then?

Shouldn’t we make a distinction between the manifestation and the actuality? The actuality being the totality. How can you pursue that? How can that manifest?

Leyla wrote: Later, it is merely and precisely who they are. That is, it grows from degrees of uncertainty ever closer to complete certainty.

The totality is realized as what one is, and one is realized to be unknowable. (The fool does not realize this of course)

After this great destruction(realization), the task of making empirical judgments continue. The practical decisions comprising our living in regards to survival are a guess, an act of faith - - but being wise, we are absolutely certain that they are a guess, and with great acuity we appreciate them to the fullest extent a guess can be appreciated. The eye dilates to its maximum capacity in the maximum absence of light. Fools, living bright and weary lives, haphazardly and sloppily eat their way through life, blinded and constricted by the illusion of things.

Leyla: 1. There is a mountain. 2. There is no mountain. 3. There is indeed a mountain.

There is indeed a vast difference between the mountain in 1 and the mountain in 3. Yet it is very clear to me that the idea that the mountain does not exist belongs categorically in 2 and, on that basis, I say you are probably at the tail end of 2 in your understanding of this.

I see there is a mountain, but I see it is unknowable. My mere definition and notion of it, is merely that. It is based entirely on limited empirical observation.

leyla wrote:
For contemplation:

1. There is a self. 2. There is no self. 3. There is indeed a self.

What do you think of this?

I see there is a self, but only in a utilitarian, pragmatic sense.

If I see the self as the totality, well then it is regarded as unknowable.

Our thoughts/definitions & notions about the totality and self are pointers, and that which is pointed to is unknowable.

leyla wrote:
Therefore, the individual ends up really seeing the mountain (thing).

You are only seeing your thoughts about it. As for what your raw perception alone sees, it merely sees, and there is no knowledge in that. And when you bring thought into the picture – well, however extraordinary your thoughts are in their subtlety, you are not totally knowing the mountain. Since the mountain is inherently non-existent, it follows then, that it is inherently unknowable.

There is the appearance of distinction. No need to go any further than that! You can’t know any more than that. Although I do of course encourage empirical science to refine itself to the absolute limit.

Leyla wrote:
This is exactly why Socrates can say, for example:

For this fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of knowing the unknown [fear of death, the thing, IS the appearance and this thing IS “the pretence of wisdom”]; since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is there not here conceit of knowledge, which is a disgraceful sort of ignorance?

And this is the point in which, as I think, I am superior to men in general, and in which I might perhaps fancy myself wiser than other men, - that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know: but I do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil and dishonorable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil.


Is he arguing, then, for his own life or for his own death?

It appears to me, that both life and death are an undivided whole and part of the unknowable totality. I can’t speak for Socrates.

Leyla wrote: Is he arguing for things he did not know, or for things he did; and, in this, was he wise, good or evil in your estimation?

I suppose that he knew that what people thought they knew, was unknowable. He knew about what was unknowable.

Whereas the fools merely knew.

It’s the difference between looking at the horizon and knowing that it is the edge of the flat world, compared to knowing that the horizon continues in some way beyond ones knowledge.

It’s the difference between knowing that after death you go to heaven, or knowing that death is bad, compared to knowing that you don’t know anything besides the neutral empirical judgments that are needed to function in the everyday world.

Cory wrote:

I think it’s like Chang tzu said: The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you have caught the fish, you can forget the trap. Words exist because of meaning; once you have grasped the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?"

I think you repeat this without proper comprehension, Cory. You yourself have not forgotten words, clinging to yours so adamantly. Therefore, I must strike your misguiding comments in brackets from the record.

We use words like a fish trap to grasp meaning (the fish). Once that meaning is caught, we can forget (set aside) the words.

Can you forget these words so I can have a word with you?

(Now, that's wisdom.)

We use logic (make distinctions, definitions, use words) to find truth, and if we use logic properly, everything is destroyed, including logic.

Clearly, this is untrue--even for you.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Cory wrote:

I think it’s like Chang tzu said: The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you have caught the fish, you can forget the trap. Words exist because of meaning; once you have grasped the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?"

I think you repeat this without proper comprehension, Cory. You yourself have not forgotten words, clinging to yours so adamantly. Therefore, I must strike your misguiding comments in brackets from the record.

We use words like a fish trap to grasp meaning (the fish). Once that meaning is caught, we can forget (set aside) the words.

The fish is just a concept, a definition in your mind. If you put away the words, then you don't know anything about what you are looking at. What is it exactly that you think you know about the fish when you put the words away? Thought is staggeringly limited in regards to knowing phenomena. Phenomena cannot be known in anyother way besides decription with words. You put the words away, then you know nothing. Which is the whole point!

Words, comprising definitions are knowledge. If you put those away, then what is the meaning?

The meaning of particular phenomena is invariably incomplete and illusionary. That's all I'm saying. You can't know things. A thing is a empirical judgement used for practical, utilitarian purposes.

Cory: We use logic (make distinctions, definitions, use words) to find truth, and if we use logic properly, everything is destroyed, including logic.

Leyla: Clearly, this is untrue--even for you.

You think it's logical that there is a totality? You're funny.

Logic is like a fire. Humans generally reserve logic for a particular area of living, usually having to do with serving career objectives, family, prestige, tribalism, marriage, conventions, etc. Hardly ever do humans allow logic to be of service to a drive to end suffering and delusion. If that were to happen, logic would begin to consume and destroy the most cherished values of soceity, and eventually, when every trace of delusion has been consumed, finally, logic can then turn on itself, as ultimately, even cause and effect are revealed as fictions. There is only the uncaused totality that is seen as truth. And the uncaused totality is beyond logic, beyond knowing.

Cory:

The meaning of particular phenomena is invariably incomplete and illusionary. That's all I'm saying.

No, the meaning of phenomena is invariably relative to its causes. That is the only way in which things CAN be known.

A thing is a empirical judgement used for practical, utilitarian purposes.

But, Cory, you have just defined what a thing IS after saying a thing cannot be known.

An apple exists in the same way as your conclusions about it do---by grossly formed or refined definition and identification/distinction. In what way is the idea of an objective existence of things outside of (separate from) you not illusory--and therefore wise based on your argument--compared to a (logically and empirically based ) conception of them? How, Cory, are these two things/existences (illusory and real) separate (how, that is, do they each inherently exist---in yet other words, how can you know they exist independently of eachother) with one knowable in some sense and the other unknowable?

Cory: We use logic (make distinctions, definitions, use words) to find truth, and if we use logic properly, everything is destroyed, including logic.

Leyla: Clearly, this is untrue--even for you.

Cory: You think it's logical that there is a totality?

No, we’ve all just pulled it out of our arses without using our minds and logic. There is no "real" meaning to anything!

Do you mean I should think it’s illogical that there IS a totality? In fact, do you mean anything at all??

Really, I have no idea what you are talking about here, which is not surprising since you are someone who holds that things can’t be known! Is your goal to utterly eliminate logic and reasoning in yourself and others?

What will you do once you have destroyed logic, Cory; fall in love, die---live in harmony with the mysterious, unknowable and unfathomable earth? Is this really your definition of wisdom and representative of the wisdom you have gleaned from those you consider wise?

You are an ascetic, who desperately fights ego. That’s all. That is the extent of this “wisdom” in you. Nothing special!

If that were to happen, logic would begin to consume and destroy the most cherished values of soceity, and eventually, when every trace of delusion has been consumed, finally, logic can then turn on itself, as ultimately, even cause and effect are revealed as fictions. There is only the uncaused totality that is seen as truth. And the uncaused totality is beyond logic, beyond knowing.

This is rubbish! What meaning does an uncaused totality, let alone truth and wisdom, have without causal finitude, Cory? With this theory, there can be absolutely nothing---ALL things utterly “destroyed,” as you said.

There already is only the uncaused totality! Course, you obviously don't know what that means because you are still tripping over its bits and pieces...

.

Cory: The meaning of particular phenomena is invariably incomplete and illusionary. That's all I'm saying.

Leyla: No, the meaning of phenomena is invariably relative to its causes. That is the only way in which things CAN be known.

And you can’t know all its causes! Therefore it can’t be known. It’s just an empirical guess.

Leyla wrote: But, Cory, you have just defined what a thing IS after saying a thing cannot be known.

My definition leads to an implication, the implication being, our notions of phenomena, are mere notions, empirical guesses, not to be clung to as absolute truths.

Leyla wrote: An apple exists in the same way as your conclusions about it do---by grossly formed or refined definition and identification/distinction.

An apple doesn’t exist, there is just the sense that it exists which is created by our notions/perceptions about it. There is the grossly formed or refined definitions and identification/distinction and then there is the unknowable actuality of the part of the totality we are looking at, of which merely appears to be an apple. The truth is that the observer is the observed, and is ultimately unknowable as a thing, because the notion of knowable things is an illusion.

leyla wrote: In what way is the idea of an objective existence of things outside of (separate from) you not illusory---and therefore wise based on your argument---compared to a logically and empirically based conception of things?

I never meant for my argument to imply that I believed in an objective existence of things outside of the observer. You are misinterpreting, perhaps due to unsatisfactory writing skills on my part, or perhaps it’s due to your attachments and skewed perception.

A logically and empirically based conception of things, as far as I can tell, is synonymous with the idea of an objective existence of things. Being the truth isn’t empirically based, but rather it is simply being clear about what one has no choice to be – unknowable as a thing, and infinite.

leyla wrote: How, Cory, are these two things/existences (illusory and real) separate (how, that is, do they each inherently exist---in yet other words, how can you know they exist independently of eachother) with one knowable in some sense and the other unknowable?

I hope you don’t think my argument was implying the ridiculousness of that.

Cory: You think it's logical that there is a totality?

Leyla: No, we’ve all just pulled it out of our arses without using our minds and logic. There is no "real" meaning to anything!

It’s perfectly correct to use logic to 'acknowledge' the totality, but the sheer fact of their being a totality is beyond logic and illogic.

leyla wrote: Do you mean I should think it’s illogical that there IS a totality? In fact, do you mean anything at all??

The totality isn’t logical, because it’s not a thing. Logic only deals with things, with cause and effect. The totality is beyond logic and illogic.

leyla wrote: Really, I have no idea what you are talking about here, which is not surprising since you are someone who holds that things can’t be known!

Is your goal to utterly eliminate logic and reasoning in yourself and others?

My goal is to utterly eliminate attachment, delusion. Logic is essential for this. But in the final act, even logic must go. However, if logic is abandoned prematurely, attachment remains.

Leyla wrote: What will you do once you have destroyed logic, Cory; fall in love, die

Sorry, what center is there to fall in love, die?

leyla wrote: What meaning does an uncaused totality, let alone truth and wisdom, have without causal finitude, Cory?

The appearance of causal finitude, is just that, an appearance created by the sensation of mind.

Leyla, cloudy boisterous Nymphet!

Why don't you give some thought to the following quotes by one of the greatest hero's of the age, David Quinn?

These quotes were taken from the thread on Common assent; 'fashionlogers'.

I get the impression Cory has been reading the same thread, or else its an awefully eery coincidence that Quinn and Cory are saying similar things.

David Quinn wrote: We can't really know what this "existence stuff" is because whatever can be perceived or experienced will only be a manifestation of this existence stuff and not the existence stuff itself.

David Quinn wrote: the aim is not to reach a contrived Truth which sits at the pinnacle of a structure of reasoning resting on a platform of definitions.

David Quinn wrote: Calling it "Truth", as opposed to "truth", helps to distinguish this living, breathing attainment of the highest wisdom from the sterile, lifeless conclusions of intellectual reasoning.

Questioner: If you are saying logic leads to the end of logic, I find that highly ironic coming from you. If you are seeking the end of logic, why place so much value on it? If your end is simply to abandon it, then why not do that straight away?

David Quinn: One can only do it at the end, after everything else has been dismantled. If you reject logic prematurely, then large swathes of the ego will remain hidden and untouched.

Cory is clearly an earnest student of David Quinn, whether Quinn likes it or not.

Oh, we're all so eager to be somebody, arent we Cory?

That's ok Cory. I still consider you noble enough to be above the pit of ignobility. But it doesnt take much to slip down.

Aaron's standards are quite austere. Let that be a warning to all of you.

What do you think of all this Leyla? Wouldnt it be ironic if you were the wisest of all these goons.

Cory‘s logic of things:

x, y and p squared precede/cause z, therefore A = z.

Since we cannot know x, y and p squared, we cannot know z, let alone A. Therefore, A = not-A is true and A = A is false.

.

David Quinn wrote:

One can only do it at the end, after everything else has been dismantled. If you reject logic prematurely, then large swathes of the ego will remain hidden and untouched.

This is true only if logic is defined as follows (bolded):

Calling it "Truth", as opposed to "truth", helps to distinguish this living, breathing attainment of the highest wisdom from the sterile, lifeless conclusions of intellectual reasoning.

Paraphrased (K Solway):

"To women I say, 'cause and effect most definitely exist.' To men I say, 'cause and effect do not exist.'"

And it was Cory himself that brought this quote to my attention some time ago. Go figure...

.

PS: David Quinn, is there a mountain?

.

Leyla wrote: Cory‘s logic of things:
x, y and p squared precede/cause z, therefore A = z.

Since we cannot know x, y and p squared, we cannot know z, let alone A.
Therefore, A = not-A is true and A = A is false.

If I am indeed violating A=A, well then please sample from my actual quotes in order to prove your point. Otherwise, the lunacy of the representation you've made of me above is not in the least bit convincing or helpful. It reflects only your own confused interpretation.

Leyla wrote: PS: David Quinn, is there a mountain?

While we're waiting like damsels in distress for our hero Quinn, I'll put it to you one more time:

It is perfectly correct to assert the appearance of a mountain. The problem you are perhaps having is understanding the fact that you cannot totally know any particular thing, including the mountain. The fact is, is that you, me, and most people all agree that the distinct appearance of there being a mountain, deserves its distinct name, definition, and varying description depending on the mountain, as they do appear to vary. But the name, the definition, the description, or the non-verbal thought, no matter how subtle and vast, cannot totally know the mountain, or any particular thing. Since a particular thing is inherently non-existant, then it follows then that it is inherently unknowable.

Relatively it is knowable, but again, relative, empirical knowledge is for utilitarian purposes and is not to be taken as an ultimate explanation.

Relatively, the horizon from my perspective is described as being west, marked by a setting sun.

From the other fellows perspective on the other side, he is looking at the same horizon, yet he describes it as being east, marked by a rising sun.

The absolute truth is that it is neither west, nor east, and the sun is neither setting or rising.

Quinn said it well when he said:

We can't really know what this "existence stuff" is because whatever can be perceived or experienced will only be a manifestation of this existence stuff and not the existence stuff itself.

[edited for spelling]

Once upon a time there was a fair maiden named Cory stuck in a tower atop a mountain in the middle of a barren place somewhere called Absolutely Nowhere. Cory’s golden hair glistened in the sunlight beating upon The Tower of Absolutely Nowhere for no-one to absolutely see as he contemplated the lack of meaning in meaning, and the lack of mountain in mountain.

Just then, a stinky knight on a lazy steed meandered up to the foot of the mountain.

“Oi! What you doin’ up there?”
“Nothing. Why are you talking to me?”
“Well, because you’re up there.”
“I’m not really up here, it just looks that way because you want to rescue me, or something.
“I do?”
“Yes. You‘re being sucked into an appearance, which has nothing to do with the true existence of things. You cannot know the true existence of things.”
“But, that being an appearance, isn’t that a mirage?”
“No, because things don’t really exist, a mirage is when you see things that aren’t there, not when you see appearances that are. Man, how did you get to be so stupid?”
Tentatively, “Right.” Momentary silence.
“Well, I don’t see a difference. What do you think the difference is between seeing things that aren‘t there and seeing appearances of things that don‘t exist?”
“The difference is seeing things that appear to be there is an absolutely true empirical and logical truth, whilst seeing things that aren’t there is purely a product of the imagination. My goal is to utterly eliminate attachment, delusion. Logic is essential for this. But in the final act, even logic must go. However, if logic is abandoned prematurely, attachment remains.”
“Well, of course. If you abandon logic when you are in fact illogical. It would be like refusing the existence of mountains because one is afraid to die from falling off one rather than understanding existence. There used to be a guy around here who said something on the order of ‘reality is allogical.’ Man, did he used to get an intellectual brow-beating! You sound like him. I don‘t see why you should think yourself so enlightened, especially since you can only ever appear (*poof*, like a magician) to agree with the high priest Quinn. Now, do you want to get off that mountain or not?”
“No. This mountain is a useful mountain. I use it to remind myself that it does not really exist because it is located right here, which is Absolutely Nowhere.”

.

LOL (ok, funny)

but you are just an angsty little princess who is upset by the actions of the parent who knows what's best for the wanton adolencent.

You'll understand when your older. You'll look back wishing you werent so mean to the ones who were doing the darndest to set you straight, that mean grown up Cory who wacked you on the bottom with the wooden spoon of truth! He's not so bad.

But to get back on course:

Your problem seems to be that you can't accept that things only have subjective existence in your mind as concepts, and that objectively, things can't be totally known.

Leyla,

Some ointment and syrup for our wounds and sickness.

It stings, and it goes down bitter.....

Kierkegaard wrote: It is a proud thing to dive into danger, and it is a proud thing to battle with untold horrors, but it is also wretched to have an abundance of intentions and a poverty of action, to be rich in truths and poor in virtues.

I myself am becoming rather rich in truths I think. But my character, my will, that is what is most in need!

Kierkegaard wrote: Faith’s conflict with the world is not a battle of thought with doubt, thought with thought. It is a battle of character. The person of faith is a person of character who does not insist upon comprehending everything. Now comes the conflict. The world insists that to believe what you cannot comprehend is not only blind obedience but obscurantism, stupidity, and so on. The world wants to alarm the believer against such foolishness. This is precisely why faith is a task for the person of character.

The above once seemed foolish and old fashioned to me, but as I grow richer in truth and as I grow in need of character, I see more deeply into it.

Cory, :)

Some ointment and syrup for our wounds and sickness.

[Unsheathes her sword, again]

It stings, and it goes down bitter.....

You reckon? Let’s see…

Kierkegaard:

It is a proud thing to dive into danger, and it is a proud thing to battle with untold horrors, but it is also wretched to have an abundance of intentions and a poverty of action, to be rich in truths and poor in virtues.

Faith’s conflict with the world is not a battle of thought with doubt, thought with thought. It is a battle of character. The person of faith [“man of God”] is a person of character who does not insist upon comprehending everything [like a scientific materialist?]. Now comes the conflict [and the true test of character:]. The world insists that to believe what you cannot comprehend [knowing the Totality without the ability to explicate the details of all its parts--past, present and future--on an absolute timeline; “omniscience”--or, the Christian God?] is not only blind obedience but obscurantism, stupidity, and so on. The world wants to alarm the believer against such foolishness. This is precisely why faith is a task for the person of character.

Cory:

The above once seemed foolish and old fashioned to me, but as I grow richer in truth and as I grow in need of character, I see more deeply into it.

These quotes remind me of Hamlet’s final soliloquy:

How all occasions do inform against me [testify/accuse],
And spur my dull revenge! What is a man,
If his chief good and market [job] of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more.
Sure, he [God] that made us with such large discourse
Looking before and after [capacity for logic & reason] gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust [go mouldy] in us unused. Now, whether it be
Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple
Of [from] thinking too precisely on the event [outcome],
A thought which, quarter‘d [carefully, painstakingly analysed], hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward, I do not know
Why yet I live to say 'This thing's to do;'
Sith [since] I have cause and will and strength and means
To do't.

C: I myself am becoming rather rich in truths I think. But my character, my will, that is what is most in need!

To do what, exactly, Cory--abandon scientific materialism for a belief in God?

When K says "to be a Christian is to be Christ-like," what do you suppose he means?

[Edit: italicised complete thought].

Cory: I myself am becoming rather rich in truths I think. But my character, my will, that is what is most in need.

Leyla: To do what, exactly, Cory--abandon scientific materialism for a belief in God?

What part of "I think empirical science should be pushed to the absolute limit" don't you understand?

Appearances should be mapped out in order to establish function relationships between appearances. We have done this and we should of course continue.

Leyla wrote: When K says "to be a Christian is to be Christ-like," what do you suppose he means?

Well, what do you suppose Quinn means when he says:

Calling it "Truth", as opposed to "truth", helps to distinguish this living, breathing attainment of the highest wisdom from the sterile, lifeless conclusions of intellectual reasoning.

The bitch wrote:

What part of "I think empirical science should be pushed to the absolute limit" don't you understand?

Wow. Once again, I am humbled by your masculinity, it seems…

Appearances should be mapped out in order to establish function relationships between appearances. We have done this and we should of course continue.

I'll take that as a no.

What part of “no form is an absolute form is the same as all things lack inherent existence (emptiness)” do you not understand?

L: When K says "to be a Christian is to be Christ-like," what do you suppose he means?

C: Well, what do you suppose Quinn means when he says:

DQ: Calling it "Truth", as opposed to "truth", helps to distinguish this living, breathing attainment of the highest wisdom from the sterile, lifeless conclusions of intellectual reasoning.

Why don’t you just answer the question, Cory?

If David is saying that things have an absolute form then that is a lie. Is this an example of Truth you think he alludes to?

.

Leyla wrote: Leyla: Saying no form is an absolute form is the same thing as saying; all things lack inherent existence (emptiness)

I don't think there is anything I said that goes against that. That sounds perfectly fine.

Leyla wrote: If David is saying that things have an absolute form then that is a lie. Is this an example of Truth you think he alludes to?

Is this an example of truth that you think I allude to? I don't know why you would think that.

And I certainly don't think David thinks that.

quote wrote: L: When K says "to be a Christian is to be Christ-like," what do you suppose he means?

I'm guessing that to be Christ-like in a Kierkegaardian sense is to, through great suffering and struggle, have one's will transformed, to become an alien, to have an intellect cleaned of delusion, to be pure.

Here's some quotes to help you and I be one:

Kierkegaard wrote:
Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom, which emerges when the spirit wants to posit the synthesis and freedom looks down into the possibility, laying hold of finiteness(form, knowing) to support itself. Freedom succombs (to knowledge) in this dizziness. Further than this, psychology cannot and will not go. In that very moment everything is changed, and freedom, when it again rises, sees that it is guilty. Between these two moments lies the leap, which no science has explained and which no science will explain.

Nietzche wrote:
how much "fixed opinion"(falsehood) a person requires to flourish - how much knowledge he requires which he does not wish to have shaken, because he holds himself thereby - is a measure of his power (or more plainly speaking, of his weakness). There is the impatient longing for certainty which at present discharges itself in scientific, positivistic fashion among large numbers of people, the longing by all means to get at something stable. However, even this is still the longing for a hold, a support. In short, the instinct of weakness, preserves itself.

So Leyla, I hope you agree. Humans generally are attatched to knowing just as much as they are attatched to not knowing.

It's cowardice vs. cowardice.

Cory:

L: “No form is an absolute form is the same as all things lack inherent existence (emptiness).”***

C: I don't think there is anything I said that goes against that. That sounds perfectly fine.

How about this:

C: The meaning of particular phenomena is invariably incomplete and illusionary. That's all I'm saying.

Well, Cory, you are saying much more, even if you don’t realise it:

C: An apple doesn’t exist, there is just the sense that it exists which is created by our notions/perceptions about it. There is the grossly formed or refined definitions and identification/distinction and then there is ***the unknowable actuality of the part* of the totality we are looking at, of which merely appears to be an apple. The truth is that the observer is the observed, and is ultimately unknowable as a thing**, because the notion of knowable things is an illusion.

That is: a thing (phenomenon) has an absolute existence (noumenon/an existence not dependent upon the observer) which cannot be known since both the apple and the observer are an illusory form of an actual form of the Totality.

*All parts of the Totality are an appearance (form) by definition--that is, there is no part of the totality that cannot be a thing.

**A thing, by definition, is that which appears. For instance, even a henid is a thing despite the fact that its contents are undistinguished.

More later.

[Edit for truth and clarity.]

.

Leyla,

Leyla wrote: All parts of the Totality are an appearance (form) by definition

To us, from our limited perspective, forms appear to be as they are defined by us. The truth is that they are ultimately unknowable manifestations that we can only have a relationship to via empirically, via estimation. This implies that our relationship to form is based on uncertainty, a guess.

We don't know what we are looking at, or what we speculate about, as it actually is, we only know the definitions we have which are based on how our looking appears to us. By looking, focusing, (even smelling, tasting and feeling) we divide and draw boundaries upon that which, in an absolute sense, is indivisible and formless.

It's our mere definitions and mere perceptions we have which creates the reality of their being things, and it is only our definitions that we know, and not the unknowable actuality itself.

Leyla wrote: that is, there is no part of the totality that cannot be a thing.

To be an observer is to be entramelled in illusion. Which is fine, just as long as you know that you are.

Cory, you have said:

1. I never meant for my argument to imply that I believed in an objective existence of things outside of the observer. You are misinterpreting, [snip]

2. We don't know what we are looking at, or what we speculate about, as it actually is, [snip]*

What is the difference between:

1. Things have an ultimate (absolute) and unknowable form which cannot be known by any observer since an observer is also a thing which cannot be known and therefore must be a part of some ultimate form that cannot be known; and,

2. All things objectively exist, illusory subjectivity notwithstanding; and, the very “po-mo”

3. Everything is uncertain/nothing can be known/there is no absolute truth, even the one--“nothing can be known”--I, Cory, am stating as absolutely true because it‘s subjective and therefore illusory.

?

*It's our mere definitions and mere perceptions we have which creates the reality of their being things, and (??!!:) it is only our definitions that we know, and not the unknowable actuality itself.

What!? But I thought you said just before that "and" that it's our definitions and mere perceptions which create the reality of there being things. How does it follow, then, that there is an unknowable actuality (that is, a bloody objective reality outside of the observer!)? That is a flat out contradiction and I'm surprised that you can repeat it so many times without conscience!

C: To be an observer is to be entramelled in illusion. Which is fine, just as long as you know that you are.

What is delusion?

.

Leyla wrote:
Cory, you have said:

1. I never meant for my argument to imply that I believed in an objective existence of things outside of the observer. You are misinterpreting, [snip]

2. We don't know what we are looking at, or what we speculate about, as it actually is, [snip]*

What is the difference between:

1. Things have an ultimate (absolute) and unknowable for which cannot be known by any observer since an observer is also a thing which cannot be known and therefore must be a part of some ultimate form that cannot be known; and,

2. All things objectively exist, illusory subjectivity notwithstanding; and, the very “po-mo”

3. Everything is uncertain/nothing can be known/there is no absolute truth, even the one--“nothing can be known”--I, Cory, am stating as absolutely true because it‘s subjective and therefore illusory.

The problem with #1 is that you are postulating some ultimate form, when really there is no such thing.

All things certainly do not 'objectively' exist.

To say that everything is uncertain and that all manifestations are inherently unknowable is an absolute truth. Objectivity undermines and destroys. Subjectivity creates (apparently better when objectivity is intense).

Subjectivity is used positively for utilitarian, survial purposes, and to seduce humans into samsara(illusion) or liberation(formlessness). I Know this. I know(am aware of) what I can and can't know. As I've been saying all along, I cannot Know things totaly, I can only know mere appearances and the definitions I make up based on trial and error, practicality.

And I can know the absolute truths which are the foundation for me to build my subjective interpretation of the world more safely (yet, this is dangerous).

Cory: It's our mere definitions and mere perceptions we have which creates the reality of their being things, and (??!!:) it is only our definitions that we know, and not the unknowable actuality itself.

Leyla: What!? But I thought you said just before that "and" that it's our definitions and mere perceptions which create the reality of there being things.

I define objective as that which pertains to something that has existence outside of the mind. If we are to define something to be objective, then the definition demands an observer. The totality is neither subjective or objective, it exists to the observer only as an analytical truth, not as an actuality. When the observer is present, the actuality of the totality is not.

Thus - the totality is not objective, nor subjective, for it can only be when the observer is not.

leyla wrote: How does it follow, then, that there is a bloody objective reality outside of the observer?

There is not.

C: To be an observer is to be entramelled in illusion. Which is fine, just as long as you know that you are.

L: What is delusion?

A false belief/opinion, which appears to almost always be stubbornly adhered too.

Cory:

I define objective as that which pertains to something that has existence outside of the mind. If we are to define something to be objective, then the definition demands an observer. The totality is neither subjective or objective, it exists to the observer only as an analytical truth, not as an actuality. When the observer is present, the actuality of the totality is not.

Simply stated, the belief that the Totality appears only as a part of the Totality is ridiculous.

Again, you reinforce what you claim to be rejecting. Mind is the total of appearances, things, conclusions, memories, etc. that comprise an individual All these things you speak of necessarily occur in the mind, including the observer, who changes from moment to moment and is, therefore, impermanent. So, when you say “when the observer is present, the actuality of the Totality is not” you are saying that the Totality exists outside of mind and (in all its glorious “actuality”), therefore, is in fact the only thing with “actual” objective existence, which you consider to be actual as opposed to illusory.

Such a belief is clearly present in statements such as the above and numerous others, for e.g. this:

C: We don't know what we are looking at, or what we speculate about, as it actually is, we only know the definitions we have which are based on how our looking appears to us.

That‘s right, all things are caused--whether you agree or not, are logical or illogical, call an apple an apple, see a stick as a snake, etc. all things are dependent upon their causes (boundaries/limits). A thing is NOT the Totality or what you seem to be calling “the thing as it actually is.” There is no thing-as-it-actually-is as that would necessarily be a thing that has existence outside of the mind (comprising subjective, objective, absolute and relative) and, therefore, requires an observer.

By looking, focusing, (even smelling, tasting and feeling) we divide and draw boundaries upon that which, in an absolute sense, is indivisible and formless.

When you are looking at a thing, you are looking at an impermanent (caused) manifestation of the Totality--the Totality cannot be grasped (captured as any particular form) as it is not a thing/form--rather, it is infinite causality, and all the things contained therein.

The problem with #1 is that you are postulating some ultimate form, when really there is no such thing.

No, the problem with number one is that is exactly what you continue to imply, whilst stubbornly denying it.

.

Leyla wrote: So, when you say “when the observer is present, the actuality of the Totality is not” you are saying that the Totality exists outside of mind and (in all its glorious “actuality”), therefore, is in fact the only thing with “actual” objective existence

If the totality had an objective existence, then I would be able to observe it, trace it. The existence of the totality is postulated only via analytical reasoning. When analytical reasoning is conducted properly, objectivity and subjectivity are understood as one. Whereas the analytical truths themselves affirm that which is beyond objectivity/subjective, or better; non-dual.

Cory:

If the totality had an objective existence, then I would be able to observe it, trace it.

Right. It would also be a finite thing, such as a snapshot of the Totality.

The existence (?) of the totality is postulated only via analytical reasoning.

You mean, the Totality is deduced via pure logic and cannot be falsified logically or empirically? Or, do you mean that the false view that the Totality exists is postulated by analytical reasoning which is, by virtue of your first statement, deluded since it can only have existence if it can be observed--traced?

When analytical reasoning is conducted properly, objectivity and subjectivity are understood as one. Whereas the analytical truths themselves affirm that which is beyond objectivity/subjective, or better; non-dual.

Your meaning is not quite clear to me here either. Are you saying that the existence of analytical truth (logic/reason) affirms the non-dual and falsifies the notion of independent (non-inherent) objectivity and subjectivity? If so, that seems pretty important. In what way could an enlightened individual ever abandon logic, then?

Do you think that parts (whether defined as divisions, impermanent or finite things) of the Totality, like a mountain, are non-dual and therefore uncaused?

How about a criminal (turn up the volume)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vl8bFjdVPE

.