GENIUS FORUMS

Alex Jacob wrote: seem quite right. Still, it is designed as ironical, let there be no mistake about it.

But let's cut to the chase: if you feel you want to engineer my exit from this forum for whatever reason, just do it. (But please just tell me that you want this to happen because if you deactivate me I won't be able to retrieve my posts!) All my terms of discourse are fair, similar to other's usage, no more 'outrageous' than your own (in relation to me and others), and are ones I stand by. I won't allow my terms of discourse, which are not really at all unreasonable, to be modified by coercive, if veiled, threats. The recent pack-behavior is typical of this environment, in my view. A strong, more 'masculine' choice is to deal with it, or to accept it. So, what I recommend of people is that they accept the terms you yourself have established:

It is an unconventional discussion forum suitable only for the brave hearted. It is for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous. That is to say, it is a forum intended solely for men...

(Sorry to keep repeating this...)
Alex runs this -course- well.

He stays.

Since I have high hopes for your writing, Alex, I thought you might enjoy Alan Moore.

Culture, Cult... what's the difference?

Alex Jacob wrote: But I already made the choice. My choice is not to accept any kind of limits to my speech.

I'm sorry, but there are limits. If you were to gate-crash a scientific convention and start accusing them all of being a cult, or exhibiting cult-like behaviour, how long do you think your behaviour would be tolerated?

I'm asking you, as a friend, to place limits on your own behaviour by treating everyone here as individuals and by treating the place overall, of which you are a guest, with a certain level of respect. Again, I don't believe this to be an unreasonable request.

The term is not cult-thing but 'cult-like thinking' thing. There IS a difference.

And what is that difference exactly?

Alex Jacob wrote:

Yes, it is my own individual philosophy and that is precisely how you should treat it. It has nothing to do with anyone else. If you object to my ideas, then address them directly and specifically with proper argument.

I have been doing just this, post after post, page after page.

I have looked through this thread and I haven't come across anything from you that isn't a generic accusation that could be levelled at anyone, including yourself.

If you beg to differ, then please furnish a specific example.

Tomas wrote:

Alex Jacob wrote: seem quite right. Still, it is designed as ironical, let there be no mistake about it.

But let's cut to the chase: if you feel you want to engineer my exit from this forum for whatever reason, just do it. (But please just tell me that you want this to happen because if you deactivate me I won't be able to retrieve my posts!) All my terms of discourse are fair, similar to other's usage, no more 'outrageous' than your own (in relation to me and others), and are ones I stand by. I won't allow my terms of discourse, which are not really at all unreasonable, to be modified by coercive, if veiled, threats. The recent pack-behavior is typical of this environment, in my view. A strong, more 'masculine' choice is to deal with it, or to accept it. So, what I recommend of people is that they accept the terms you yourself have established:

It is an unconventional discussion forum suitable only for the brave hearted. It is for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous. That is to say, it is a forum intended solely for men...

(Sorry to keep repeating this...)
Alex runs this -course- well.

No, he doesn't run it well at all. He is actually undermining this project by trying to make everything seem cult-like. It's a way to deflect attention and credibility from the individual ideas and values that are normally thrashed about here.

He has his object 'Quinnism' (cult).
The object is assigned characteristics, properties, functions.

He gives it inherent existence which means he believes it exists independently of his own meaning making prowess.

To sort it out properly he would have to make a grand gesture and admit he is 'barnstorming' a hypothetical.
That would be the first step.

I am happy with all that I write, by and large. Still, I have a solution. I think it is a good one for if you were to ban me I honestly think you'd regret it. Yes, yes, I know you regard me as a sort of lowly worm, etc. etc. but I think your conscience would eat at you. Dan obviously is a little grumpy in the morning so his reaction is understandable. Tomas as a paragon of 'good forum manners' flutters down like a spotless angel and here we are. ;-)

Let us agree that there is really no good reason to ban me (and there isn't) but with that I will, in strictly gentlemanly good form, voluntarily modify a few of my more devilish usages born of my mired condition in deep samsara. That way you get to keep your resident example of the wrong way to carry it off, while I get to keep 'taking you apart' limb from over-zealous limb.

Or, we can sacrifice Tomas out in the deep desert to a dark spirit who moves in a whirlwind. (Or is that too Jewish?)

(Or is this all Pye's doing?!?)

I must say he is not alone in 'barnstorming' a hypothetical.

To admit that gets authenticity.
Authenticity can only show up as an admission of inauthenticity.

I run hypotheticals every day with things like money.
I know money doesn't exist intrinsically and yet I give it 'solid' existence and make it matter.

The culture makes money 'real' and 'important'.
It's pretty hard to live in a culture invested in erroneous thinking and maintain authenticity.

Blaming the culture is a cop out as well.

After the bomb Einstein drifted into philosophy.
He said a few things that showed he got a hang of things somewhat.
Pretty much identical to the alleged 'Quinnism'.

Here's one,



A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. —ALBERT EINSTEIN

As a heads up to his particle physics colleagues he was reported to have said,
you won't find the particles as something 'in addition to' the field.

Alex Jacob wrote:Let us agree that there is really no good reason to ban me (and there isn't) but with that I will, in strictly gentlemanly good form, voluntarily modify a few of my more devilish usages born of my mired condition in deep samsara. That way you get to keep your resident example of the wrong way to carry it off, while I get to keep 'taking you apart' limb from over-zealous limb.

Good. And I in turn will endeavour to curb your tendency to drift into generic territory and make sure you remain targeted and specific in your criticisms.

Meanwhile, here is an idea for an interesting exercise between the two of us: Why don't we have a formal duel in the Crucible forum about how the Gospels should be interpreted. What I propose is that each of us provides specific passages from the Gospels to which we provide our own respective interpretations. For example, in the first post you could provide a particular passage, I respond with my interpretation and you then provide your own interpretation. Then it would be my turn to offer a passage, to which you provide your interpretation and I provide my own. And so on. We could each provide, say, twenty passages each over the course of the duel. There would be no debate between us. It would be just one interpretation after another. Does this interest you?

Just to calm the water a bit further:

Alex Jacob wrote:The term is not cult-thing but 'cult-like thinking' thing. There IS a difference.

The last time I heard that term was in relation to fans of Apple products, like iPhone enthusiasts and with some degree of hero-worship regarding Steve Jobs. With the last one being described as having a reality distortion field to describe the effects of his charisma and brand magic.

If what you mean is the apparent lack of internal critiques or feuding camps, well, consider that understood. It would still be a highly exaggerated statement though considering the amount of debate made possible at this forum and all the platforms the opposition received over the years to vent their objection side by side all other discussions. Another element is that the subject matter possesses a very unifying nature by definition as it strives to go beyond personal taste and history, intellectual baggage and specific contemporary culture. Is that really achievable? Probably not but the tendency to quarrel over "smaller" stuff could be expected to be minimal and the spiritually inclined would always attempt to maneuver any topic upwards and inwards. Not really a surprise with a topic like "non-duality".

Looking forward to see you putting forward your view on the Gospel verses. An ideal platform to put your own visions out there without the drama!

Alex Jacob wrote:But I already made the choice. My choice is not to accept any kind of limits to my speech.

That's fine. I admire that stance. It has consequences, even here.

The term is not cult-thing but 'cult-like thinking' thing. There IS a difference.

Please delineate that difference.

Alex, good to see you expanding. I know Pye was right in general (some of what she said was not true) in what she expressed to you. All of us who are completely devoted to truth teach each other. Some teach us patience others teach us wisdom. Regardless, it is God having a conversation with himself.

I know that the silly threats of being banned are cumbersome and addle padded. What David has asked you to do is reasonable and forthright however.

I experience what he is talking about a lot. It is much to easy to give the wave of the hand to someone once you pigeon hole them. I am called a solipsist and ipso facto - everything I say can be compressed into the can because the real argument is never addressed, just the concept of solipsism.

Take the challenge because the very least thing that can happen is expansion and that is a good thing really. The dialectic is a superb way for growth to transpire and I can tell - David does care about you in a very deep way. Perhaps the need is mutual.


To the forum - I take note its OK to call names and characterize others in all manner of diminutive remarks but its not OK to respond in like kind? Why the double standard? I remember when Kevin Solway was threatened with being banned at another forum. My thought, at the time was "how childish."

David:

Christianity is following in Jesus’s footsteps and making every effort to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Every other form of Christianity is a pile of horse dung that needs to be shovelled into a compost heap and left to rot.

Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. Most of Christendom does all it can to keep others out of the Kingdom of God.

It is to bad you were exposed to the chosen frozen kind of Christendom, it may have blunted your perception concerning some of the deeper thoughts.

Regardless, Soren and Meister are excellent choices. There are others that are also deeply profound.

Hello Beingof1! In all circumstances on this forum and other forums, I always try to keep to a middle road between people and their specific positions, even those with whom I share agreement. Absolute independence is critical, for me. With your comments, I am put in a difficult position because it might be said that we come from a similar place. At the very least I see many things that are defensible in classic and even conventional Christianity, and I am also aware that the traditions of Christian humanism are extremely rich and have affected our culture profoundly, indeed are such a part of our cultural traditions that they are also part of our very 'selves'. I am sorry, therefor, to make what may seem like a contrary comment to your 'glad to see you expanding'. I am neither any more expanded than I was previously nor I suppose any more shrunk. My relationship to these issues, questions, problems, conflicts, is strictly my own, and I define myself in relation to them on my own terms. Pye sees what she sees, describes what she sees, and like so many desires to see an enforcement of her personal will. I think this is an important understanding about how our views are put forward. If as Nietzsche says 'all moralities are merely a sign language of the affects' how much more so are our personal organizations of ideas!

If you agree with her psychologically-oriented analysis, I have no means or interest to work to modify you view. But I don't see it that way. It is important to say this because, in this space (it is true on all forums), one is bit by bit rewritten by the 'impressions' of others as they 'insist' you are like this or like that. There is as I say a 'game' played along these lines and I suggest it can clearly be seen in the evolution of this thread.

There are other sources for and other desired outcomes of my adamancy as expressed in these recent pages and in all my writing. Recently, the 'men who play in a man's arena but act like little girls when their pet structures of belief and view are challenged' (that is a rather cumbersome phrasing for the more simple use of the term 'boys') had a sort of group freak-out and, very clearly, threatened to ask me to leave (since banning would not be required). I am not responding to any 'challenge' now, none that I was not responding to earlier. I have ironically agreed to modify some terms but the modification may not make anyone more happy! And it is true: men should simply accept. End of story as far as I am concerned!

And just for the record, I think you are reading into David some projected thoughts about 'deep care'. I don't think he would agree. And myself I feel a sort of affection and sometimes respect for the people here. But overall what I really care about are the ideas. None of this is vain activity for me. I have a use for all the ideas that are discussed. Please excuse me, I don't mean to be rude, or how might it be interpreted? As belligerency? in saying all of this to you. But it is important that I do so. I am not at all interested in some 'project of modification' by the Group. Let the Group modify the thinking of the Group if they will it thus. I prefer absolute independence.

I take note its OK to call names and characterize others in all manner of diminutive remarks but its not OK to respond in like kind? Why the double standard?

The answer to this is, I suggest, revealing and instructive. There is a tacit assumption, speaking generally of those who are invested in the specific usages of this philosophy (TQSPODQ as a substitute for 'Quinnism': 'The quite skewed philosophy of David Quinn'!) ;-) Its funny people and you're supposed to laugh!)

There is a tacit assumption that operates 'here', sometimes subtly and sometimes very overtly, that 'we are absolutely right'. It surprises me that this is not understood by all concerned. It is an expression of fundamentalistuc thinking and it is with these kinds of formulations that there is a tie to 'cult-thinking'. (And I will deal on this in another post, Dan). Therefor, it is quite ok if WE tell it like it is, in any terms to our liking, because we hold or know an Absolute Truth. This is very simple stuff. (Yet I am indeed aware that the Forum is an open environment, allows all comers, and this is a very good thing.)

David wrote: Meanwhile, here is an idea for an interesting exercise between the two of us: Why don't we have a formal duel in the Crucible forum about how the Gospels should be interpreted. What I propose is that each of us provides specific passages from the Gospels to which we provide our own respective interpretations. For example, in the first post you could provide a particular passage, I respond with my interpretation and you then provide your own interpretation. Then it would be my turn to offer a passage, to which you provide your interpretation and I provide my own. And so on. We could each provide, say, twenty passages each over the course of the duel. There would be no debate between us. It would be just one interpretation after another. Does this interest you?

I think this would be a completely vain and wasteful exercise for the following simple reason: You have established a position that is unmodifiable at its core. You love the 'duel' because it is an arrangement that you can control, but all you will do there is to repeat in machine-like manner (note the use of the -like comparison: machine-like. It does not mean that David is a machine but that a part of his method is 'machine-like', predictable, mechanical. Language is used in this way, friends. This may also a little help for those still struggling with the term 'cult-like thinking' which, as I said, I will expand on later!)

This is the problem: The Gospels are utterly unreliable! You cannot refer to some 'Gospel Truth' anymore and believe that it has coherency. This is where the discipline of modern Bible hermeneutics comes to the fore. I honestly believe that Diebert has a firm grasp in this area. May I mention a few titles that are part of my recent reading (some partially, some completely):

• Jesus and the Zealots by SF Brandon
• Jesus the Magician by Morton Smith
• The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth by SF Brandon
• The Human Christ by Charlotte Allen
• Kerygma and Myth which includes essays by Bultmann, Lhmeyer, Schumann and others
• The New Polytheism by David Miller
• Christs by David Miller
• Greek Myths and Christian Mystery by Hugo Rahner
• Theopoetic by Amos Wilder

These titles are mention not for purposes of 'intellectual pretension' but to indicate a whole area of Bible research that, in my view, is critical to understanding 'Christianity'. Briefly, it would be absurd and quite useless for me to enter into a 'mock debate', a 'sham debate', with someone who only approaches certain sayings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth from a completely religious and mystical perspective! While the mystical revelation is also part-and-parcel of 'our' traditions and our culture, and the formation of our selves, in all truth we are duty bound (I believe) to confine ourselves to what in it can be rationally discussed! That is why the quote from Ortega y Gasset has interesting relevancy here: it is the theology that is more relevant than the mystery! The mystical aspect, in some sense, mystifies and obscures. We have to make any religious vision concrete and tangible within the world we live in, and in modernity. As a matter of fact, if we can, it would be a nice thing to actually arrive in modernity!

What 'Christianity' is, therefor, to me (and to many others, it is not my invention), is a long meditation on human possibilities within this terrestrial frame. It is true that it begins in an outrageous mysticism, but then so does all human ideation, that can be dissected from our modern perspective. But in doing that we lose the subtle meaning and message within the symbol, and here the operative concept is 'symbolization of divinity'.

So, what in it is valuable to me is all the content of that investigation of human possibilities, within tangible life. My position in relation to it is NOT a faith-position. But to say this does not mean that I do not have faith, some kind of faith, nor that my faith is not commensurate in some sense with the 'faith' expressed here. A 'rational faith'. A rational mysticism as David describes it.

So, can you see why I choose not to enter into a sham debate with a religious zealot?! It is so BLOODY obvious what would result from it. Here, I offer you a summation:

• It is obvious to me that you are deeply afraid of God, deeply afraid of opening up yourself up to reality in a direct sense. It shines through in everything that you write.
• This in itself is not the issue I have with you, however, as it is entirely understandable for us humans to be afraid of God. But you take it a step further and seek to make a virtue out of this cowardice. If you were honest about your cowardice, if you were willing to acknowledge this dynamic within yourself, then I wouldn't have a problem with you. I would say, "Fair enough, mate. I completely understand".
• You are completely cut off from the deep truth that Jesus, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc, talked about, and your words reflect this. Instead of finding a way to connect yourself with this deep truth, you spend your time hiding away in the words of others who have also cut themselves off from it.
• I am pointing to the same truth that all the great sages in history have pointed to. So in rejecting this truth, you are not only rejecting me, but you are rejecting Jesus and the Buddha as well.

Now, with:

You are completely cut off from the deep truth that Jesus, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc, talked about...

I very much take issue! It is possible to define a spiritual life on very different terms and interpretations than you, David. And my writing is infused with those other concerns. The judgmentalism in your statements, combined with a deep ignorance of the subject material, which is related to your acute mono-maniacal focus in an aspect of the spiritual process, is not something that anyone can differ with you about!

Alex Jacob wrote: There is a tacit assumption that operates 'here', sometimes subtly and sometimes very overtly, that 'we are absolutely right'.

Generic.

That is to say, your criticism here has little or no content and can equally be applied to anyone in the world, including yourself.

That is to say, your criticism here has little or no content and can equally be applied to anyone in the world, including yourself.

No, the content is your own words. And a whole critical discourse I build around them and in relation to them.

Alex Jacob wrote:

That is to say, your criticism here has little or no content and can equally be applied to anyone in the world, including yourself.

No, the content is your own words. And a whole critical discourse I build around them and in relation to them.

This response is just as contentless and generic. More to the point, you equally think, deep down, that you are in the right.

This response is just as contentless and generic. More to the point, you equally think, deep down, that you are in the right.

I think that many more 'things'---ideas and possibilities---can be brought into the conversation. I think we can do away with or modify the acute assumption that 'we' possess an Absolute Truth or a religious position that would enable us to say to someone else: "You are completely cut off from the deep truth that Jesus, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc, talked about, and your words reflect this. Instead of finding a way to connect yourself with this deep truth, you spend your time hiding away in the words of others who have also cut themselves off from it", and many other similar formulations. I do suspect that my 'methods' are more linked to processes of ratiocination than are yours, since you hole-up in a classic and fundamentalist religious position. But David: all of this I have said and am saying in my posts!

Alex Jacob wrote: I think this would be a completely vain and wasteful exercise for the following simple reason: You have established a position that is unmodifiable at its core.

Yet another generic comment that can equally be applied to yourself.

Again, the Crucible exercise I proposed was not a debate, but one of comparing interpretations. But yes, I take your point. Our respective approaches to Christianity are probably too far apart to produce any interesting sparks.

Alex Jacob wrote:

This response is just as contentless and generic. More to the point, you equally think, deep down, that you are in the right.

I think that many more 'things'---ideas and possibilities---can be brought into the conversation. I think we can do away with or modify the acute assumption that 'we' possess an Absolute Truth or a religious position that would enable us to say to someone else: "You are completely cut off from the deep truth that Jesus, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc, talked about, and your words reflect this. Instead of finding a way to connect yourself with this deep truth, you spend your time hiding away in the words of others who have also cut themselves off from it", and many other similar formulations.

Are you saying that you do understand the deep truth that Jesus, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc, talked about?

Yet another generic comment that can equally be applied to yourself.

Incorrect. I don't say this simply to counter you, debate-style. Your position is indeed unmodifiable. I work the angle of making suggestions, or opening up other possibilities, both in ideation and in ethics. But you label this, when you are so inclined, 'postmodernist', and wipe it off the board in favor of your religiously fanatical position. ;-)

Are you saying that you do understand the deep truth that Jesus, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc, talked about?

It is not really possible to speak in those terms, of one Truth that runs through all of them. That is, of course, your thinking defect and why I use the term 'cult-like thinking'. That style of thinking has been used in cult environments. Just do a search under 'cult thinking' and see what you come up with.

One of the titles in that group of books is called Christs. The title alone communicates many levels of meaning with a delightful irony! You, as an absolutist thinker, as a reductionist thinker, do exactly what that machine-like style of thinking wills to do: you establish incontestable absolutes that you 'argue', and you use reductionism in extreme forms, and on that basis establish your religious system. TQSPODQ!

Alex Jacob wrote:

Yet another generic comment that can equally be applied to yourself.

Incorrect. I don't say this simply to counter you, debate-style. Your position is indeed unmodifiable.

As is yours.

I work the angle of making suggestions, or opening up other possibilities, both in ideation and in ethics. But you label this, when you are so inclined, 'postmodernist', and wipe it off the board in favor of your religiously fanatical position. ;-)

I label you a postmodernist because you reject the possibility of knowing the truth.

Alex Jacob wrote:

Are you saying that you do understand the deep truth that Jesus, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc, talked about?

It is not really possible to speak in those terms, of one Truth that runs through all of them.

Yes, this is the classic postmodernist position.

That is, of course, your thinking defect and why I use the term 'cult-like thinking'. That style of thinking has been used in cult environments. Just do a search under 'cult thinking' and see what you come up with.

Generic.

Your own thinking is equally cult-like, as it aligns with the cult of postmoderrnism.

One of the titles in that group of books is called Christs. The title alone communicates many levels of meaning with a delightful irony! You, as an absolutist thinker, as a reductionist thinker, do exactly what that machine-like style of thinking wills to do: you establish incontestable absolutes that you 'argue', and you use reductionism in extreme forms, and on that basis establish your religious system. TQSPODQ!

It is easy enough to explore different perspectives on things, such as Christ (thus producing many Christs), and yes, exploring different perspectives is a very valuable exercise. But that is only a part of the philosophic endeavour. If a person treats this part as though it were the whole (and thereby excludes the endeavour to uncover what is true), he automatically limits himself and his explorations lose most of their substance.

Your creating and chasing ghosts here Alex. No one here has 'created' or 'possess' any absolute truths, as they are purely abstract and can only be confirmed with logic. Again, that is the whole point of this forum, something you will not grasp, because any time you see "absolute truth" you take those words to mean something imagined and made up by humans. "Absolute Truth" is not a means to an end, it is the end. It is not a catch phrase used as a weapon to confirm any positions. It means exactly what it says; truth that applicable to all, no modification needed.

One proof that you don't know what you're talking about is when you expressed your summary of the philosophy supported by David and others here. Diebert explained many errors in your analysis, which I expressed agreement with. Of course you claimed that Diebert "changed" David's philosophy, so either you're just plain wrong, or I decided to agree with Diebert for no reason whatsoever despite him changing the tenets of David's philosophy.

This is very basic stuff. But you'll never see it. You have already painted such a huge erroneous picture about this place that it would undermine way too many of your established feelings to root out the mental falsehoods you've assumed. You're way too invested in this project of showing us the subjectivity of our viewpoints without ever discovering the ultimate truth we intend to allude to. So caught up in this illusion, that when any of the many members here try to show you the error of your ways, you assume that they must be operating under your imagined selfish pretense that 'we assume we're automatically correct.'

Simply because you operate under the absolute assumption that no absolute truth exists.

So there you have it Alex. You believe no absolute truths exist. We hold that they do. Perpetual stalemate.