GENIUS FORUMS

Dennis Mahar wrote:What I'm looking for is inherent existence. Coming up with more and more dependent arising isn't what I'm looking for.

So you're opposing ("not looking for") dependent arising but looking for peace in some inherency. It's your own conflict and mind. You might oppose the conflict but not shut down.

I'm not doing mind games. give it up mate.

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

OK?

I'm not looking for babykillers, old greeks et al as a response.

Dennis Mahar wrote:I'm not doing mind games. give it up mate.

The mind is game, is dilemma. You cannot change that -- only hide it as yet another game; the mind is what the mind is.

It is what it is, dependent arising. It isn't what it isn't, doesn't exist from its own side. OK?

But is it said with fear or did you fight for it? That's the question.

I'm not looking for babykillers, old greeks et al as a response.

Okay, dog abuser better? Your prose being your own shock collar, I wonder.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Is Heraclitus dependent arising?

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

Apparently your against me not having much to say. Odd.

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

OK?

If that's true,
it doesn't change what we know,
it changes the way we know what we know.
ie, dependent arising.

OK?

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

If that's true, it doesn't change what we know, it changes the way we know what we know (ie, dependent arising). OK?

There's only one "way" to know (called: "to know"). All change goes by opposition. And that needs to be opposed, as well.

You're opposing inherent existence by dependent arising. That's a change in mode. But it needs to be opposed, as well.

Having seen that they all agree on very little, how can one not become indifferent?

Seems it's too hard for people to agree, petty really, what about that which is commonly disagreeable.

There is a truth here, one that most are in dire need to understand, who cannot attain liberation from any of a multitude of mental agitations without it. I'm sure everyone disagrees on desire as a possibility for lasting contentment, the same with clinging. Apparently all we've got is each other, wouldn't it be a just as well use of time to accurately expound to others on that which causes suffering.

You're opposing inherent existence by dependent arising. That's a change in mode. But it needs to be opposed, as well.

form is empty,
empty is form.

There's only one "way" to know (called: "to know"). All change goes by opposition. And that needs to be opposed, as well.

what you know or think you know is dependently arisen.
doesn't matter if it comes out of opposition, it is still dependently arisen.
to say it comes out of opposition is to say it is dependent.

if it is dependently arisen,
that changes how we hold what we know or think we know.

Dennis Mahar wrote:form is empty, empty is form.

Indifferentation becoming possibility.

Doesn't matter if it comes out of opposition, it is still dependently arisen. That changes how we hold what we know or think we know.

And it changes by opposition.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Seems it's too hard for people to agree, petty really, what about that which is commonly disagreeable.

It's hard because it's a pipe dream. The moment you think you have "agreement" or "OK", delusions are born with it. Get it?

Apparently all we've got is each other, wouldn't it be a just as well use of time to accurately expound to others on that which causes suffering.

What is suffering, how suffering arises and how suffering ceases. Only the topic doesn't allow for any dogma, for theory or liturgy. It would simply become opposed!

Leyla Shen wrote:Well, as you know, the Sun has been prominent in mythology long before monotheism as the “light”; that which illuminates and makes clear the path (“orbit”) of all things. The ultimate heavenly body (“god”).

Yes, illuminates, night and day, contrast and shadows but as well from ancient times linked to life giving, warming, growth and so on. Simply the highest, richest one could conceive of.

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

In orbital mechanics a planet has to orbit around something way greater than itself. Unless it becomes a star for other planets to orbit around. But was he really talking about the "species" I wonder? Then you'd have a bizarre solar system with suns all in some grip of each other. What is implied here I believe is the question if some Ideal or a bold future could be devised to more consciously orbit around for a relatively simple human being. This is why Nietzsche seemed almost obsessed with constructing an image of a future possibility to long for and for that to clear away the "old" to bring the new closer.

However, Nietzsche focuses his criticism on the disappearance of the light—man’s internal world—whereas Marx’s criticism is directly concerned with the shadow itself—man’s external world. And this is the sum of their differences.

But both do not seem to able to describe a clear path toward any new source of illumination. Both then as prophets of decline?

That I could just as well here identify Marx as the philosopher and Nietzsche as art.

I'd suggest Marx as social scientist and Nietzsche as philosophizing artist.

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

And they both also somewhat embodied arrival of both, for the best or the worse.

same shit different day(:

Diebert,
it is what it is, dependent arising
it isn't what it isn't, doesn't exist from its own side

OK?

you've got a set of rapid fire responses cued up in a fully automatic teleprompter down there at ground control.
neatly arranged in marching order like little soldiers with shiny boots.
a well drilled regiment.

correct?

When you say stuff like:

Indifferentation becoming possibility.

And it changes by opposition.

you are saying causes/conditions
dependent arising

is that clear?
the tune that these little toy soldiers with shiny boots are whistling.

Dennis Mahar wrote:You've got a set of rapid fire responses cued up in a fully automatic teleprompter down there at ground control, neatly arranged in marching order like little soldiers with shiny boots. A well drilled regiment.

That's a remarkable statement coming from you of all people! Let us bask in the glow of irony for a while before moving on.

Dennis Mahar wrote:When you say stuff like: "And it changes by opposition", you are saying causes/conditions, dependent arising

And when you say stuff like: "That changes how we hold what we know" -- you are saying as well causes/conditions, dependent arising?

But wait a minute: you said that dependent arising changes how "we hold what we know or think we know". But nothing changed here: we get from non-descriptive causes/conditions to non-descriptive causes/conditions. There is in your winning formula no place possible for "change" in how we hold that we know.

Change only happens in the realm of contradiction and opposition. In the non-dual which you're mostly implying, there's constant change or none at all, depending. Get it?

Change only happens in the realm of contradiction and opposition. In the non-dual which you're mostly implying, there's constant change or none at all, depending. Get it?

"And that's why a raven is like a writing desk," said the Mad Hatter...

;D

you are saying as well causes/conditions, dependent arising?

yeah, that's what I'm saying.

It's like you've got a photo album of Nietzche set aside and when prompted pull out some 'happy snaps' of Nietzche for display.
pictures at an exhibition.

like a kid showing baseball cards.
look at me! look at me! look at me!

how what we know or think we know is 'held'.

a kind of thinking that isn't a tap dancer dancing for effect is possible.

LS: Well, as you know, the Sun has been prominent in mythology long before monotheism as the “light”; that which illuminates and makes clear the path (“orbit”) of all things. The ultimate heavenly body (“god”).

D: Yes, illuminates, night and day, contrast and shadows but as well from ancient times linked to life giving, warming, growth and so on. Simply the highest, richest one could conceive of.

Well, yes, the source of life; a life of the “highest, richest one could conceive of”.

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

D: In orbital mechanics a planet has to orbit around something way greater than itself. Unless it becomes a star for other planets to orbit around. But was he really talking about the "species" I wonder? Then you'd have a bizarre solar system with suns all in some grip of each other. What is implied here I believe is the question if some Ideal or a bold future could be devised to more consciously orbit around for a relatively simple human being. This is why Nietzsche seemed almost obsessed with constructing an image of a future possibility to long for and for that to clear away the "old" to bring the new closer.

But you see, for both of them, man is the Sun around which his world revolves! Are his values not his own, as if there could be something outside him to value? When he loses them to something greater, when its Sun begins to diminish in power, his world wobbles along the faltering path bringing with it one gravitational catastrophe after another, until it settles again around a new Sun.

LS: However, Nietzsche focuses his criticism on the disappearance of the light—man’s internal world—whereas Marx’s criticism is directly concerned with the shadow itself—man’s external world. And this is the sum of their differences.

D: But both do not seem to able to describe a clear path toward any new source of illumination. Both then as prophets of decline?

In this sense, certainly: Nietzsche, evolution and The Last Man; Marx socio-economic fetters and revolution.

LS: That I could just as well here identify Marx as the philosopher and Nietzsche as art.

D: I'd suggest Marx as social scientist and Nietzsche as philosophizing artist.

I put it to you that this is because you consider that in social science there is a complete break, some disassociation, between (or an absolute objectification of) man’s internal and external worlds that you do not consider exists in the philosopher or the artist; the individual as solid object, as if he therefore can have no internal world. And indeed, isn't this the very point! It is clear in Marx that such internal worlds do indeed exist (including the internality of ego). Here, on the subject of ego, Nietzsche travels a different road, however.

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

D: And they both also somewhat embodied arrival of both, for the best or the worse.

In sickness and health, til death us do part.

Dennis Mahar wrote:a kind of thinking that isn't a tap dancer dancing for effect is possible.

Thinking that still will be opposed and some resistance is being put up as response. Accept your mind, Dennis! That's how it works. Worry about quality.

Leyla Shen wrote:But you see, for both of them, man is the Sun around which his world revolves! Are his values not his own, as if there could be something outside him to value? When he loses them to something greater, when its Sun begins to diminish in power, his world wobbles along the faltering path bringing with it one gravitational catastrophe after another, until it settles again around a new Sun.

Is this "man" something big enough to replace the sun? That was for me the question. Man "himself" obviously not (hopefully I'm not asked to explain why) but his vision might. Nietzsche proposes that every society losing its "sun" or replacing it with something too little enters its last stage of decadence, worship of detail and generally small concerns.

The Sun diminishes in power because man loses his values to something smaller! Notice how this works in complete opposition with your earlier statement. It's irrelevant if the greater is inside or outside him since his evaluation is still his own! In other words: size does matter :-)

I put it to you that this is because you consider that in social science there is a complete break, some disassociation, between (or an absolute objectification of) man’s internal and external worlds that you do not consider exists in the philosopher or the artist

If you remember Conrad's Game of Life, (run some) or fractals, then that's an example of how I look at it. Social science examines the patterns and interactions while philosophy ideally examines and describes the fundamental states and transitions. Of course the patterns and interactions are closer to what we end up seeing.

Diebert,

Thinking that still will be opposed and some resistance is being put up as response. Accept your mind, Dennis! That's how it works. Worry about quality.

did what I say catch your eye a little, open up a 'look', a glimpse into a nook or cranny.
a deepening, a reverence, a humility.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Thinking that still will be opposed and some resistance is being put up as response. Accept your mind, Dennis! That's how it works. Worry about quality.

Did what I say catch your eye a little, open up a 'look', a glimpse into a nook or cranny. A deepening, a reverence, a humility?

You mean only in your case it's something more than just empty and meaningless? You mean it's supposed to be effective, change inducing? :-)

It's time you wake up to the angle I'm approaching your posts from. It's a call to take it further, to surprise yourself. It still looks to me like you're wearing that Zen shock-collar.

I don't accept your premise 'mind is game'.
do you understand when I say a premise like that as something a person thinks they know is 'held'.
more pertinently, it is the 'holding' of the person in a boundedness.

not saying it's right, wrong, good or bad or broken.

just the distinction.

understood as dependent arising.
conditional.

doesn't mean 'mind is game' gets dropped.
just looked at.
the boundedness.
the WTFness of it.

Dennis Mahar wrote:I don't accept your premise 'mind is game'. Do you understand when I say a premise like that as something a person thinks they know is 'held'. More pertinently, it is the 'holding' of the person in a boundedness.

The mind is what it is. Just look at it yourself. And to make that happen I'll have to throw back your own stuff at you.

Not saying it's right, wrong, good or bad or broken. Just the distinction.

Well, not accepting, making distinctions is saying one thing is (more) proper or improper than something else...

It's what we do. Stop denying it! You look, you chose, you buy. And neutral, hanging in the middle: all a dream, a craving, a recluse against reality.

emptiness/dependent arising is empirical and logical.
its trustworthy.
throw any theory up against it and the theory fails.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Emptiness/dependent arising is empirical and logical. Its trustworthy. Throw any theory up against it and the theory fails.

Only theories are about the empirical and logical. One theorie is thrown against the other. That works!

You need to get some clarity first before throwning anything up agains anything. You're assembling a self in your zen, and here I am opposing it.

I said earlier it's the theory of no-theory.

You need to get some clarity first before throwning anything up agains anything. You're assembling a self in your zen, and here I am opposing it.

are you pissed?