GENIUS FORUMS

[edit-spelling and grammer]

Woo! Damn! Now we’re gettin’ fired up. I think there is too much here for me to respond to at this moment, with my current time restraints, but I really like the shit talk and would love to further “our” understanding.

Are you talking about the man who was hopelessly addicted to gambling and repeatedly gnashed his teeth because he couldn't bring himself to believe in the Christian God?

Exactly whom I’m talking about. The man who delve head first into all of the nastiness and brutality of existence. The man who faced life, got his hands dirty, experienced the shit, and transcended the shit, instead of pusillanimously hiding away in his room, abstinent, celibate, and totally detached from it. This is a man who connects to the spectrum of mankind, he knows the people inside and out, he knows humanity through authentic experience. Instead of striping away and ignoring everything that didn’t fit neatly into his little narrow-minded package, the package of what “one” person thinks it means to be enlightened. Dostoevsky knew the egoist and the spiritualist, nihilism and enlightenment, the cow and the cow herder, he knew the entire spectrum more thoroughly than you know just one of its manifestations.

Kierkegaard used to eat hundreds of Dostoevskys every day for breakfast.

Hell yeah! This profound sentiment just caused me to stare directly into my soul and understand my delusional ways. I’m glad you’re enlightened enough to say something like this. Unless of course you were joking, in which case you were absolutely effective because I laughed really hard and still have a smile lingering on my face. (Don't take offense David, I respect you immensely)

one of those individuals who entered a little way onto the road

Read more of his books. Start with the short story Dream of a Ridiculous Man, it should only take like 1/2 hour to read. I am afraid that you have barely scratched the surface on the genius that is Dostoevsky, and I will have plenty of time to smear that genius in your face as soon and you show more understanding of his oeuvre (how’s that for masculine DQ, do you like it). Just give me an example, quote Dostoevsky and show me his weaknesses. Gambling? That only proves his knowledge of seediness, and more so it shows his exploration of “chance” elements. Dostoevsky knew the spectrum, he knew the Tao. If you try and isolate one character and remove it from the spectrum (the totality) then you are ignoring Buddha’s parable about the parts of the wagon as opposed to the whole, and you are doing Dostoevsky (and yourself) a grave injustice.

For you it seems to mean a passive consciousness that simply observes things without judgment - and yes, femininity is perfectly suited to this task. In fact, one would probably have to become as feminine as possible in order to best achieve this state.

You are talking about permanent states David. I never alluded to remaining in this state permanently. I acknowledge the "masculine" attributes that you idolize, but I only utilize those attributes when the specific occasion lends itself to that advantage. I was describing a type of Buddhist meditation. This is only half of my approach (that is the feminine half). KIERKEGAARD HIMSELF ENTERED THIS STATE. It suites your philosophy nicely to put everything " one way" indefinitely, but physical existence (or the Tao) doesn't work this way. How many times do I have to repeat: BOTH WAYS ARE NECESSARY, learn all of the tools and stop limiting yourself. You are the Kiekegaard expert. Please analyze these quotes and explain to me how he is NOT referring to the act of “letting go”.

The truth is a trap: you cannot get it without it getting you; you cannot get the truth by capturing it, only by it’s capturing you.
- Journal

The infinite resignation is the last stage prior to faith, so that one who has not made this movement has not faith; for only in the infinite resignation do I become clear to myself with respect to my eternal validity, and only then can there be any question of grasping existence by virtue of faith.
- Fear and Trembling

And how does God's existence emerge from the proof? Does it follow straightway, without any breach of continuity? Or do we have an analogy to the behavior of the little Cartesian dolls? As soon as I let go of the doll it stands on its head. As soon as I let it go, I must therefore let it go. So also with the proof. As long as I keep my hold on the proof, i.e., continue to demonstrate, the existence does not come out, if for no other reason that that I am engaged in proving it; but when I let the proof go, the existence is there. But this act of letting go is surely also something; it is indeed a contribution of mine. Must not this also be taken into account, this little moment, brief as it may be, it need not be long, for it is a leap.
- Philosophical Fragments

DQ:

For me, enlightenment means breakthing though the Zen Barrier and grasping the whole riddle of existence with a single grasp of thought.

This contrasts with the idea of letting “the truth capture you”? Do you disagree with Kiekegaard on this issue? Are you saying that you grasped the riddle of existence, and not the other way around? In which case you are right, you and I have different perspectives on enlightenment.

It's possibly because he isn't in love with women and isn't content to settle down into a cow-like existence.

I hardly live in a “cow-like” existence. I am not in love with any women and I have not had sex with a woman for 3 years. Let’s analyze the existence of a cow. He stands there and does nothing but fill his face with grass. Sounds more like a celibate recluse monk, than a 9-5 married man doesn't it? I hide from nothing that life has to offer and I immerse myself fully (but not emotionally or egotistically). One day I saw a beetle on its back squirming. I decided to sit down with the beetle and be there with it while it died. After an hour of squirming but not dying, I decided to flip the beetle onto its feet. It took a couple of steps then flipped itself onto its back. It suffered. Squirmed. Agonized. This continued for another three hours. Every once in a while I would try to flip it back to its feet but it never seemed to work. I laid on my back and stayed with that beetle all night long, and still it did not die. So I put it on a leaf and carried it to my room. The little bastard lived for another four days and I stayed awake those four days/nights meditating and watching it squirm on its back. That is when I made a final resolute decision in my life. Either I am going to live fully, or die fully. There is no in-between and I will not sit on my back and wait (like a cow would). This is also when a spiritual flash of the eternal enveloped my being and changed the nature of my consciousness. I still have an ego, but now it is only a tool, not my whole substance or the ruler of my consciousness. This is the second time I described my experience of enlightenment. You still haven’t responded to the first posting I made on this regard. viewtopic.php?t=1528&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Again, this is cowhood, which is the opposite of Buddhahood.

Hmm… David Quinn it is funny you should say this. I described a hugely prominent Buddhist meditation technique called mindfulness. It seems that you’ve studied the philosophy of Buddhism but failed to study the practices. What exactly have you studied from Buddhism? Please explain to me how this is the opposite of Buddhahood.

Since we are quoting Kierkegaard ....

These quotes do in fact confirm what I feel to be limited (flawed) observations, but notice how these quotes have no direct implications (either philosophical or practical) on how to obtain enlightenment or what enlightenment is like. Where as the quotes about death, faith, and most importantly "letting go of the Cartesian doll" more directly relate to the necessary process for obtainment. So I ask again, do you disagree with Kiekegaard on these issues.

Cory Patrick:

If a woman were to be intellectual and bearable, she would have to be concerned with overcoming the sex drive, base emotions, vanity, worldliness - she would have to like serious philosophy.
Otherwise she is a spider, and you; the fly.

I stand to be corrected Cory, you do have experience and I see that you have immersed yourself in the spectrum of existence. I agree with you. There is no hope of finding inner contentment and fulfillment through another human being, regardless of their gender. The fallacies and limitations you found in women I find equally in my relationships with men. That is why I don’t rely on others to find completion, I am complete within myself and always have been (but prevented myself from realizing it). Once you find inner completion (if you have not already) the ego sickness of others should have no bearing on you, in fact your example might just help them overcome their sickness (unless of course you hide from them, abstain from their company, and become a celibate from humanity). And you just might find that there are in fact women with self-awareness, true substance, philosophical understanding, and spiritual enlightenment (I have been fortunate enough to meet such a woman in my lifetime, a chi healer/acupuncturist, but I knew her as a teacher, not as a lover)

And for the love of God READ THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV. It is a thorough examination and exploration of the three most prominent guiding/decision making components of every human being: Ivan representing the mind/rationality, Mitya representing the body/emotions/libido and Alyosha representing the soul. If you have read it, explain to me the fallacies and inaccuracies of this book and Dostoevsky’s genius.

First, I would like to say hello. Second, I would like to apologize for resurrecting an old thread.

Now that my introduction/apology is over, I would like to suggest that anyone who reads Notes from Underground also reads Walter Pater's conclusion to The Renaissance. I struggled intimately with Dostoevsky and his character of the underground man, and I found that Pater offers a sort of resolution to Dostoevsky's open-ended pondering.

One of the most beautiful passages of Rousseau is that in the sixth book of Confessions, where he describes the awakening in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had clung always about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the interval that remained; and he was not biassed by anything in his previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well! we are all condamnés, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve --les hommes sont tous condamnés à mort avec des sursis indéfinis: we have an interval, and then our place knows no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passion, the wisest, at least among "the children of the world", in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time. Great passions may give us a quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which comes naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion --that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments' sake. - Walter Pater (in his conclusion to The Renaissance).

"Well! we are all condamnés, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve --les hommes sont tous condamnés à mort avec des sursis indéfinis: we have an interval, and then our place knows no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passion, the wisest, at least among "the children of the world", in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time. Great passions may give us a quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which comes naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion --that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments' sake. - Walter Pater (in his conclusion to The Renaissance)."

Nice to make your acquaintance, Deadhead. I hadn't seen this thread since I arrived here well after.

David Quinn wrote: "Dostoevsky was certainly an interesting psychological writer with an affinity for those who live on the fringes of society, but he was still a very shallow man. His understanding of the Infinite was non-existent. Kierkegaard used to eat hundreds of Dostoevskys every day for breakfast. To use my analogy above, he was one of those individuals who entered a little way onto the road and wrote about the suffering of constantly getting run over. A lot of people find this interesting, but profound it isn't."

It was interesting to read the exchange between Quinn and Alyosha: it is one that is forever repeated on this forum. There are 'spiritual types' of a certain sort who cannot quite understand 'artistic types'. Their spirituality is, for them, a complete taking themselves in hand and a resolution, an ending, of the whole human problem. Their assumption is that 'enlightenment' is the end of humanness and the world they envision is a perfected and redeemed world where everything is controlled, ordered, 'rational'.

It seems to be an issue of personal choice and personal conviction if one is going to take the route of 'the monk' and look for the route to the 'cessation of all modifications' in the mind, and hence 'reject' 'the world', or opt for a sort of Dostoevskian experience of life, the rather Christian decent into the various 'hells' that make up life-experience: the decent of intelligence down into those dark places of the psyche where an illumination takes place. I could never see Dostoevsky as one offering a spiritual program, but only as a sensitive soul who illuminated the world he lived in.

"For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time."

That would never be enough for Quinn and some others here. They would say: our one chance lies in diminishing that 'interval' and reducing 'pulsations'.

I don't think they have much of an understanding of the relevance and value of artists. It's just not their territory. They would condemn Dostoevsky, for example, because of his gambling addiction, because of his disordered self. They would have him go into a 12-Step program, preferably with a Zen Monk, and come to understand the absolute absurdity of this whole plane of existence. And then, cessation. For after that, there is no more story! There are times you want to get out of the hustle and bustle of life and to retreat to peace and quiet. They have a philosophy that shows them a permanent 'peace and quiet' and (they suppose) an escape from all that has 'caused' this chaos. You can't really blame them for pursuing that road.

I don't think artists should be held up as authorities. I guess mine is the Platonic view: the artists don't really know anything even though their work is revealing of much. One doesn't look to the artist for theological clarification or a route out of the 'material entanglement'.
________________________________________________

Poetry, song, literature, has a different function. It is another animal altogether. In its own way it is 'abstract' and quite hard to translate. (The translation I did of this quite beautiful song---which I believe resonates with some of the core feelings Dosteovsky wishes to uncover, to get to, in his work---is perhaps not all that good but combined with the feeling of the music I hope it 'suggests' the message there.) (I suppose this would be called ridiculous sentimentality but I totally differ. You'll never cease feeling, it is a question of how pure and high you can feel, and how 'intelligent' is your feeling).

Volver a los Diecisiete by Violeta Parra (Chilean).

To be seventeen again
after living a century
is like decoding omens
but lacking tools of interpretation.
to be as open as a fragile second,
to come back and feel deeply
like a child in a vision of God,
is how I feel
in this fertile moment.

Chorus:

My thoughts climb up, up
like ivy on a wall
and spread out, spread out
like moss over a rock.
like moss on a rock.

My steps go backward
while yours go forward.
heaven's bond of friendship
has penetrated to my core.
all its vibrancy
has pumped in my veins,
and the strongest chains
binding us to fate,
like a shining diamond,
glows in the center of my heart.

What pure feeling has done,
mere knowledge never did.
nor the clearest discrimination
nor the widest sense of knowing.
It all changed
when such pure feelings came down upon me
and dissipated burning anger
and the desire to harm.
and only love's mystery
has made me harmless again.

Love is a whirlwind
that brings one back to a pure state
and even the wildest creature
feels its song within.
it captures the seeker
it frees the condemned,
love and its care and insight
reveals to the old the child,
and to the cruel ones,
the pure and the true.

The window blows open,
as if by magic,
enveloping love came through,
like the warmth of morning.
the call of love at dawn
caused the jasmine to blossom,
and the angelic messenger
to hang beauty in the sky,
and in me, that tender age of seventeen,
the messenger brought to life again.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Their spirituality is, for them, a complete taking themselves in hand and a resolution, an ending, of the whole human problem. Their assumption is that 'enlightenment' is the end of humanness and the world they envision is a perfected and redeemed world where everything is controlled, ordered, 'rational'.

Agreed, engaging in some idealistic Utopian imagery about the future of mankind is not what wise people should do. The idea is to promote wisdom as an end in itself. Wisdom as true "humanness", the rest as means. This means for example Kevin Solway's once stated concerns about a "survival" of wisdom would be misconceived as it would require an impossible analysis of the complexities of events which make history. As a power structure, wisdom would tend to work towards its own survival but I don't consider wisdom as power structure. Only knowledge, culture, habits and so on are like that.

They would condemn Dostoevsky, for example, because of his gambling addiction, because of his disordered self. They would have him go into a 12-Step program, preferably with a Zen Monk, and come to understand the absolute absurdity of this whole plane of existence. And then, cessation.

It's not really condemning, is it, when calling a writer shallow when it comes to addressing existential philosophy? An artist would be per definition shallow as they work purely by appearance: their concern, their heart lying with the appearances. That's how they can excel in portrayal of this or that, acting out a character like this or that, but rarely would be seduced to dive deeper. And if they would, substance abuse is the common result. It's really not that difficult to see why it has to be that way. And it's perfectly fine to celebrate art as art, let the price be paid, and condemn shallow philosophy as shallow philosophy. All the while being very consistent and leaving no bad taste in the mouth.

I don't think artists should be held up as authorities. I guess mine is the Platonic view: the artists don't really know anything even though their work is revealing of much. One doesn't look to the artist for theological clarification or a route out of the 'material entanglement'.

Their work is revealing because they act as conduit to allow for the symbols, the arcane to be written so clearly. But further analysis of it always leads quickly to self-congratulatory circles of self-indulgence.

Diebert wrote: "It's not really condemning, is it, when calling a writer shallow when it comes to addressing existential philosophy? An artist would be per definition shallow as they work purely by appearance: their concern, their heart lying with the appearances."

I think it is quite fair to say that Quinn is 'condemning', not only of Dosteoevsky in this case, but of an almost endless array of 'things' that are part and parcel of life. And I am not, as retaliation, condemning him back (or the philosophical school of Q&R&S), it is more that I am trying to tease out of it more and greater understanding. As you know, I tend to see their whole structure of philosophy as being lopsided, reductive and in some core regions, erroneous. Based in misconceptions, ill-conceived, etc. But then, on the other hand, I am sometimes inclined to 'see the sense of it' and to try to get inside their views.

I would say that the critique is 'condemning' in the negative (or perhaps 'unfair' sense) because they cannot really see or appreciate the value of what an artist like Dostoevsky has done in his work. It would be tempting to categorize him, but the way I see his art and 'seeing' (in the Christian sense, as in 'those who have eyes to see', which asks the question, What sort of eyes are there?) is in seeing right into the core of people and, perhaps to borrow from Sartre, presenting to the reader just how terrible people can be to each other, and to what degree l'enfer c'est les autres (Hell for most people occurs in their relationships with other people). I am thinking of the way he reveals the depth of his character's predicament in Notes from Underground and also reflecting on one of my favorite stories: A Gentle Creature.

QRS have no way of means to appreciate or to understand any part of actual existential life of any human being now living in flesh and on the planet. They are fundamentally divorced from these concerns. Because this is so, the level of conversation that takes place on this forum (except when detractors appear) is a sort of 'dead conversation'. It is so strangely flat, and in that so strangely unreal.

In the poem above, she says:

Lo que puede el sentimiento
no lo ha podido el saber.

[What pure feeling has done,
mere knowledge never did.]

So one of the question I will always ask is: What role do we assign to feeling? No one of course means gushy sentimentalism, but the highest sort of feeling which people are capable of. The oh-so-wise here have utterly swept it off the beard. Therefor, their Existentialism becomes...irreal.

So, I would say that the question seems to be: How do we envision Existentialism, which obviousy arises from how we view Existence. QRS, in fact, condemn existence. They cease existing and call that Progress. But Alyosha, on these pages, proposed that it was escapism and explained himself in this regard. I only mentioned it because, to me, this is all interesting and worth thinking about.

And as you know I don't see artists or their productions as 'shallow'. True, I don't come to an artist as I might to a priest or a theologue. But, in our world, what artists do has a huge effect on the human world and how it is seen and also how people choose to act in it. (And this ties into out other exchange).

"Their work is revealing because they act as conduit to allow for the symbols, the arcane to be written so clearly. But further analysis of it always leads quickly to self-congratulatory circles of self-indulgence."

Well, I rather think that artists and poets are 'makers' and moulders. A literary artist, like Dosteovsky, is a whole world of a mind and of a spirit who choses to mould and create through the 'invention' or contrived worlds. Other minds enter into this imaginal world and interact with 'living potencies'. What the Novel has done in our worlds is almost too vast to describe. But you reduce it to 'self-congratulatory circles of self-indulgence'. The reason you do this, and the reason Quinn will do it, is because you simply lack an understanding or an appreciation of what literary art has done---is doing---for all of us. It is like you wish to throw it out in favor of this other 'thing' you privelage, but that 'other thing' is really a 'no-thing'. It is an absence of anything. In this specific sense one can bring a criticism against the mental systems of the QRS with their odd sniffing up of the powders of neo-Buddhism. For all that I wish to appreciate it, I can't help at times but to see it is their own brand of Nihilistic Narcotic. But as long as everyone is there jumping up and down and saying 'Man, this is some GOOD SHIT!' you can never really get down to a genuine conversation.

Still, the great thing about Quinn et al is the emphasis on the Questions. The boldness to assert, the boldness to define, and the strength to take a stand.

Enlightenment is a multi-faceted arena; on one hand, there is the heralded lineage of zen - on the other, the "I AM" consciousness of Christ.

Where does art fit in?

Zagasa.

Welcome back to earth, Steve! We've missed you.

To me, art has always been about communicating some aspect of the human condition. Of course, there are the Postmodernists out there who would contend that art can be about communicating the utter meaninglessness of everything, but I assume that the vast majority of you out there don't need this perspective repudiated. But if I had to rank the importance of art in the ultimate order of things, I'd say that it's quite clear that insight into the ultimate nature of reality outstrips art's importance. Of course, I assume there's art out there that deals with the ultimate nature of reality, and that can elevate it to its ultimate possible importance.

The role of feeling. It's a broad question, but in the end, I think that feeling can be accounted for in any deep examination of the nature of reality and human experience. Art, for example, triggers feelings in us, and like I've said in other posts, I think that emotions as well as feelings provide a sort of common ground for humanity, a universally intelligible language. We unconsciously build our bedrock values on top of our emotional realities. In the end, the closest we can come to describing our "experience" of ultimate reality is through a "feeling" of peace.

:D

yo-da

Steven Coyle writes: "Enlightenment is a multi-faceted arena; on one hand, there is the heralded lineage of zen - on the other, the "I AM" consciousness of Christ. / Where does art fit in?"

I think you'd have to put Dostoevsky pretty strictly on the I AM side---that is, Judeo-Christian, and in his context, the Russian-Christian 'existentialism' that produced an incredible literature.

'The East' lays a great deal of emphasis on a pre-existing, complete, inalterable manifestation of truth and divinity. It is not so much something that is discovered as it is already there. You just go and sit in front of it and let your own self disappear in its grandeur. Most of what comes out of the Hindu school, and Zen is ultimately a derivation of this Hundu Revelation, is based on the idea of an Ultimate Source in which all things, and all knowing, pre-exist. It is not so much a question of doing but of not-doing. Ceasing, stilling, etc. This general focus tends to produce...nothing. Science can't really come from it. Nor can you really build anything on the basis of it. The purpose of the individual is only to serve a preexistent order, and the self is subservient to that preexisting order.

On the I AM side, which is radically different, history and time is the platform for an unfolding of the Divine Revelation. Terrestrial life is a primary concern and is seen as the quintessential gift, even if it involves pain and sorrow. In Judaism there is no privelaging of a desire to escape, to get away: Life is the gift and you build and construct within it. There is not even really a conception of 'enlightenment' and if there is it is measured totally differently. The emphasis is on your existence, in time. With Christianity there is both an introduction of a sort of radical 'world beyond', or an emphasis on it. But on the whole the object of Christian revelation is to transform individuals into Christian agents. Do in the world as I have done. You have an incredible range of options.

Art certainly exists in the East, but it is unlike 'our' art. It is static. It focused on preexisting perfection and asks that the individual 'merge' with that perfection. It has a radically different purpose and focus. It is beautiful, no doubt, and has a certain kind of 'power', but is just not the same as 'our art'.

Dostoevsky is essentially a Christian or a post-Christian (in any case a direct product of Christian culture). His field of concern in life, the world, people, and movement through time.

Q-R-S privelage a 'radical other' within the context of a denenerate, decadent present. They react against a disintegration process that has been going on for a number of centuries. A present that has run head-on with its own disintegration. This is a strategy to hold the self together (I feel) and is not 'genuine spirituality'. It is a reactive spirituality and I think it would need to become pro-active.

O-Dodge writes: "But if I had to rank the importance of art in the ultimate order of things, I'd say that it's quite clear that insight into the ultimate nature of reality outstrips art's importance."

You could say though that the 'ultimate reality' is dealing with the reality in which we find ourselves, now. It is not too hard to point to abstract conceptions of 'ultimate reality' as functioning quite like a pipe-dream of an opium addict.

I wouldn't place these two poles in contradition, like two fighting cocks, and ask them to do battle. It is not to be set-up as a conflict. If there is a revelation of 'ultimate reality' then it can be presented, considered, etc. But, it is really more an idea, and an abstract idea at that. A more active 'idea' is the concept of God operating in consciousness and in time, in the individual and in society. This idea is, of course anathema to many. But not necessarily to all of 'our artists' in history and still including 'our artists' now.

More Anathema.

nic night light

True, so true.

Change nic to son [sic] and you have sun-thing.

Alex Jacob writes:

You could say though that the 'ultimate reality' is dealing with the reality in which we find ourselves, now. It is not too hard to point to abstract conceptions of 'ultimate reality' as functioning quite like a pipe-dream of an opium addict.

I wouldn't place these two poles in contradition, like two fighting cocks, and ask them to do battle. It is not to be set-up as a conflict. If there is a revelation of 'ultimate reality' then it can be presented, considered, etc. But, it is really more an idea, and an abstract idea at that. A more active 'idea' is the concept of God operating in consciousness and in time, in the individual and in society. This idea is, of course anathema to many. But not necessarily to all of 'our artists' in history and still including 'our artists' now.

I respond:

I'd say that dealing with reality as it is now and realizing ultimate reality on an abstract level are just about equally important, and both feed into each other. However, I'd also say that of the two, realizing ultimate reality on an abstract level is more important. I know plenty of people who deal well with reality as it is, but are missing the crucial component of realizing that it's ultimately not real, and thus fall into the trap of taking it too seriously.

I didn't intend to place art and the realization of ultimate reality in contradiction to each other. I was merely saying that one is definitely more important than the other. I think they both have their place in our experiences, but one (realization of ultimate reality) should definitely take precedence.

O. Dodge: "I know plenty of people who deal well with reality as it is, but are missing the crucial component of realizing that it's ultimately not real, and thus fall into the trap of taking it too seriously. / I didn't intend to place art and the realization of ultimate reality in contradiction to each other. I was merely saying that one is definitely more important than the other. I think they both have their place in our experiences, but one (realization of ultimate reality) should definitely take precedence."

I guess I would say that I think it all hinges upon how one uses this quest for understanding 'ultimate reality', and what it propels one to do and not do in ones life.

Not taking something/anything/everything 'seriously' can be a great defect.

Just for the sake of curiosity, what do you suppose would happen in a group of people or in a culture that 'knew' and internalized the knowledge that 'nothing is ultimately real'?

Would they: live in their unreal world, knowing always it is unreal; reproduce unreally, raise unreal children; build an unreal house, construct a city of the unreal; get together and discuss just how unreal everything is and only getting more unreal; sit around and complain about the 'ignorant' who are 'making it too real' and taking it all too seriously...

What would a civilization do if it were dedicated to the unreality of everything?

Depending on how people related to this, a case could be made as to whether it was a 'good' and 'useful' perception, or neurotic. There is a danger is sacrificing 'the tangible' to 'the intangible', certainly for an individual. Or, how do you see it?

Alex: I guess I would say that I think it all hinges upon how one uses this quest for understanding 'ultimate reality', and what it propels one to do and not do in ones life.

Me: I couldn't agree more. I think that one's primary mission in life after realization and (to a certain extent) realization of ultimate reality should be to wake as many people as possible from the nightmare of purely conventional thought.

Alex: Not taking something/anything/everything 'seriously' can be a great defect.

Me: Also agree here. But I also think that taking things too seriously is a problem. A more precise way of characterizing one's relationship with conventional reality after realization would be that one's reactions to events in conventional reality would be more proportional to their real importance.

Alex: Just for the sake of curiosity, what do you suppose would happen in a group of people or in a culture that 'knew' and internalized the knowledge that 'nothing is ultimately real'?

Me: I've thought about this. Again, I think we would be talking about a society where there was more proportionality in responses to conventional events, a more secure society, psychologically speaking as well as from the point of view of physical security.

Alex: Would they: live in their unreal world, knowing always it is unreal; reproduce unreally, raise unreal children; build an unreal house, construct a city of the unreal; get together and discuss just how unreal everything is and only getting more unreal; sit around and complain about the 'ignorant' who are 'making it too real' and taking it all too seriously...

Me: I think that a great premium would be placed on preserving the insight, through directed and reasoned debate about the nature of reality. Each generation would come to grips with the insight. And rightly so.

Alex: What would a civilization do if it were dedicated to the unreality of everything?

Me: I think that we would do much of what we do now, except better. That is, there would be more progress, since people would be less preoccupied with things that seemed paramount before. For example, people would seek to internalize the insight more and more instead of accumulating unnecessary material wealth.

Alex: Depending on how people related to this, a case could be made as to whether it was a 'good' and 'useful' perception, or neurotic. There is a danger is sacrificing 'the tangible' to 'the intangible', certainly for an individual. Or, how do you see it?

Me: I don't think there would be much of risk of this sacrifice, since, as I said before, there would be more proportionality to things. Of course there would be a risk of neurotically applying the insight, but I think that in today's society, with its neurotic (dare I say manic?) focus on conventional reality, it would take a hell of a lot of the opposite perspective to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.

It seems to me that you reference point here is an abstraction. You seem to refer to Ultimate Reality as a thing when it is, if anything, a way of seeing what exists, a way of modifying understanding. Your main thrust is as against 'conventional thought', the goal being that people think unconventionally and modify how they act in 'substantial reality'.

dejavu wrote:I say it is because you have bad taste, and not only in art.

Everyone is just a child of his age and my age is pretty tasteless indeed.

which is how you get it to trans-time trips

It's the quintessential artist which is actually producing nothing - there is no effect, as he is only echoing the sounds of his age, like a passive bell, accidentally rang by someone else, perhaps someone more coarse and less sensitive. Originality is not part of art, art is about the copy: the blatant reworking of anything original or soul-full that can be found. No surprise to see art for the masses has ended in samples, clips, reruns and remakes. It's its destiny, after all. Ah, but you refuse to call that art and think you have as such defeated the accusation! Ha!

Of course many artists need the illusion of affecting change, perhaps only in a heart of two. The insanity of the concept of mega-sized benefit concerts: celebrating musically the very machinery causing the suffering one desires to relieve in the first place. But ironically affecting this type of change is the last thing they could ever accomplish. The artist has to remain ignorant of his own function, which is to have none. Art, after all, for art sake.

Art, wholly, truthfully, is the decorative function: the tune played at the funeral march, the flower arrangement at the stones, the deification of memory.

which is why the lesser man is never as down as him who wills from the underground.

Alex: It seems to me that you reference point here is an abstraction.

Me: Quite the contrary. It's ultimately the only real "thing" that there is.

Alex: You seem to refer to Ultimate Reality as a thing when it is, if anything, a way of seeing what exists, a way of modifying understanding.

Me: As far as concepts can describe it, one way to describe it would be as seeing what exists (not a way). It's certainly not a way of modifying understanding.

Alex: Your main thrust is as against 'conventional thought', the goal being that people think unconventionally and modify how they act in 'substantial reality'.

Me: While I agree that people may need to think unconventionally, I was referring to a different definition of conventional thought. I was referring to conceptual thought in general. But I'm certainly not against it as such. I just think that it's important to recognize that it doesn't ultimately exist. And I think that will make life easier.

David Quinn wrote:A person with slightly excessive consciousness can only stumble onto the road between worldliness and nirvana, where he constantly gets run over. He doesn't have it what it takes to cross to the other side.

Come on, David. Every-day one wakes up from physical sleep is a new day arising.

Crossing to the other side is akin to walking on water .. it only happens once-in-a-lifetime.

tomas eats at a berry center

Gawd, Diebert. You'd give Baudrillard a hard-on. ;-)

For the 'masses' it always ends up the same so referring to them is 'unfair'. Art is definitely not for the 'masses' or for the 'mediocre'. It's sort of like the thing Jesus said: 'Let he who has ears, hear'.

It is a question too of one's own willingness. One goes out to meet art. You have to enter into its frequency. You have to want something there, you have to be willing.

The whole world, if one were really to be truthful, is lost in the imperative of the moments that drive them. I think that is what Mr Quinn (the Esquimo!) wishes to communicate (and Dodge here wants to echo). People are just horribly pushed along and just about never can rise up to confront that which drives them. And it is so utterly rare that someone even feel something about that, aside from mute anguish, or suffering put badly into words. But some of the best art, at least, seems to put those thoughts and feelings into words. It is pretty rare that it is done, and much rarer that it is done well.

My way of seeing things is that the best and highest realizations of saints and wisemen is both compatable with art and expresses the best of art.

It is not [only] the decorative function but the expressive function.

Steven Coyle wrote:tomas eats at a berry center

Well yes, (really - earlier today) I did have bananas and strawberries for lunch/dessert, topped with cream.

PS - To be exact, 3 bananas and 15 strawberries.