GENIUS FORUMS

Wisdom is based on whole and parts analysis.
that's what the philosophers are concerned with.

you tell a story:
time (eternal), character (personhood), fate (suffering).
are you rehearsing for mills and boon?
you'll need a happy ending.

On a dark,dark night on a dark,dark planet,
in a dark,dark,town of a dark,dark nation,
a dark,dark man in a dark,dark coat,
sewed to the dark,dark coat a dark,dark pocket,
in the dark,dark pocket,
a pink jelly bean.

Same old evasion techniques.

Dennis Mahar wrote: character (personhood)

You're telling the story of a personhood that forever retains 'intellect of emptiness'.

The direct experience of emptiness/nonduality discloses the underlying reality to be 'placid lake' despite appearances.
Bliss.
suffering is contingent.
When doves cry
boo hoo.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Here's where using the G-word comes in handy. It is not self consciousness that retains insights it's that insights born of wisdom inquiry cause God to become more conscious of Its infinite things, things such as logic and love. Things that are already present in the Godhead as unconscious possibilities that are not forgotten once made conscious. This is not an absolute truth, rather, it is a logical truth. Evolution of consciousness.

That is not at all logical. Unconscious possibilities in the non-self-conscious infinite (which "retains insights of its infinite things"?) not forgotten by what/whom once made conscious?

Perhaps your response to me was logical to you, but since I couldn't follow it I'll try explaining myself using different concepts.

At one time, the All was unconscious of how to make fire for the reasons of warming itself and for cooking its food. At one time the All was unconscious of how to communicate via the internet. In other words, the All becomes conscious of Itself via gradual 'unfoldings' of higher reasonings or understandings. Reasonings that lie dormant until activated ('needed').

Dennis Mahar wrote:There's a problem with the G-word as Pye tried to point out.
nouns and verbs.
God isn't static, it's becoming, verbing, streaming endlessly
God-ing

bubble, bubble, toil and trouble? (:

Only a problem if your understanding of God is a static one. Perhaps a more truthful way of saying God is to say "the spirit of God" or simply "the spirit."

movingalways wrote:Only a problem if your understanding of God is a static one. Perhaps a more truthful way of saying God is to say "the spirit of God" or simply "the spirit."

God's "holy ghost"? It cannot be more "truthful" by just taking some aspect and substitute. God is static and movement (from, to, as she moves): Tao which moves in words, heart or time is not eternal Tao. Ultimately not simply eternally frozen and neither temporary: no static and no spirit. But it appears as both: when identified with movement the constant stands eternal but when identified with fixture, then the spirit appears to flow. From this one might derive Pam is identified with some fixture and as such revels in ghostly sightings. Boo!

Diebert I understand what you're getting at and perhaps "the spirit of God" takes care of Its "rest and motion" aspect, the spirit referring to God's moving aspect and the "of" referring to God's unmoving aspect.

Seeker, I discovered this saying attributed to the Buddha which might help clear up what he meant by suffering:

"The All is aflame with passion, aversion, delusion and suffering; to obtain release from this suffering, one should become disenchanted with the All. ~ Ādittapariyāya Sutta, SN 35.28

Suffering = enchantment.

Looking at a chair is not the direct experience of chairness.
you have to sit on it.

looking at a bridge is not the direct experience of bridgeness.
you have to cross it.

for the direct experience of emptiness the intellect is brought to bear on
causes/conditions give rise to this and that

movingalways wrote:Diebert I understand what you're getting at and perhaps "the spirit of God" takes care of Its "rest and motion" aspect, the spirit referring to God's moving aspect and the "of" referring to God's unmoving aspect.

And before we know it we land in theological discussions on divine trinity :-) The thing is you said a more truthful way of saying God is "the spirit". It's not a more truthful way, it's similar to say we should say "genius" instead of god. But it's as you say always "spirit of". And like breath it's for ever in movement, meaning subjectivity. Now if you'd have said a more truthful way of saying truth is "spirit", there would be reason to agree. Where we do agree is the problem of conceiving god through this subjectivity as "static", as objectified existence up there or down here. Can we agree on this perhaps?

The World seems to be stuffed with entities.
These entities show up as distinct ways of being.
An environment of ways of beings.

each being is:
a subject,verb, predicate.

a fence post is a subject, verb, predicate as is God.

objects.

the project is to subject, verb, predicate the object.

And there comes Heidegger chiming in! Right on cue.

I mean, Heidegger is another one who first asserts "human" and then starts to create meaning around the given ontology. He starts with theology or some psychological anthropology and arranges thoughts and observations around it. Highly interesting for the age of the individual and self but is it actual philosophy? A self serving one for sure and naturally (as consequence) a highly convoluted one. But he gets an "A' for effort, sure. What an unbelievable "about" thinker! No wonder he's in your tool box, Dennis. But you really need a new syntax man.

It's what happens isn't it?

philosophy is about objects and their relations, OK?

objects for tool-being.
in order to for the sake of

something is up
(:

for instance Diebert,
in your world,

for:
woman (subject)
her being (isness)
a predicate, as an object in relation to philosophy, her tool-being,
she is 'broken tool'.

as an in order to (tool-being)
for the sake of (project)

she is useless.

Diebert: Where we do agree is the problem of conceiving god through this subjectivity as "static", as objectified existence up there or down here. Can we agree on this perhaps?

Once could say that this same problem arises with the concept of "hidden void".

I see no problem with using God or god terminology as long as one explains that they are referring to their individual subjective consciousness and not to some "guy" or "thing" up there or down here, etc. As I see it, it's the context that is important. Do you think that it is necessary that we all speak the same language of enlightenment in order to relate to one another? Is not the discovery of the different language of identity wisdom not part of the enjoyment of the discovery?

From "Wonder into Wonder, Existence Opens" by Lao Tzu:

That is why men have called them empty phenomena,
Meaningless images,
In a mirage
With no face to meet,
No back to follow.
Yet one who is anciently aware of existence
Is master of every moment,
Feels no break since beyond time
In the way life flows.

Diebert, my point is that to be a master of every moment of one's mirage, one needs a foundation language of "I am" or "Self." Dennis has his, you have yours, I have mine, etc. Perhaps one definition of a genius of "mirage management" is one who can hear different languages and to use one of Dennis' favourite terms, 'grok' what it is they are inferring.

I see no problem with using God or god terminology as long as one explains that they are referring to their individual subjective consciousness and not to some "guy" or "thing" up there or down here, etc. As I see it, it's the context that is important. Do you think that it is necessary that we all speak the same language of enlightenment in order to relate to one another? Is not the discovery of the different language of identity wisdom not part of the enjoyment of the discovery?

There is no individual subjective consciousness ultimately.

God or god terminology exists in a network of relations conceptually.
A network of relations constitutes the comportment of that stream of conceptuality,
That stream of conceptuality aka religion constitutes untold misery in its comportment.

The question is your motive for it.
and the 'every opportunity' you take to reify it.
what's at stake?

The Tao cannot be named.
Ineffable silence.

Heidegger and Buddha are saying the same thing.

Heidegger's path of thinking is guerilla warfare.

He strode into the joint with his AK47 blazing.

Martin opened up World plain to see.

Top gun.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

I see no problem with using God or god terminology as long as one explains that they are referring to their individual subjective consciousness and not to some "guy" or "thing" up there or down here, etc. As I see it, it's the context that is important. Do you think that it is necessary that we all speak the same language of enlightenment in order to relate to one another? Is not the discovery of the different language of identity wisdom not part of the enjoyment of the discovery?

There is no individual subjective consciousness ultimately.

God or god terminology exists in a network of relations conceptually.
A network of relations constitutes the comportment of that stream of conceptuality,
That stream of conceptuality aka religion constitutes untold misery in its comportment.

The question is your motive for it.
and the 'every opportunity' you take to reify it.
what's at stake?

The Tao cannot be named.
Ineffable silence.

And yet, here you are, calling it The Tao. :-)

Dennis, as I said to Diebert, it's all about context. It's no different than you pointing to the ineffable silence with "it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless" using thousands of words to make your point.

Oh, this costume you wear is for Nietzsche the 'constant overcoming'.
geddit?

Context is tool-being.

Give us that, you're ownmost expression.
taking crap from culture stupefies further what is already stoopid.

You'll need a duality.
What it is apparently and what it is really.

a thinker has one thought and develops it.

Clarity of thought is shedding prejudices, preferences, aversions like a snake sheds its skin.
the clear light of pure mind experience.
wonderfulness.

come out of there cock-a-hoop.

The Buddha and Heidegger got rid of the subject/object split.

What Heidegger opened up is an object-oriented philosophy.
World as project.
things and concepts (objects) are tools and equipment.
the wonderfulness of Heidegger.

At one time, the All was unconscious of how to make fire for the reasons of warming itself and for cooking its food.

Oh?

Why would the All exclude the planet Pluto, then?

movingalways wrote:

Diebert: Where we do agree is the problem of conceiving god through this subjectivity as "static", as objectified existence up there or down here. Can we agree on this perhaps?

I see no problem with using God or god terminology as long as one explains that they are referring to their individual subjective consciousness and not to some "guy" or "thing" up there or down here, etc. As I see it, it's the context that is important. Do you think that it is necessary that we all speak the same language of enlightenment in order to relate to one another? Is not the discovery of the different language of identity wisdom not part of the enjoyment of the discovery?

Language and the structures and coherency it provides is not a random, disconnected ornament to flash around. Now since we both realize subjectivity and truth as "moving target" (or truth as subjectivity itself) one should be very careful when saying god is a reference to "individual subjective consciousness". This is simply not how god as term is referenced in most traditions and certainly would "castrate" the notion. So if you want to use god terminology, please use it wisely and not just simply equal it to spirit or truth. Both which are aspects of duality, as evidenced by the oppositional constant in relation to anything moving.

Dennis Mahar wrote:philosophy is about objects and their relations, OK?

For you it appears like that. For a philosopher worth his salt it certainly isn't!

movingalways wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote: The Tao cannot be named.
Ineffable silence.

And yet, here you are, calling it The Tao. :-)

Dennis, as I said to Diebert, it's all about context. It's no different than you pointing to the ineffable silence with "it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless" using thousands of words to make your point.

Sometimes we can just point to error and say it's an error, Pam. From where comes this wish to make it all about context and different languages or subjectivity? Do you want everybody to be right in his own way? While ultimately one could see things as beyond right and wrong, inside these conversations and contexts we can certainly have a standard and a path, which means there's somewhere to go still. And nobody here can withdraw himself from that context because a conversations introduces participants: travelers; erroneous beings.

Dennis is wrong thinking the Tao cannot be named. As the Tao Te Ching indicated in all its verses we have a "doing" Tao and a "non-doing" Tao. A moving move and an eternal moving. But they have to be seen as a whole, including any silence and breaking of the silence.