GENIUS FORUMS

z: I don't see why you'd need a break, unless the concepts were too difficult for you to grasp. In that case, I recommend asking for definitions.

(Without knowing the definition of God, the average fundie is about as close to being Christian as I am an East African voodoo priest.)

Trev,
I've heard all these arguments before. I don't see the point...
z

z: do you find what he's saying inaccurate, or obvious to the point of being boring?

.

Kevin wrote:S: So what is the problem of God driven thinkers who know that the other party is equally driven by God?

K: I'm not sure what your question is here. There is no problem.

No, there is --- delusion.

This in fact was a "problem" dealt with in the Bhagavad gita, where Arjuna was battling members of his own family, and his opponents included his own teachers and carers. The long shot of it was, there was no problem for him to fight them.

Of course not; it is perfectly alright for Arjuna, clearly an individually identifiable sentient human being, to change “his” values in accordance to “his” reasoning and conclude that “his” own family and teacher have turned evil or deluded for example, which of course "he" saw as a problem that needed to be taken care of. Unless he was ignoring the fact that it is not “THEM” that are evil or deluded, nor any of the actions are “their” doings; that is, if he was wise and he really knew that God is the doer of all, and is all; then it would be illogical for “him” to consider battling, unless that too is the doing of God, which then renders logic utterly illogical, meaningless.

All things are God, and all things do God's will since they can't possibly do otherwise. "I" and "though", "self" and "others", are abstractions, and are as real as anything else - which is to say, they are real.

You mean if shit happens, it’s the will of Allah?

S: (Individuals) produce their own individual effects.

K: Yes, so long as we remember that the individual is always totally controlled in every respect by God/Nature (his larger Self).

Well, God is the doer and totally in control; who am “I” to remember then? If it happens it happens, otherwise never mind, I take it.


From your earlier post…

If you were not fully mindful that that which you are speaking against, is in fact God, and that your very communication is God, etc, then you would be deluded.

What can/should “I” do to be mindful? The responsibility falls on God.

It’s not “my” responsibility to be mindful; God is the doer.

It’s not “my” fault that “I” am deluded; God is the doer.

I think I get it. There are no intentional efforts required on ones part.

Let God's will work its way.

Wow, now that was weird. It seemed like a normal, even productive conversation, and then it turned into a really wack masturbation session with the equivalent of theological lubrication, and then it turned into a little group orgy of unsuspected delights! Damn, you dudes never cease to surprise me! Used to be that a fellow did all that sort of thing with a woman! Did any part of that help you with anything at all?

Whatever...

The Great AsHkAnaaZ does not participate in all-male wack-sessions, and for this reason, with a sort of sick feeling, he must retire from this 'conversation'.

Have fun, and please remember to wipe up when you are done...

As much as Kevin would like to, he cannot remove the fact that he is in control of his body.

That everything he does is caused is unprovable at best. This is irrelevant anyways, unless Kevin wants to be a fatalist.

His beliefs that there is nothing higher in the "Totality" than our world, that nothing ultimately matters, and that all his actions are caused, are religious.

"His beliefs that there is nothing higher in the "Totality" than our world, that nothing ultimately matters, and that all his actions are caused, are religious."

Okay, but let me say this: watch out for the 'choir boys' and be careful where you sit...

AJ: what part of that conversation did you find erotic?

Well, for one thing, as I mentioned early in the thread, I don't think The Spiritual Life can be effectively discussed on the Internet. Indeed, the subsequent results kink of prove it. I mean king of prove it. Haha, sorry, I mean kind of prove it.

I have a question: is the philosophical life the same as the spiritual life? How is philosophy different from and the same as spirituality?

As much as Kevin would like to, he cannot remove the fact that he is in control of his body.

This is trivially true, but unremarkable. Of course Kevin is in control of his body. But what is in control of Kevin being in control of his body?

I can choose to do anything I like. But what causes my choices?

Hint: It's not magic, which is what would it would have to be if one asserts that my choices have no other cause than "myself." This would make me a supernatural being. As cool as that would be, it is not the case.

Trev, a little of both...but to me, being a non-believer, it's all so pointless. An intellectual exercise at best. Which doesn't mean I don't respect people who hold different beliefs - who enjoy that form of recreation or employment.

I've come to appreciate the diversity of people and have developed a deep appreciation for the world and the many 'characters' it throws up, and how many of the situations they/we find ourselves in happen whether they/we will it or not. We are often oblivious to what is going on around us, no matter how 'aware' we are...As a writer, I find myself 'inspired' by the rationale of random events...it all seems so pointless, yet at the same time, there is something heroic about the players, about us, which attracts my empathy, and often my sadness...

Some years ago I wrote a short feature called 'The Convergence' which you may be able to track down on the net. If I find it I'll post the link...its about several people who live very different lives and are all drawn to a spot beside a river where they witness a tragedy, yet each one has a different interpretation, and see it through different eyes....There is another short feature made by some colleagues of mine called 'Birthday Boy'...a wonderful little movie, chock-a-block with irony and philosophical insights. Spiritual? definitely.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scav4-n9gxU

z

Nat,

Of course Kevin is in control of his body. But what is in control of Kevin being in control of his body?

Particularly “his” individually caused self-reflective consciousness, not mine, neither yours.

I can choose to do anything I like. But what causes my choices?

Like wise.

Hint: It's not magic, which is what would it would have to be if one asserts that my choices have no other cause than "myself."

Yes, it’s not magic, and neither am “I” the absolute cause of the choices that “I” make, but “I” am a necessary factor. ‘Choices’ necessarily need a factor of “I” in between for that to happen, which if denied, then “choices” are not happening. Is that the case? Or that there isn’t anything “really” there for a particularly reasoning conscious thing to choose from? For example truth and false. Ones values are a result of “his” individual reasoning over things thrown at “him”, not the things thrown itself, otherwise reasoning it actually redundant.

This would make me a supernatural being. As cool as that would be, it is not the case.

Such a thought may be cool, but that would not be so before one assumes a thing like “super-natural” is a possibility, whereas there is nothing “super” about nature, neither could anything be beyond it.

.

Neil,

That everything he does is caused is unprovable at best. This is irrelevant anyways, unless Kevin wants to be a fatalist.

Well, he is not actually. However, my position is different although I have reason to believe that causality rules all (individual but interactively dependant) things, but is merely a process, here and now. However timeless that such a process may be, I do not consider it an endless single mechanical chain that enslaves individual consciousnesses, otherwise truth and false have no comparative value. One cosmic consciousness is not possible; neither is the process on its own itself conscious. I rather see that because of such a process, feelings and the capability of reasoned choice arise through our kind of sense perception and individual reasoning, making an individual conscious ‘thing’ responsible for “his” choice and actions. Causality does not absolve or dissolve the fact of comparative values; it merely provides the means for a thing to act according to its particularly “caused” interactive NATURE.

Sapius wrote:

This in fact was a "problem" dealt with in the Bhagavad gita, where Arjuna was battling members of his own family, and his opponents included his own teachers and carers. The long shot of it was, there was no problem for him to fight them.

if he [Arjuna] was wise and he really knew that God is the doer of all, and is all; then it would be illogical for “him” to consider battling, unless that too is the doing of God, which then renders logic utterly illogical, meaningless.

Since everything is God, even Arjuna's reasonings and logic were indeed God. And also his giving meaning or value to truth and logic is also God.

You mean if shit happens, it’s the will of Allah?

Yes, and whatever we do in response to it is also the will of Allah.

If you were not fully mindful that that which you are speaking against, is in fact God, and that your very communication is God, etc, then you would be deluded.

What can/should “I” do to be mindful? The responsibility falls on God.

Since God is not a conscious being, God cannot be responsible or irresponsible. Only conscious beings like ourselves can be responsible.

In other words, if I commit a crime and go to jail, God caused it, but I'm responsible for it. And if I'm an irresponsible person, then I'm not very responsible at all!

Alex Jacob wrote:Wow, now that was weird. It seemed like a normal, even productive conversation . . .

On this forum, it's not unusual for any discussion to end up discussing the nature of God.

Are you not interested in the nature of God - or what God is?

Kevin wrote:Since God is not a conscious being, God cannot be responsible or irresponsible. Only conscious beings like ourselves can be responsible.

No, “I” do not even exist, you said, so irrelevant of how one defines God, the responsibility of ALL things falls on God/nature/totality/causality etc, etc, (which is all things, BTW), irrelevant of that being defined as neither conscious nor unconscious. The responsibility of “me” being conscious also falls on God, and so do any of the consequences thereof, logically.

In other words, if I commit a crime and go to jail, God caused it, but I'm responsible for it.

Which part exactly are “you” responsible for? When and where does “your” criminal activity begin?

And if I'm an irresponsible person, then I'm not very responsible at all!

So? It is not “my” doing that “I” am an utterly irresponsible person.

I’m not necessarily shifting the blame on something else; I am simply saying that “I” am not the doer of any thing at all, which you do agree, so “you” don't have any logical grounds on which to imprison “me”.

Unidian wrote:

As much as Kevin would like to, he cannot remove the fact that he is in control of his body.

This is trivially true, but unremarkable. Of course Kevin is in control of his body. But what is in control of Kevin being in control of his body?

I can choose to do anything I like. But what causes my choices?

Why do you look for anything here? It is irrelevant unless you want to use it as a fatalist, which I realize Kevin doesn't want to.

And just because there are effects does not necessarily mean there are causes. That is only a general "truth" derived from the empirical world. To talk about causes beyond it is meaningless from our perspective at least.

Sapius wrote:The responsibility of “me” being conscious also falls on God, and so do any of the consequences thereof, logically.

I just don't like to use the word "responsible" in respect to God, since responsibility implies consciousness - and that is something God doesn't have.

In other words, if I commit a crime and go to jail, God caused it, but I'm responsible for it.

Which part exactly are “you” responsible for?

Whatever I did, as an instrument of God. :-)

When and where does “your” criminal activity begin?

Wherever we decide to draw the boundaries. For example, if I commit a crime while drunk, or while sleepwalking, I may be held to be less criminal than if I were fully sober and awake.

And if I'm an irresponsible person, then I'm not very responsible at all!

So? It is not “my” doing that “I” am an utterly irresponsible person.

That's right.

I’m not necessarily shifting the blame on something else; I am simply saying that “I” am not the doer of any thing at all, which you do agree, so “you” don't have any logical grounds on which to imprison “me”.

I would imprison a person on a number of logical grounds: 1. To keep them off the streets. 2. For behaviour modification or treatment. 3. A deterrent to others.

None of these reasons assumes that the criminal is personally the cause of any crime.

Let's say that your computer plays-up and deletes some of your important files. That's like a "crime". The first thing you would probably do is to move your valuable files to another computer, and start using that other computer instead. This is like putting the faulty computer in "jail". Then you might try to fix the faulty computer, which is like trying to reform the "criminal". At no time do you assume that the faulty computer did some faulty thing on its own account.

Neil Melnyk wrote:And just because there are effects does not necessarily mean there are causes.

If you are conscious of "effects" then your consciousness is one of the causes of the "effects" (since "effects" have to be discriminated from what is other than themselves, and that discrimination is done by consciousness). Thus all things are at least caused by consciousness.

Kevin,

S: The responsibility of “me” being conscious also falls on God, and so do any of the consequences thereof, logically.

K: I just don't like to use the word "responsible" in respect to God, since responsibility implies consciousness - and that is something God doesn't have.

Responsibility does not necessarily imply consciousness. For example, a computer is responsible of producing conclusions almost instantaneously without being consciously responsible for the results it produces.

K; In other words, if I commit a crime and go to jail, God caused it, but I'm responsible for it.

S: Which part exactly are “you” responsible for?

K: Whatever I did, as an instrument of God. :-)

I’m glad that that makes you smile. So at least one thing is clear; “as an instrument of God” part does not really matter, however.

S: When and where does “your” criminal activity begin?

K: Wherever we decide to draw the boundaries.

What happened to being the instrument of God? Does an instrument of God have the capability to decide on his own? How, where and when do “we” take control of the reigns and become a decision-maker or draw boundaries? We still remain an instrument of God; don’t we? How is it “our” decision anyways? God is the doer of all.

I would imprison a person on a number of logical grounds: 1. To keep them off the streets. 2. For behaviour modification or treatment. 3. A deterrent to others.

Well, none of that would actually apply if the "criminal" calims to be an instrument OF God.

None of these reasons assumes that the criminal is personally the cause of any crime.

Then why imprison the person personally? He too is but an instrument of God.

Let's say that your computer plays-up and deletes some of your important files. That's like a "crime".

Not really, unless it has done that with conscious intent.

The first thing you would probably do is to move your valuable files to another computer, and start using that other computer instead.

Done.

This is like putting the faulty computer in "jail".

No, that’s called “store away”.

Then you might try to fix the faulty computer, which is like trying to reform the "criminal".

No, that is called “repair”, as far as I know.

At no time do you assume that the faulty computer did some faulty thing on its own account.

No, it didn't; it could have been a faulty chip, sudden surge of electricity, or a number of causes, but I would still be trying to repair THAT COMPUTER, irrelevant of it being an instrument of God.

(I might be away for a few days)

"On this forum, it's not unusual for any discussion to end up discussing the nature of God. Are you not interested in the nature of God - or what God is?"

I am so appalled I can hardly...speak!

You---perverts!

You should do this stuff in private...

Yuck!

Why, smart ass?

Well, I think that spate of perversion has abated. Whew! I don't think I got any on me. It is safe for men of good will to come out of hiding. I never told you, of course, but I am terrified by homoerotic intellects, simply terrified! Alone in the shower, perhaps, but openly, publically, in group! Oh God, Oh God! Some sort of modesty is called for!
_____________________________________________

Just as y'all seem to get a little wet & wild about some definitions of 'God', I worry that it could get worse when it comes to a definition of what Hesse meant by 'love'. (As the Lord is my witness and my rock of salvation, I pray that he will protect me!) I am pretty sure that the idea of 'love', or the 'fact' of love simply cannot appear in your(plural) vocabulary, and this is an important ommission. Personally, my reading of Hesse, is that what he most values, at the end of the day, at the end of living perhaps, maybe, just maybe, to have been able to love someone. I think he recognizes that as perhaps the rarest of rare accomplishment, and maybe as an 'acheivement' that trumps so many others, perhaps all others. In his first novel, Peter Camenzind, the protagonist spends his lifetime yearning for so many things, and toward the end takes care of a cripple, Boppi, and feels love for him, the love that he was not able to achieve in a relationship. Okay, maybe that story is not the bees-knees of literature, but I do think that it is this idea that runs through Hesse's work.

Relationships and relatedness. It is a fundemental human thing, ain't it? Maybe this is why you dudes come across as...so young...so misguided. Like there is just some peice missing? It seems to me---I could be wrong of course---that when we do have susbstantial contact with 'God' the question always seems to be...how are you relating. Take even Ramakrishna, or Ramana Maharshi, or any so-called 'realized soul'. There is the divine vision and then there is the ethical recommendations, and the manner in which they live, which always seems to be...in the human context, with human subjects, dealing with the human issues. I don't think Hesse is so far off the mark then, to have 'love' as a focus, a subject, an ideal.

Jung may have had those voluptuous, almost juicy aphorisms to express his particular contempt for women, and I too have my own, but I don't think you got what I mean in reference to 'the feminine'. Truth be told, Jung might, MIGHT! identify y'all as 'anima possessed'. You make all these categorical statements about women that oddly enough are statements about yourselves. Yes, women may ultimately be qualitatively different from men---okay---but why so much focus on this? Why such inordinate stress? Hmmmmmm? Yes, yes, I know, they have taken over the malls and the public byways, yes, yes, the dominate the airwaves, yes yes, they always end up with the house upon divorce, yes yes, we have to protect our masculinity from them (Dr Freud? are you near?), but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can never come up to the treefort, does it? Doesn't mean that we can't fuck the daylights out of them from time to time, does it? Oh and giving a women what she wants is not...the fucking end of the fucking world, now is it? From whence this non-Nietzschean ascetisim?

"For that reason, all the true things that have ever been written about women have been written by men. And when a woman does write something about women that has the ring of truth, like Camille Paglia, Esther Vilar, and Celia Green, they are always much more masculine than the average woman."

Yeah? And the goddammed universe is eXpLodInG as we speak, and whole worlds are being born. And it is the feminine principal that allows manifestation, you know, the field, the mare, the wide earth that accepts all things, on which all things grow. Look, right about now it is time to send you back to Tao 101, and also to listen to the songs your blood whispers, to feel the meaning in the blowing wind, the eternal flow of water. What?! What was that about the ananimate forces in nature? In our thermodynamic universe, there is no element other than the sun, or what is left over from the Cosmic Accident buried deep at the core of you, that could be said to be original.

Thou babblest like a brook but from you I gather no sense. In I-Ching cosmology, all the elements speak. They are spirits. But that is another episteme, and lo, the owl doth hoot.

So, the GReAT AshKaNaaZ creeps back up his mountain, under mind-bending and cold cold Luna glow, to sleep his sleep of the future with Snake and with Eagle!

Alex, I still don't see what you think is so erotic about this conversation. At what point did you see this conversation stop being a discussion of philosophy and become a discussion of sex, and when did this sexual dialogue turn into perverted sexual discourse? I must be missing something. Is the conversation arousing you?

Carl G wrote:Well, for one thing, as I mentioned early in the thread, I don't think The Spiritual Life can be effectively discussed on the Internet. Indeed, the subsequent results kink of prove it. I mean king of prove it. Haha, sorry, I mean kind of prove it.

I have a question: is the philosophical life the same as the spiritual life? How is philosophy different from and the same as spirituality?

Well, I suppose they can be the same thing. Or at least over-lap. Like, you could say a person has a "spiritual philosophy."

I don't know the dictionary distinction, but in the common venacular, I guess "spirituality" refers to notions and experiences about God or some Greater Cosmic Force, or even about our emotional/spirit state. Whereas "philosophy" generally refers to more purely intellectual musings.

I don't know why spiritual matters can't be discussed on an internet board. They're discussed in every other format and medium. And usually with just as bad results.

I don't know why spiritual matters can't be discussed on an internet board. They're discussed in every other format and medium. And usually with just as bad results.

Bingo.