GENIUS FORUMS

Pye and Diebert.
How long is this lover's quarrel gonna go on?

Leyla,
mistaking what is thrown (facticity) for a priori is a boo boo.

There is no purpose in discussing enlightenment. To discuss reality is a more meaningful area, but none can agree what is real and what is not..

So maybe there is no purpose to either..QED

Dennis Mahar wrote:Leyla,
mistaking what is thrown (facticity) for a priori is a boo boo.

That's right, as is mistaking incoherence for knowledge or metaphor.

There is no purpose in discussing enlightenment. To discuss reality is a more meaningful area, but none can agree what is real and what is not..

So maybe there is no purpose to either..QED

That's your shit ardy.
same shit different day.
breakdown mood.
what happened?
didn't you say you fucked up at work or somethin'.



Being-in-the-World.
Is the fish in the aquarium or outside the aquarium?

ardy,

what is thrown (eyes of the philosophers) mostly junk.

come to your senses.

go stand out the front of your house.
your eyes see the front of the house.

do the sides and back of the house exist from their own side?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:By the way, when I wrote "as they do", I was thinking of David Quinn's article describing Woman as cultural fiction, as value set for great emotional happiness and comfort. Like the search for supreme happiness: "the basis of the thought-patterning and emotional make-up which will persist throughout life, and will express itself as the search for permanent happiness".

Yes, and in this we still find ourselves firmly nested within the historical genius of the Hegelian master-slave/god-man dialectic; the resolution (synthesis) of heavenly bodies into artefacts of human value.

You should see him at work "on his feet"... (:

I am reminded just now of one of my favourite quotes:

The art of being a slave is to rule one's master.

The master is the slave, and the slave the master...

always-with the scenarios.

Leyla Shen wrote:I am reminded just now of one of my favourite quotes:

The art of being a slave is to rule one's master.

The master is the slave, and the slave the master...

The philosophy of the dog life.

The philosophy of the dog life, part 2. The writing dog.

ardy wrote:There is no purpose in discussing enlightenment. To discuss reality is a more meaningful area, but none can agree what is real and what is not..

A discussion is never born without purpose and neither is your comment. You just have to admit to it first. If you think there's a difference between discussing enlightenment and reality, you've got much to learn still! What is real is what you know to be real. But do you know that you know? Your purpose right now is trying to understand what's being said to you. Stop hiding behind question marks and get in front of your exclamation mark hiding in your pocket!

Leyla Shen wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:By the way, when I wrote "as they do", I was thinking of David Quinn's article describing Woman as cultural fiction, as value set for great emotional happiness and comfort. Like the search for supreme happiness: "the basis of the thought-patterning and emotional make-up which will persist throughout life, and will express itself as the search for permanent happiness".

Yes, and in this we still find ourselves firmly nested within the historical genius of the Hegelian master-slave/god-man dialectic; the resolution (synthesis) of heavenly bodies into artefacts of human value.

Not at at all, it's his theological genius. Okay then: perhaps more teleological. But the genius of a closet priest mumbling obscure formula. Atheist? At his best he just rephrased a well worn path of ancient thought. And not that good even: it's why I believe in decline and not progress when it comes to understanding human nature and development (note: essential grasp appears to decline as forms multiply).

Diebert: Reason is just given as the base of mental activity itself. Like weather is given as state of the atmosphere.

There is a reason for everything. Not all reasons are known.

Enlightened/real consciousness = known reasons.

It's unclear how you want the infinite to engage in any particular activity unless it's all of them.

The infinite engages in all activities through its conscious beings.

Incredible. All that confusion, Diebert, because you believe feet don't exist .

Dennis Mahar wrote:

There is no purpose in discussing enlightenment. To discuss reality is a more meaningful area, but none can agree what is real and what is not..

So maybe there is no purpose to either..QED

That's your shit ardy.
same shit different day.
breakdown mood.
what happened?
didn't you say you fucked up at work or somethin'.



Being-in-the-World.
Is the fish in the aquarium or outside the aquarium?

Dennis - I suggest that it is your view of life not mine. I have not worked for 12 years and what the hell is a breakdown mood? Is all OK in the top paddock?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

ardy wrote:There is no purpose in discussing enlightenment. To discuss reality is a more meaningful area, but none can agree what is real and what is not..

A discussion is never born without purpose and neither is your comment. You just have to admit to it first. If you think there's a difference between discussing enlightenment and reality, you've got much to learn still! What is real is what you know to be real. But do you know that you know? Your purpose right now is trying to understand what's being said to you. Stop hiding behind question marks and get in front of your exclamation mark hiding in your pocket!

Diebert: If you think enlightenment and reality is the same thing you have much to learn. Reality is what you perceive it to be, and you are not ME! [one ! 4u]. Enlightenment is some sort of a mental breakthrough that cannot be understood if you have not been there. I respectfully suggest that you are not there, and neither are 99% of posters [maybe 100%] on this site. Discussing something you have no experience of is like fishing blind in a desert. Therefore discussing it is a total waste of time, better off to just sit and meditate and see what happens...

A breakdown mood is when you don"t know what's goin on ardy.
come to your senses.
when you look at the front of your house you don't see the sides or back
Something is revealed and something is concealed.

Leyla Shen wrote:Incredible. All that confusion, Diebert, because you believe feet don't exist .

It's better just to watch your step. What you believe has ultimately little to do with walking.

ardy wrote: If you think enlightenment and reality is the same thing you have much to learn. Reality is what you perceive it to be, and you are not ME! [one ! 4u]. Enlightenment is some sort of a mental breakthrough that cannot be understood if you have not been there. I respectfully suggest that you are not there, and neither are 99% of posters [maybe 100%] on this site. Discussing something you have no experience of is like fishing blind in a desert. Therefore discussing it is a total waste of time, better off to just sit and meditate and see what happens...

So you experience a bit of satori and instead of sitting and meditating you go online suggesting others are not "there". Well, Ardy, since you don't seem to be able to reason your way you of a paper bag, it's highly doubtful you can know what it is exactly what your experienced and certainly you can't discuss it at this stage in some enlightened manner. That's where your limits are right now. Let me say it again: stop hiding behind question marks and "unknowables" and get in front of your exclamation mark. You've done one little step: suggesting you know about some indescribable "breakthrough" that others do not know of. Very good, it's a bit of your exclamation mark but a tiny, weeny one. You have to do better!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

ardy wrote: If you think enlightenment and reality is the same thing you have much to learn. Reality is what you perceive it to be, and you are not ME! [one ! 4u]. Enlightenment is some sort of a mental breakthrough that cannot be understood if you have not been there. I respectfully suggest that you are not there, and neither are 99% of posters [maybe 100%] on this site. Discussing something you have no experience of is like fishing blind in a desert. Therefore discussing it is a total waste of time, better off to just sit and meditate and see what happens...

So you experience a bit of satori and instead of sitting and meditating you go online suggesting others are not "there". Well, Ardy, since you don't seem to be able to reason your way you of a paper bag, it's highly doubtful you can know what it is exactly what your experienced and certainly you can't discuss it at this stage in some enlightened manner. That's where your limits are right now. Let me say it again: stop hiding behind question marks and "unknowables" and get in front of your exclamation mark. You've done one little step: suggesting you know about some indescribable "breakthrough" that others do not know of. Very good, it's a bit of your exclamation mark but a tiny, weeny one. You have to do better!

Diebert I enjoy your posts, but to hold this argument you need to explain what YOUR understanding is and not just a bunch of nuanced logical argument. This seems to me like a hide that you enjoy being behind.

BTW I have never claimed any indescribable 'breakthrough', I did explain what I experienced but to claim that as some indescribable breakthrough is nonsense. If you think that some reason, education and brains will get you there you are sadly mistaken. In fact both you and Kelly seem stuck in this logical mental merry-go-round.

Diebert wrote:

It's better just to watch your step.

Sure, great advice for toddlers, or grown people walking around in the dark.

Investigating the senses discloses you never get a 360 degree view of an object.
There's always a part revealed and a part concealed.

Concealment is the nature of phenomena and gives rise to widespread assumption and speculation.

ardy wrote:Diebert I enjoy your posts, but to hold this argument you need to explain what YOUR understanding is and not just a bunch of nuanced logical argument. This seems to me like a hide that you enjoy being behind.

Hold one a minute, you just claimed that here is no purpose in discussing enlightenment which naturally includes any understanding of it or path related to it. As long as you keep believing that "none can agree what is real and what is not" your statement that I'd need to explain my understanding is complete nonsense. Not to mention that I've been writing on this forum about this understanding for a long time now. But any discussion without "nuanced logical arguments" would be nonsensical as well: a complete and utter waste of your time. So what's it gonna be? Thought or senselessness?

BTW I have never claimed any indescribable 'breakthrough', I did explain what I experienced but to claim that as some indescribable breakthrough is nonsense. If you think that some reason, education and brains will get you there you are sadly mistaken. In fact both you and Kelly seem stuck in this logical mental merry-go-round.

But you did claim knowledge about enlightenment as being some mental breakthrough "that cannot be understood if you have not been there" and therefore, as result, impossible to describe? Because what's the point of describing anything if you already know it cannot be understood.

I'm not sure where you get your education and brain references from. This is all about common sense, simple reasoning capacity and the question if one is able to at least hold one argument straight without letting emotion, attachment and ignorance twist it in many self-serving corners. There's really no other reason to remain contributing on this forum, now that would be a waste of time indeed. What's left is trolling.

Leyla Shen wrote:

It's better just to watch your step.

Sure, great advice for toddlers, or grown people walking around in the dark.

That's about everbody including those underground: "mind the gap!"

Diebert,

But you did claim knowledge about enlightenment as being some mental breakthrough "that cannot be understood if you have not been there" and therefore, as result, impossible to describe? Because what's the point of describing anything if you already know it cannot be understood.

You twisted his words as usual.
He simply rejects your mode of thinking as irrelevant to enlightenment.
One has to be enlightened about 'something'.
Your mode of thinking is what he is enlightened about.
That it is irrelevant.

Ardy is in the order of logical.
Logic, as usual escapes you D.

Being is always/already a priori to your 'pap' (linguistics).
It has no characteristics, properties, functions and cannot be described.

Ardy is saying to some degree Being is 'unconcealed' for him.
Opened up.