GENIUS FORUMS

Imported from the "Weininger" thread, and a natural extension of a previous thread: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5741hilit=the+myth ... +principle

Pam, sorry for the delay in responding, but it's jarringly different to how the thread unfolded. I didn't wish to interrupt things. Your more recent discussion with Elizabeth is more "sympathetic", and I think that direction (plus Laird's) is worth following-through on here.

However, if you'd like me to respond to it anyway, feel free to start a new thread with that post (page 2 of this thread, I think).

=================================

Kelly Jones wrote: Pam, I don't agree that the feminine is the subjective, and the masculine is the objective. The externalised self (feminine mode of mind) that believes the physical is more real than the mental, is not the subjective. It would be better to call it the delusion of objective reality.

Kelly, what you say above conflicts with Weininger's correct observation that

Because the mental creates the physical, the human being must die.

Which means that since the mental creates the physical, both are intertwined and cannot be separated. Ergo, the inseparable, intertwined, subjective-objective human realm.

Kelly: Nor does cancelling out the feminine mode occur simultaneously with a cancelling-out of the masculine mode. The quote showed that the true, ideal mode (the masculine) was present but the feminine was not.

Kelly, regardless of how one views the feminine mode, it is impossible to separate a duality so that one of the 'twins' can be a free-standing agent. I believe that it was this erroneous philosophical conclusion of so many [male] philosophers that so often manifested eventual madness, insanity and suicide. I believe Weininger was a perfect example of such a conflicted mind. He correctly perceived the spirit realm, the absolute, and realized that to be in conscious union with this realm, the realm of the human being [the mental-physical] must die, but then, tried to blend the two together by giving the absolute human qualities, or should I say, half-human qualities [male only]

Because so many philosophers deny or ignore the law of the inseparable conjoined twins of the opposites that produces material form, there is much confusion and ignorance put out into the world that is called 'truth.' No wonder most philosophers live and die as tortured souls and fail to show the way to be liberated of the suffering that is human thinking, be it called male, female or a combination of both.

===================================

Kelly: It would be better to call it the delusion of objective reality.

Kelly, I meant to address this thought separately in my previous response to you.

I agree with you that to believe that there is an objective reality is to be delusional. An object [that which is perceived] requires a subject [that which is perceiving].

What is not delusional, and what I believe to be 'ultimate' reality is the reality of pure spirit forms, wherein there is no subject, nor is there an object; there is no image at all of what 'IT' IS. I do believe most on this board call it the 'nondual' state.

It is the pure spirit form reality that exists whether sense awareness [natural law] or intellectual sense awareness [logic interpretation] exists or not. It is the pure spirit form reality of laws, principles and patterns of life that is the invisible link of all that is. It is this ineffable, unspeakable reality that causes your heart to beat and my lungs to inflate and deflate and the planets to spin around the sun. It is without gender, color, shape or size, which means that neither masculine properties or feminine properties have anything to do with its 'I am" consciousness. It is this realm of consciousness, of its law of the opposites, that causes the dualities to appear in man's mind, but of itself, knows nothing of these dualities.

Some call the realm of pure spirit forms 'intelligent design', which is not a concept I like because of its human reference, but for the sake of understanding, I include it in my post.

Also imported from the "Weininger" thread:

Quote: movingalways:
This very well may be true, but I do not see the smashing of the duality of gender on this board, I see the attempt to smash of one-half of the duality of gender, that of the feminine. Which, to me, is a demonstration of a lack of wisdom of the nature of dualism. Which translates, to me, into a demonstration of a lack of wisdom of the nature of the infinite. True wisdom of dualism and of the infinite is the wisdom that addresses the primary dualism, which is not that of gender, but that of the subject-object mental divide. It is from this 'first' dual split of subject-object that all other dualities emerge. This is the wisdom lacking on the Genius board of genius of the absolute/infinite.

Dennis: You too are missing the point.

As well as that you are also making the forum wrong (duality) for dealing with conditioning in the way it does.
Do you see that?
If you do...why?

I do not believe I am missing the point at all, that being that conditioning is being 'smashed' by a philosophy of using the male principle of logic to 'smash' the feminine principle of all that is not logical.

As for me 'making the forum wrong' for dealing with conditioning in the way that it does, that is your judgment call. I do not see it as a judgment of right or of wrong, but of an incomplete vision of the relativity of dualism to the nondual. The philosophy here is one of blending the nondual with dualism, which, from the perspective of logic, makes no sense at all. My challenging of this illogical approach to the relationship of the finite to the infinite is at the core of all of my posts, a challenge, may I add, that as of yet, has not been satisfactorily addressed.

Also imported from "Weininger" thread:

movingalways wrote:
I believe this terror exists because of the belief that the outcome of dying to one's subject-object awareness is that one will be sentenced to some hellish place of 'no thought.' Not so. But one has to be willing to go directly to the first subject-object door and step over its threshold before the wisdom of the language of duality-reconciliation, of spiritual love, is revealed.

Elisabeth Isabelle: C-

Elisabeth, how is grading me a C- an exchange of wisdom that either one of us use toward our wisdom expansion?

Why the "C-"?

Pam,
The QRS argument is that the discovery of true nature came through the male brain or the minds of men.

You have stepped into the thoughts of Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Huang Po to access true nature....all men.
Jufa has facilitated you...bloke.

Something to do with biological neural configuration, something about reflective consciousness.

You criticise QRS for mentioning it.

Dennis: The QRS argument is that the discovery of true nature came through the male brain or the minds of men.

You have stepped into the thoughts of Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Huang Po to access true nature....all men.
Jufa has facilitated you...bloke.

Something to do with biological neural configuration, something about reflective consciousness.

You criticise QRS for mentioning it.

Dennis, I do not criticize QRS for mentioning that wisdom of the infinite comes mostly through the male 'mind.' What I criticize is the ideology that the male principle can be divorced from the female principle [within the male biological brain] so that it can stand alone as some sort of godly ideal or perfect representative of the infinite. I may be mistaken, but it is my belief that it is Kelly Jones who mostly subscribes to this ideology [feel free to correct me if I am off target, Kelly] and not David Quinn. I say this based on these two statements:

Kelly: [referring to a Weininger quote]: Nor does cancelling out the feminine mode occur simultaneously with a cancelling-out of the masculine mode. The quote showed that the true, ideal mode (the masculine) was present but the feminine was not.

David: [from the link posted above in my original thread on the myth of the stand alone principle]: The goal is indeed to transcend both the male and the female. But only the male part of us can drive us to do it.

Please note that although David indicates that both must be transcended, he does not provide a vision of how this is to happen.

In the Weininger thread, as I have done in many posts, I speak of the wisdom of Genesis 1 and 2, which is the wisdom of the extension of the law of dualism (Genesis 2) emanating from the law of the spirit of life (Genesis 1). Adam is the male/female principle emanated from this law (represented by the Lord God of "but"), for out of Adam, is emanated Eve. Which means Eve was always inside Adam, coming forth in his consciousness as he began naming the forms of the pure sense awareness of the Lord God [subject/object split]. Which means that the idea that Adam can name [make distinctions] without Eve appearing is erroneous thinking.

I do not deny that wisdom appears out of a logical analysis of the relationship of God and man, which is associated with the male (Eve-stilled Adamic, Christ-awakened, mind). What I never experienced, which means it is not a prerequisite for the attainment of wisdom, is what Kelly calls 'wise misogyny'. I was never interested in 'feminine' things from early childhood, but was not criticized or rejected by friends or family for this lack of interest. As a matter of fact, I was praised for being wise beyond my years and having "solid common sense."

Since Eve emanates from Adam, and Adam from the Lord God, and the Lord God from the Father, is it not time to stop condemning her so she can come home to Adam, and then, Adam to the Lord God, and then the Lord God to the Father?

Does this make my position clearer as to my relationship to the thoughts of the QRS, as I understand them to be?

Does this make my position clearer as to my relationship to the thoughts of the QRS, as I understand them to be?

Yes, good work. listening's happening.
If the possibility of 'strong suit' of logical analysis arises out of masculine in the quest for true nature.
What is 'strong suit' of feminine?

(represented by the Lord God of "but")

No idea what that signifies.

movingalways wrote:Imported from the "Weininger" thread

Thanks.

Kelly Jones: Pam, I don't agree that the feminine is the subjective, and the masculine is the objective. The externalised self (feminine mode of mind) that believes the physical is more real than the mental, is not the subjective. It would be better to call it the delusion of objective reality.

Pam: Kelly, what you say above conflicts with Weininger's correct observation that

Because the mental creates the physical, the human being must die.

Which means that since the mental creates the physical, both are intertwined and cannot be separated. Ergo, the inseparable, intertwined, subjective-objective human realm.

No, you've misunderstood that by materialism, Weininger is talking about a dimension of mind. The death of the human being is the death of the ego (the belief that oneself is a human being, a physical finitude). Examine carefully the following three quotes:

"Formal, transcendental time, however, does not cease with physical death, but extends beyond the individual. It is eternally posited precisely by those who have eternal life."

"I stand in time and not above it; I still posit time, still long for non-being, still desire material life; and because I remain in this sin, I am not able to comprehend it."

"The intelligible, hyperempirical existence of the male transcends matter, space, and time. He is certainly mortal, but he is immortal as well. And so he has the power to choose between the two, between the life which is lost with death and the life to which death is only a stepping- stone. The deepest will of man is towards this perfect, timeless existence; he is compact of the desire for immortality."

If Weininger had meant that everyone who sought to be free of criminality must kill themselves (i.e. literally suicide), then he would have posited the existence of a soul, that could only be immortal after death. But he doesn't say that: the last quote indicates.

Or, he would have believed all people were automatically already dead (mortal, incapable of immortality), and that redemption throughout one's life was impossible. But he didn't say that either; the last quote also indicates that. And the next quote also:

"the [criminal] person falls into nothingness; he dissolves into nothing but material atoms: the absolute criminal. The preparations for this mental disintegration have already been made by the criminal in the course of his life."

I've italicised the words that indicate that Weininger is not saying physicality literally equates with sin, such that any human being must therefore be automatically and absolutely sinful. Rather, he is saying the mind creates the condition of sinfulness with a particular notion about itself.

In other words, the delusion of objective reality, where a person believes all physical things are more real than the mental, is precisely what kills him off during his conscious life.

Kelly: Nor does cancelling out the feminine mode occur simultaneously with a cancelling-out of the masculine mode. The quote showed that the true, ideal mode (the masculine) was present but the feminine was not.

Pam: Kelly, regardless of how one views the feminine mode, it is impossible to separate a duality so that one of the 'twins' can be a free-standing agent.

Nonsense. When you have breakfast, are you fasting? No, you have completely separated yourself from the duality of fasting.

Similarly, when you understand something, are you still ignorant? No, you do understand. You've completely separated yourself from the duality of ignorance.

That's exactly the same thing as the intelligible, hyperempirical existence of the male. If one wishes to give it a name and a concept, then it is conceptualised relative to what it isn't, but it is not the same as what it isn't. It is distinct.

I believe that it was this erroneous philosophical conclusion of so many [male] philosophers that so often manifested eventual madness, insanity and suicide. I believe Weininger was a perfect example of such a conflicted mind. He correctly perceived the spirit realm, the absolute, and realized that to be in conscious union with this realm, the realm of the human being [the mental-physical] must die, but then, tried to blend the two together by giving the absolute human qualities, or should I say, half-human qualities [male only]

He didn't say the mental must die. Where'd you get that from?

Because so many philosophers deny or ignore the law of the inseparable conjoined twins of the opposites that produces material form,

When you are walking, where is sitting? If your "law" was true, then sitting would be dragged along with you, inseparably conjoined. But the moment you are walking, sitting disappears completely.

It is like the saying goes, "When the house-owner appears, the thief disappears into the night."

No wonder most philosophers live and die as tortured souls and fail to show the way to be liberated of the suffering that is human thinking, be it called male, female or a combination of both.

I'm not living as a tortured soul, yet I reject the female component of mind.

What is not delusional, and what I believe to be 'ultimate' reality is the reality of pure spirit forms, wherein there is no subject, nor is there an object; there is no image at all of what 'IT' IS. I do believe most on this board call it the 'nondual' state.

It is the pure spirit form reality that exists whether sense awareness [natural law] or intellectual sense awareness [logic interpretation] exists or not. It is the pure spirit form reality of laws, principles and patterns of life that is the invisible link of all that is. It is this ineffable, unspeakable reality that causes your heart to beat and my lungs to inflate and deflate and the planets to spin around the sun. It is without gender, color, shape or size, which means that neither masculine properties or feminine properties have anything to do with its 'I am" consciousness. It is this realm of consciousness, of its law of the opposites, that causes the dualities to appear in man's mind, but of itself, knows nothing of these dualities.

Some call the realm of pure spirit forms 'intelligent design', which is not a concept I like because of its human reference, but for the sake of understanding, I include it in my post.

Nonduality, or the reality of pure spirit forms, is exactly what all forms are, including gender, color, shape, size, etc. It's not something apart from them. If nonduality were separate, it would not be nonduality.

By "pure spirit", is meant that all things exist in a kind of fractal, or constantly-shifting and reforming way. It's a poetic description of the interactivity of all things, and the lack of intrinsic existence of separate things. Nevertheless, things do appear as distinct. It's clearly so that one thing is not another.

Nonduality doesn't mean a homogeneous blur, where all things are identical to each other. It just refers to the true nature of all things: how they share an existential reality.


.

movingalways: Does this make my position clearer as to my relationship to the thoughts of the QRS, as I understand them to be?

Dennis: Yes, good work. listening's happening.
If the possibility of 'strong suit' of logical analysis arises out of masculine in the quest for true nature.
What is 'strong suit' of feminine?

Rather than either having a 'strong suit', the vision as I understand it of Adam/Eve is that they are a conjoined duality [as are all dualities], both of which are necessary to fulfill the role as the interpreter for the LORD God of the earth and the heavens [the appearance of the universe]. The universe is temporal, as are Adam/Eve. As Eve is gathered unto Adam of the awakened Christ, so is his attachment to time, space, and matter.

(represented by the Lord God of "but")

No idea what that signifies.

From Genesis 2:

1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Note that in all of Genesis 1 and up until the second sentence, verse 4 of Genesis 2, creation of the heavens and the earth was completed and God rested his creation that he had made. This, to me, is the infinite spirit of life that is of Father Consciousness that is of the unchanging permanent spirit forms that cannot be seen, heard, smelled, touched or tasted by conscious sense life. They are the vision of every law and every principle and every pattern of God's Unconditioned Mind, the heavens representing the substance of these forms, and the earth representing the essence.

Then, in verse 4 of Genesis 2, is mentioned the appearance of a second God and his creation, the LORD God who made the earth and the heavens: the emanation of the law of dualism or the opposites, sense awareness, the appearance of time, space and matter. The substance and essence of this appearance creation is represented by the "but", the substance and essence of mist and dust [water and ground]. Biological, sentient life.

Kelly Jones: Pam, I don't agree that the feminine is the subjective, and the masculine is the objective. The externalised self (feminine mode of mind) that believes the physical is more real than the mental, is not the subjective. It would be better to call it the delusion of objective reality.

Pam: Kelly, what you say above conflicts with Weininger's correct observation that
Quote:
Because the mental creates the physical, the human being must die.

Which means that since the mental creates the physical, both are intertwined and cannot be separated. Ergo, the inseparable, intertwined, subjective-objective human realm.

Kelly: No, you've misunderstood that by materialism, Weininger is talking about a dimension of mind. The death of the human being is the death of the ego (the belief that oneself is a human being, a physical finitude). Examine carefully the following three quotes:

I don't believe I misunderstood Weininger; I was agreeing with him that the death of the ego is equal to the death of the subjective-objective human realm of mental materialism.

As for the Weininger quotes, I will respond to each one, relating it to what I have come to understand of time, and of 'beyond time:'

Quote:
"Formal, transcendental time, however, does not cease with physical death, but extends beyond the individual. It is eternally posited precisely by those who have eternal life."

This statement is a contradiction of terms, through and through. How can time be transcendental, when time arises with thought, with mental-materialism? And is 'formal' time a cousin of 'informal' time? Again, Weininger is trying to blend the infinite with the finite, to create some sort of hybrid being that is eternally torn between two worlds.

"I stand in time and not above it; I still posit time, still long for non-being, still desire material life; and because I remain in this sin, I am not able to comprehend it."

Weininger is incorrect in his assessment of where he is standing. To be aware of time is to be above time; if he truly were in the sin of time, he would be lost in time and not even realize its existence in his mind. Look what he says: "I still desire material life." Which means he is aware of an aspect of himself that does not desire material life.

"The intelligible, hyperempirical existence of the male transcends matter, space, and time. He is certainly mortal, but he is immortal as well. And so he has the power to choose between the two, between the life which is lost with death and the life to which death is only a stepping- stone. The deepest will of man is towards this perfect, timeless existence; he is compact of the desire for immortality."

Here Weininger is once again trying to blend mortality and immortality, which to me, demonstrates an illogical mind. If one is immortal, they are not mortal. And if one is mortal, they are not immortal.

If Weininger had meant that everyone who sought to be free of criminality must kill themselves (i.e. literally suicide), then he would have posited the existence of a soul, that could only be immortal after death. But he doesn't say that: the last quote indicates.

When I said “the human being must die”, I did not mean literal suicide, I meant the concept of “being human” in one's mind must die. To commit suicide to the concept of self or ego does not mean to bring about the end of one's breathing, physical body.

Or, he would have believed all people were automatically already dead (mortal, incapable of immortality), and that redemption throughout one's life was impossible. But he didn't say that either; the last quote also indicates that. And the next quote also:
Quote:
"the [criminal] person falls into nothingness; he dissolves into nothing but material atoms: the absolute criminal. The preparations for this mental disintegration have already been made by the criminal in the course of his life."

I've italicised the words that indicate that Weininger is not saying physicality literally equates with sin, such that any human being must therefore be automatically and absolutely sinful. Rather, he is saying the mind creates the condition of sinfulness with a particular notion about itself.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement here, that it is the mind that creates the condition of sinfulness.

In other words, the delusion of objective reality, where a person believes all physical things are more real than the mental, is precisely what kills him off during his conscious life.

Since one is of life, how can one be killed?

Nonsense. When you have breakfast, are you fasting? No, you have completely separated yourself from the duality of fasting.

Hunger-eating is a recycling duality. If one does not eat when hunger speaks, well, the outcome is obvious. Likewise, if one does not stop eating, the outcome is obvious.

Similarly, when you understand something, are you still ignorant? No, you do understand. You've completely separated yourself from the duality of ignorance.

I can understand this thing, or that thing, but since I cannot understand everything or all things, I am not separated from the duality of ignorance/understanding.

That's exactly the same thing as the intelligible, hyperempirical existence of the male. If one wishes to give it a name and a concept, then it is conceptualised relative to what it isn't, but it is not the same as what it isn't. It is distinct.

To me, this is wholly illogical. By your own admission, you must stand in your rejection of your female component in order to be what you call the "intelligble, hyperempirical existence of the male." Which means "male" is not a whole, distinct concept, nor is female a whole, distinct concept.

movingalways: I believe that it was this erroneous philosophical conclusion of so many [male] philosophers that so often manifested eventual madness, insanity and suicide. I believe Weininger was a perfect example of such a conflicted mind. He correctly perceived the spirit realm, the absolute, and realized that to be in conscious union with this realm, the realm of the human being [the mental-physical] must die, but then, tried to blend the two together by giving the absolute human qualities, or should I say, half-human qualities [male only]

He didn't say the mental must die. Where'd you get that from?

Note above that I said the mental-physical must die. As is stated twice already in this post, Weininger correctly observed that the mental creates the physical.

movingalways:
Because so many philosophers deny or ignore the law of the inseparable conjoined twins of the opposites that produces material form,

When you are walking, where is sitting? If your "law" was true, then sitting would be dragged along with you, inseparably conjoined. But the moment you are walking, sitting disappears completely.

Can you walk and be completely free of the thought 'sitting?' Can you sit and be completely free of the thought 'walking?' Also, wisdom tells me that the infinite God does not have feet, nor does the infinite God have a bum.

movingalways: No wonder most philosophers live and die as tortured souls and fail to show the way to be liberated of the suffering that is human thinking, be it called male, female or a combination of both.

I'm not living as a tortured soul, yet I reject the female component of mind.

Perhaps you are not tortured, but from where I am sitting, or walking, :-), if you live in male/female acceptance/rejection mode then your mind is divided and you are in conflict with yourself.

Kelly: Nonduality, or the reality of pure spirit forms, is exactly what all forms are, including gender, color, shape, size, etc. It's not something apart from them. If nonduality were separate, it would not be nonduality.

I am not saying nonduality is separate from the appearance of duality, I am saying that duality is an extension or emanation of nonduality. When your mind is silent, resting in nonduality, where is gender, color, shape and size? It is only when you begin to interpret what your extension of senses give you by way of human invention of names does the concept of gender, color, shape and size arise. As Weininger says, the mental creates the physical.

By "pure spirit", is meant that all things exist in a kind of fractal, or constantly-shifting and reforming way. It's a poetic description of the interactivity of all things, and the lack of intrinsic existence of separate things. Nevertheless, things do appear as distinct. It's clearly so that one thing is not another.

Nonduality doesn't mean a homogeneous blur, where all things are identical to each other. It just refers to the true nature of all things: how they share an existential reality.

If what you are saying is so, then why the two concepts, dual and nondual?

Nondual is a term used on this board, which is why I use it when posting here. The realm of which I speak is beyond the mental-physical-dual-mortal for It is that which gives life to the mental-physical-dual-mortal. The mental-physical-dual-mortal is dependent on It for its existence, but It is not dependent on the mental-physical-dual-mortal for It's existence.

I would be interested in hearing your interpretation of this September, 2010 post of David's:

The goal is indeed to transcend both the male and the female. But only the male part of us can drive us to do it.

movingalways wrote:Kelly Jones: Pam, I don't agree that the feminine is the subjective, and the masculine is the objective. The externalised self (feminine mode of mind) that believes the physical is more real than the mental, is not the subjective. It would be better to call it the delusion of objective reality.

Pam: Kelly, what you say above conflicts with Weininger's correct observation that "Because the mental creates the physical, the human being must die."
Which means that since the mental creates the physical, both are intertwined and cannot be separated. Ergo, the inseparable, intertwined, subjective-objective human realm.

Kelly: No, you've misunderstood that by materialism, Weininger is talking about a dimension of mind. The death of the human being is the death of the ego (the belief that oneself is a human being, a physical finitude). Examine carefully the following three quotes:

Pam: I don't believe I misunderstood Weininger; I was agreeing with him that the death of the ego is equal to the death of the subjective-objective human realm of mental materialism.

No, you have misunderstood. He doesn't at all say that the mental is inescapably entwined with physicality. He says mind creates the delusion that the mind (oneself) is material or physical matter, and mind can stop creating this delusion.

As for the Weininger quotes, I will respond to each one, relating it to what I have come to understand of time, and of 'beyond time:'

"Formal, transcendental time, however, does not cease with physical death, but extends beyond the individual. It is eternally posited precisely by those who have eternal life."

This statement is a contradiction of terms, through and through. How can time be transcendental, when time arises with thought, with mental-materialism?

He's referring to eternity by "formless transcendental time", rather poetically. It's timelessness, rather than the finite period of time. To explain this more fully, imagine the person who believes finite periods like the measurements of seconds, the passing of an hour, the existence of Wednesday, etc. are really there rather than mental constructs. Now contrast it with the person who can see that all these periods and measurements are imagined tools for counting, and who literally experiences timelessness. The former uses the mind wrongly, while the latter uses it rightly.

"I stand in time and not above it; I still posit time, still long for non-being, still desire material life; and because I remain in this sin, I am not able to comprehend it."

Weininger is incorrect in his assessment of where he is standing. To be aware of time is to be above time; if he truly were in the sin of time, he would be lost in time and not even realize its existence in his mind. Look what he says: "I still desire material life." Which means he is aware of an aspect of himself that does not desire material life.

He's giving an example of using the mind wrongly.

"The intelligible, hyperempirical existence of the male transcends matter, space, and time. He is certainly mortal, but he is immortal as well. And so he has the power to choose between the two, between the life which is lost with death and the life to which death is only a stepping- stone. The deepest will of man is towards this perfect, timeless existence; he is compact of the desire for immortality."

Here Weininger is once again trying to blend mortality and immortality, which to me, demonstrates an illogical mind. If one is immortal, they are not mortal. And if one is mortal, they are not immortal.

No, he's quite logical. A thing exists as a finite unit, and yet it is wholly and always a part of the Infinite. A person who dies is still a part of the eternal Infinite, and therefore immortal.

Kelly: If Weininger had meant that everyone who sought to be free of criminality must kill themselves (i.e. literally suicide), then he would have posited the existence of a soul, that could only be immortal after death. But he doesn't say that: the last quote indicates.

Pam: When I said “the human being must die”, I did not mean literal suicide, I meant the concept of “being human” in one's mind must die. To commit suicide to the concept of self or ego does not mean to bring about the end of one's breathing, physical body.

Okay, then. You wrote earlier that the mind is inescapably entwined with the material, and that they could not be separated. You've also written in a recent dialogue with me that you believed that it was impossible to be free of duality while alive. So, I'm glad you've changed your views on the matter.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement here, that it is the mind that creates the condition of sinfulness.

Yes.

Kelly: In other words, the delusion of objective reality, where a person believes all physical things are more real than the mental, is precisely what kills him off during his conscious life.

Pam: Since one is of life, how can one be killed?

The conscience, or capacity for truthfulness, is killed off, like a pathway being gradually choked closed by hefty weeds.

Kelly: When you have breakfast, are you fasting? No, you have completely separated yourself from the duality of fasting.

Pam: Hunger-eating is a recycling duality. If one does not eat when hunger speaks, well, the outcome is obvious. Likewise, if one does not stop eating, the outcome is obvious.

I think you'd accept that when eating, one isn't not-eating. Can you accept that?

Kelly: Similarly, when you understand something, are you still ignorant? No, you do understand. You've completely separated yourself from the duality of ignorance.

Pam: I can understand this thing, or that thing,

Stop right there. That's all you needed for this question. You understand. You don't not-understand. You exist in the one state, and there is no dualistic bonding with another state to make you not-understand instead.

So, if you didn't understand, then you'd not understand. Again, no dualistic bonding.

And, if you weren't sure if you understood or not, then you'd not be experiencing any other state, like certainty.

Kelly: That's exactly the same thing as the intelligible, hyperempirical existence of the male. If one wishes to give it a name and a concept, then it is conceptualised relative to what it isn't, but it is not the same as what it isn't. It is distinct.

Pam: To me, this is wholly illogical. By your own admission, you must stand in your rejection of your female component in order to be what you call the "intelligble, hyperempirical existence of the male." Which means "male" is not a whole, distinct concept, nor is female a whole, distinct concept.

But notice it's a rejection of the feminine aspects of psychology, not an acceptance of same. That is, the feminine is going away, while the masculine is growing stronger and stronger. One is nourished by the total loss of the other, until there is no more of the feminine.

Imagine an old mercury thermometer. As heat in the environment grows, the mercury expands, and the scale shows more and more of the grey mercury colour, and less of the void space. It's the same principle with the growth and strengthening of the intelligible, hyperempirical male element of mind. The more of it, the less of the void space of the feminine.

Pam: I believe that it was this erroneous philosophical conclusion of so many [male] philosophers that so often manifested eventual madness, insanity and suicide. I believe Weininger was a perfect example of such a conflicted mind. He correctly perceived the spirit realm, the absolute, and realized that to be in conscious union with this realm, the realm of the human being [the mental-physical] must die, but then, tried to blend the two together by giving the absolute human qualities, or should I say, half-human qualities [male only]

Kelly: He didn't say the mental must die. Where'd you get that from?

Pam: Note above that I said the mental-physical must die. As is stated twice already in this post, Weininger correctly observed that the mental creates the physical.

He only said the delusion of self as empirical matter (i.e. the human being) must die, not the mind. You yourself already realised several comments above that:

it is the mind that creates the condition of sinfulness.


Therefore, the mind also creates the conditions of freedom from sinfulness.

Pam: Because so many philosophers deny or ignore the law of the inseparable conjoined twins of the opposites that produces material form,

Kelly: When you are walking, where is sitting? If your "law" was true, then sitting would be dragged along with you, inseparably conjoined. But the moment you are walking, sitting disappears completely.

Pam: Can you walk and be completely free of the thought 'sitting?'

I can walk and be 100% not-sitting. That's the point. The duality you believe must be occurring isn't.

Pam: No wonder most philosophers live and die as tortured souls and fail to show the way to be liberated of the suffering that is human thinking, be it called male, female or a combination of both.

Kelly: I'm not living as a tortured soul, yet I reject the female component of mind.

Pam,: Perhaps you are not tortured, but from where I am sitting, or walking, :-), if you live in male/female acceptance/rejection mode then your mind is divided and you are in conflict with yourself.

Not at all. Just as when I eat breakfast, I'm not being torn into two states of eating and not eating, like some poor wacko in an asylum.

Is a thermometer in conflict with itself for measuring 36 degrees Celsius? Is the sun torn by a need to be a not-sun? No, it is what it is, and does what it's caused to do.

Kelly: Nonduality doesn't mean a homogeneous blur, where all things are identical to each other. It just refers to the true nature of all things: how they share an existential reality.

Pam: If what you are saying is so, then why the two concepts, dual and nondual?

To point out for the feminine-minded, materialistic person that there is a deeper reality to their existence. Duality gives them tools to strengthen and clarify their concepts, so that they stop floundering about in a foggy emotional haze. It crisps up their consciousness, heightens their sense of ideals, and boosts their courage. Nonduality gives them the ultimate target for their reasoning arrows.

I would be interested in hearing your interpretation of this September, 2010 post of David's: "The goal is indeed to transcend both the male and the female. But only the male part of us can drive us to do it."

It's exactly so. If you like, the foggy materialistic mode that hasn't an inkling about the remotest philosophical idea is the female; the intelligible hyperempirical that transcends time and constructs the stairway to heaven using dualities is the male; and the spirit, or Nondual, or ultramasculine mode is the culmination of the male mode.



.

It's exactly so. If you like, the foggy materialistic mode that hasn't an inkling about the remotest philosophical idea is the female; the intelligible hyperempirical that transcends time and constructs the stairway to heaven using dualities is the male; and the spirit, or Nondual, or ultramasculine mode is the culmination of the male mode.

The model you present here is backwards. You have matter appearing first, then spirit appearing last. You have the dual appearing first, and the nondual appearing last. The foggy materialistic mode does not create itself, nor does the hyperempirical mode or the nondual or ultramasculine mode. There must be a underlying foundation of a vision of these things for them to appear in man's consciousness, or they could not appear. Did you create your thoughts? No. You are but a receiver of your thoughts. The foundation for all of man's perceived realms of conscious awareness is that of spirit. Spirit is the first principle, matter appears from spirit, matter returns to spirit. Becoming enlightened is to realize this vision of the first being the same as the last. And when this is realized, "mortality [matter] is swallowed up of [the spirit of] life." This is the journey of repentance and of reconciliation and of love for God, the Spirit.

Contemplating the dualities by way of logic/reason does indeed bring a man to realize the light within himself, but it is not a light that appears out of the darkness because of man's climbing of logic, it is a light that was always present as he climbed upward pursuing his thoughts of light. Had he only turned around and looked at the unchanging ground upon which the ladder was standing, he would have realized it was standing on the invisible platform of "the light of the world [of matter]." And if he was faithful to the truth of what he had realized, he would step off the matter ladder [the dust of the ground] and "fall into the spirit arms of his own infinity."

Oh, I'm sorry for the delay; I did not realize that our discussion had moved to another thread. I don't always hit all the threads anymore, so if you respond to a post of mine in a different thread than where our discussion started, I'd appreciate a pm letting me know so that I can continue with you. Thanks.

movingalways wrote:Also imported from "Weininger" thread:

movingalways wrote:
I believe this terror exists because of the belief that the outcome of dying to one's subject-object awareness is that one will be sentenced to some hellish place of 'no thought.' Not so. But one has to be willing to go directly to the first subject-object door and step over its threshold before the wisdom of the language of duality-reconciliation, of spiritual love, is revealed.

Elisabeth Isabelle: C-

Elisabeth, how is grading me a C- an exchange of wisdom that either one of us use toward our wisdom expansion?

Why the "C-"?

It would help if I brought more of the quote over...

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

movingalways wrote:True wisdom of dualism and of the infinite is the wisdom that addresses the primary dualism, which is not that of gender, but that of the subject-object mental divide. It is from this 'first' dual split of subject-object that all other dualities emerge.

Yes, but anyone with a grain of chance of really experiencing that kind of wisdom gets it on that level. Understanding that as a concept is like getting a C on a wisdom test (as opposed to just being able to parrot that, which merits a D).

To even get a C+, you would have to demonstrate some skill in not forgetting this, not having delusions shake your holding of this in your spirit - the WOMAN philosophy is, where there is truth in there if you come to find it and understand it - more of an exercise to strengthen a person in walking through all the other delusions - race, truth, truthfulness, reality - all of them.

(...snip...)

movingalways wrote: I believe this terror exists because of the belief that the outcome of dying to one's subject-object awareness is that one will be sentenced to some hellish place of 'no thought.' Not so. But one has to be willing to go directly to the first subject-object door and step over its threshold before the wisdom of the language of duality-reconciliation, of spiritual love, is revealed.

C-

Because of the earlier part of the exchange, I thought you'd understand that I meant that you actually get it to some degree (as just parroting would equal a D, even though in academic philosophy such a level would earn an A).

The reason for the C- is that you don't seem to really have absorbed the language of duality-reconciliation into your being. I could give you previous examples, but you gave a better example in this thread:

movingalways wrote:

K Jones wrote:Nonsense. When you have breakfast, are you fasting? No, you have completely separated yourself from the duality of fasting.

Hunger-eating is a recycling duality. If one does not eat when hunger speaks, well, the outcome is obvious. Likewise, if one does not stop eating, the outcome is obvious.

That wasn't really what she was talking about. Let's go back further

Kelly Jones wrote:Kelly: Nor does cancelling out the feminine mode occur simultaneously with a cancelling-out of the masculine mode. The quote showed that the true, ideal mode (the masculine) was present but the feminine was not.

Pam: Kelly, regardless of how one views the feminine mode, it is impossible to separate a duality so that one of the 'twins' can be a free-standing agent.

Nonsense. When you have breakfast, are you fasting? No, you have completely separated yourself from the duality of fasting.

Similarly, when you understand something, are you still ignorant? No, you do understand. You've completely separated yourself from the duality of ignorance.

See? Kelly was still talking about duality (not breaking it down into another duality of "recycling duality" and nonrecycling duality). Somehow your mind said "oh, we're talking about food now" and discussed what happens when one does not eat and when one eats too much.

You went off track because you have not fully absorbed the language of duality-reconciliation. That's why I said C-. You get what it is that you have to get, but you have not absorbed it yet, and still need a bit more clarification on duality. Please don't be discouraged or insulted - I am only saying that I think you need more time and practice working on this, which is what you are doing.

movingalways wrote:The foundation for all of man's perceived realms of conscious awareness is that of spirit. Spirit is the first principle, matter appears from spirit, matter returns to spirit. Becoming enlightened is to realize this vision of the first being the same as the last.

So, a person who enters the path to enlightenment begins by being fully enlightened, and gradually proceeds to become more and more ignorant?

I was describing for you the transition of learning from the ignorant person (materialistic, feminine-minded, worldly and dull) to the one with understanding. Please don't confuse the issue.

Kelly: No, you have misunderstood. He doesn't at all say that the mental is inescapably entwined with physicality. He says mind creates the delusion that the mind (oneself) is material or physical matter, and mind can stop creating this delusion.

This interpretation I understand. Thank you.

He's referring to eternity by "formless transcendental time", rather poetically. It's timelessness, rather than the finite period of time. To explain this more fully, imagine the person who believes finite periods like the measurements of seconds, the passing of an hour, the existence of Wednesday, etc. are really there rather than mental constructs. Now contrast it with the person who can see that all these periods and measurements are imagined tools for counting, and who literally experiences timelessness. The former uses the mind wrongly, while the latter uses it rightly.

Since I have not read Weininger beyond a scanning of his SAC, his language, at times, is a struggle for me to transcend and absorb. Whether or not your interpretation relates closely to Weininger's or not, I do understand your interpretation to be as I see the nature of timelessness and time.

No, he's quite logical. A thing exists as a finite unit, and yet it is wholly and always a part of the Infinite.

Although I do believe I see what you are suggesting here, I see a difference between what is God-made and what is man-made. A book or a car or a television set are finite unconscious, man-made things that are not wholly and always of the Infinite [rather, they appear as an outcome of man's belief in the reality of materiality] whereas a tree or a dog or a man or a bird are infinite, conscious, God-made things that are wholly and always of the infinite. Note I left our your reference to "a part." I did so because I believe words such as "part" contribute to the image of the infinite as being cut into pieces of itself. I prefer to refer to God-made, conscious things as individual units of Its consciousness.

A person who dies is still a part of the eternal Infinite, and therefore immortal.

A person who believes themselves to be a person is one who does not understand themselves to be immortal, for the concept of personality exists not in the immortal infinite. A term that I believe is a better term to suggest the immortal substance/essence of a person is that of I am or "spirit being" or simply, "being."

The conscience, or capacity for truthfulness, is killed off, like a pathway being gradually choked closed by hefty weeds.

I see the conscience as being of two houses; the first, the direct link to the infinity of God that realizes that awareness is whole, perfect, complete and pure, and the second as being the house of the earth covering of belief in mortality, which is called the conscience of morals and ethics, of good and evil judgment. The being who is in touch with his inner conscience has transcended the need for his outer conscience and lives not by morals and ethics, by what he believes to be good and evil, but by what is "good and only good", or grace [the quality assigned to essence nature of the infinite].

I do not see that either conscience can be killed, rather, the outer is transcended so that the inner is no longer the inner, but the one and only. As for the capacity for 'truthfulness', I see this capacity as being of second house of one's belief in their mortality/morality - I stole the cookies, I was late and this is why, I don't like the smell of your feet, please have a bath - with the capacity for 'righteousness' as being of the first house of one's acknowledgment of their immortal nature - I am a spirit being, I am the Son of God, I am not human, animal or mineral.

I think you'd accept that when eating, one isn't not-eating. Can you accept that?

Yes.

Stop right there. That's all you needed for this question. You understand. You don't not-understand. You exist in the one state, and there is no dualistic bonding with another state to make you not-understand instead.

So, if you didn't understand, then you'd not understand. Again, no dualistic bonding.

And, if you weren't sure if you understood or not, then you'd not be experiencing any other state, like certainty.

I believe what you are saying here is that the moment is all there is, whether it is one of certainty or uncertainty. However, be this as it may, neither momentary state of awareness is one of immortal or infinite awareness. A spirit being does not doubt itself, nor is a spirit being certain of Itself, because a spirit being is not aware of such mortal human concepts.

But notice it's a rejection of the feminine aspects of psychology, not an acceptance of same. That is, the feminine is going away, while the masculine is growing stronger and stronger. One is nourished by the total loss of the other, until there is no more of the feminine.

Imagine an old mercury thermometer. As heat in the environment grows, the mercury expands, and the scale shows more and more of the grey mercury colour, and less of the void space. It's the same principle with the growth and strengthening of the intelligible, hyperempirical male element of mind. The more of it, the less of the void space of the feminine.

I do believe I understand what you are saying here, and acknowledge your individual path of releasing your belief in your mortality and increasing your awareness of your immortality [if you agree that this is what you are doing]. For me, since I do not see the infinite as containing anything of humanism, it makes more sense to simply surrender one's belief in mortality [dualism] to one's realization of the reality of immortality [nonduality or pure spirit], with the latter becoming stronger as the former “goes away.”

movingalways: The foundation for all of man's perceived realms of conscious awareness is that of spirit. Spirit is the first principle, matter appears from spirit, matter returns to spirit. Becoming enlightened is to realize this vision of the first being the same as the last.

Kelly: So, a person who enters the path to enlightenment begins by being fully enlightened, and gradually proceeds to become more and more ignorant?

I was describing for you the transition of learning from the ignorant person (materialistic, feminine-minded, worldly and dull) to the one with understanding. Please don't confuse the issue.

I am trying to be precise to the vision of enlightenment; my intent was not one to confuse either you or me. For me, it is important to acknowledge that the foundation of the vision of the path of enlightenment is always present [God-envisioned], whether one consciously walks it or not.

Elisabeth Isabelle: You went off track because you have not fully absorbed the language of duality-reconciliation. That's why I said C-. You get what it is that you have to get, but you have not absorbed it yet, and still need a bit more clarification on duality. Please don't be discouraged or insulted - I am only saying that I think you need more time and practice working on this, which is what you are doing.

Elisabeth, although I do not agree with your assessment of my understanding of duality as I understand this assessment to be, I do appreciate your compassionate response to mine.

Kelly, as an addendum to my last post, do you relate your concept of the hyperempirical male element of your psyche to serve the function of the "sword" as was referenced by Jesus in the following scriptures from Matthew 10:

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.