GENIUS FORUMS

So what's the state of your financial interest in this forum Diebert?

Dennis Mahar wrote:So what's the state of your financial interest in this forum Diebert?

Grow some hair.

So what's the state of your financial interest in this forum Diebert?

Dennis Mahar wrote:So what's the state of your financial interest in this forum Diebert?

Time for a forum break, old friend. Juvenile stuff like this doesn't belong here. You'll be on my ignore list so don't bother pushing your self-button any further as I can't see it.

@Dennis: you got bullied at school didn't you?

I befriended the kids who got bullied.
Rescuer.
Drama Queen.

Assuming there's no sarcasm there, [snip]

(: No, no sarcasm that time.

[...] is it something like a process of removing emotional attachment, such as preference/aversion, that has accumulated in existence which is tied to particular events/things?

In that it aims to release a person from reacting emotionally to the present environment and/or certain situations or circumstances in particular in ways they themselves can't explain or don't understand, sure.

I have no idea what the OT levels are about. But the idea of life on another planet as a shared past life history of "thetans" (called "the whole track") who ended up on Earth in meat bodies is certainly in the introductory books.

movingalways wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:

An unenlightened comment, see Diebert's post above for reason.

Why?

Lover's spat on the next frickin' Geraldo? Self-titallation.

I don't think your recommendation worked. (:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Just to make clear we're not just addressing Scientology or Dennis here, here's an interesting book about the larger topic:

Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship by Paul Vitz.

In this book the interesting development is described with the various psycho-analytic, self-help and new-age development over the 20th century how the psychological transformation of a "self" has become basically the new religion of the day, although extremely fragmented in various competing groups, books and method. You can start with Jung, Fromm, Maslow to Twelve Step, Eric Berne (Games people Play), Est, Forum , Gestalt, Western Zen and when it all culminated on a larger scale in Scientology and some other vehicles. Of course each and every of these might have produced a few interesting and useful concepts or methods but this is more about the bigger picture of how it all ended up being applied and where it revolved around.

In philosophical terms it might also be interesting to see how this might link to various Judaic concepts and "reformed" Judo-Christianity in the century before that, as "blue prints".

Mm. I smell Marx!

Leyla Shen wrote:Mm. I smell Marx!

Yes, although Vitz is a conservative Christian, making his work somewhat ironic and in some cases "competitive", there's a clear compatibility with Marxist thought: the abstraction of modern economical systems linked to the abstraction of "self" and its "self-interest". In that sense Marx his statement: "emancipation from huckstering and money ... would be the self-emancipation of our time" might become more clear when the abstraction of money from self and self-experience or even the irony of the word "self-interest" is understood.

Leyla Shen wrote:

movingalways wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:

An unenlightened comment, see Diebert's post above for reason.

Why?

Lover's spat on the next frickin' Geraldo? Self-titallation.

I don't think your recommendation worked. (:

I see that. :-)

Which serves as a reminder to me that the only fruitful communication about the subject matter of this board, ultimate reality is the dispassionate speech of philosophical reasoning.

Which serves as a reminder to me that the only fruitful communication about the subject matter of this board, ultimate reality is the dispassionate speech of philosophical reasoning.

Oh, that.

What's the difference between reality and ultimate reality, then; if you could go back and do it all over again, what would you have said instead?

Leyla, I understand why you might want to reason the why of ultimate reality, but why did you ask me "if you could go back and do it all over again, what would you have said instead?"

Because I want to understand what you mean by the dispassionate speech of philosophical reasoning, when it comes to fruitful communication about ultimate reality.

Did you mean that a sage or an enlightened person simply ignores reality?

So, Marx isn't a blueprint?

Diebert:

Yes, although Vitz is a conservative Christian, making his work somewhat ironic and in some cases "competitive", there's a clear compatibility with Marxist thought: the abstraction of modern economical systems linked to the abstraction of "self" and its "self-interest".

A quick Google search seems to indicate that he’s quite popular on Christian websites, predominantly for the idea that atheism is the result of a poor relationship with one’s biological father since, it is said he claims, most atheists have such poor relationships. At one site he acknowledges there are exceptions, Marx being one such exception (i.e., he had a good relationship with his old man). So, he’s just saying that most atheists are just as religious as most Christians since their atheism isn’t based on reason.

Yes, ironic indeed.

In that sense Marx his statement: "emancipation from huckstering and money ... would be the self-emancipation of our time" might become more clear when the abstraction of money from self and self-experience or even the irony of the word "self-interest" is understood.

Pretty clear to me.

Theses on Feuerbach, no.s 4, 6 and 7 are particularly relevant here, I think:

IV
Feuerbach starts out from the fact of religious self-alienation, of the duplication of the world into a religious world and a secular one. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis. But that the secular basis detaches itself from itself and establishes itself as an independent realm in the clouds can only be explained by the cleavages and self-contradictions within this secular basis. The latter must, therefore, in itself be both understood in its contradiction and revolutionized in practice. Thus, for instance, after the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and in practice.

VI
Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.

Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence, is consequently compelled:

1. To abstract from the historical process and to fix the religious sentiment as something by itself and to presuppose an abstract – isolated – human individual.

2. Essence, therefore, can be comprehended only as “genus”, as an internal, dumb generality which naturally unites the many individuals.

VII
Feuerbach, consequently, does not see that the “religious sentiment” is itself a social product, and that the abstract individual whom he analyses belongs to a particular form of society.

And so, from the psychology of alienation of the Father, we end up with Father as alien!

Dennis Mahar wrote:So, Marx isn't a blueprint?

Is he?

Leyla Shen wrote:Because I want to understand what you mean by the dispassionate speech of philosophical reasoning, when it comes to fruitful communication about ultimate reality

It's the philosophical position and experience that certain things about reality will always found to be true, like its relativity. But the path of such understanding leads through various other universals, like revisiting suffering. It's being demonstrated again and again that meaningful communication quickly deteriorates when "passionate" speech is involved, like repetitive attempts to psychoanalyze, trick, humor or supply "koans" as main self-course instead as spicy side-dish.

Thanks for speaking before movingalways. I'm sure she'd be lost without you...

By '"passionate" speech', I assume you mean thoughtlessness. So, what might a sage or an enlightened person have done, instead? Launch into a meaningful, dispassionate speech of philosophical reasoning [edit:] about ultimate reality?

Leyla Shen wrote:Because I want to understand what you mean by the dispassionate speech of philosophical reasoning, when it comes to fruitful communication about ultimate reality.

Did you mean that a sage or an enlightened person simply ignores reality?

One can be ignorant of the true nature of reality (emptiness) but one cannot ignore whatever is their understanding of reality, wisdom of emptiness included. While consciousness remains, interpretation remains.

Why I say that dispassionate speech of philosophical reasoning is fruitful speech when addressing ultimate reality (emptiness) is because it keeps one grounded in the insight wisdom of no-self. The moment one becomes aroused [passionate] about this or that idea of emptiness, they step into the realm of ignorance of "my" emptiness and "your" emptiness.

The profound experience of emptiness is non-conceptual.

That,

Why I say that dispassionate speech of philosophical reasoning is fruitful speech when addressing ultimate reality (emptiness)

isn't it.

Leyla Shen wrote:Thanks for speaking before movingalways. I'm sure she'd be lost without you...

Still the scientologist, always those rules, the subtextual control over the conversation.... :)

By '"passionate" speech', I assume you mean thoughtlessness.

What I meant with "passionate" was explained in the post: repetitive attempts to psychoanalyze, trick, humor or supply "koans" as self-course instead as spicy side-dish. When any of those takes center stage it shows to be aimed at being self-centered. Of course one has to assume that here in the context of the discussions on suffering and Buddhism, that passion means actually just attachment and self promotion.

So, what might a sage or an enlightened person have done, instead? Launch into a meaningful, dispassionate speech of philosophical reasoning about ultimate reality?

Anyone not using reason and any meanings supplied by a context to establish conversations on ultimate reality and the path to enlightenment would be really, really lost on this forum. And the forum would be lost on her.

Leyla Shen wrote:Feuerbach, consequently, does not see that the “religious sentiment” is itself a social product, and that the abstract individual whom he analyses belongs to a particular form of society.

Marx, consequently, doesn't appear to see that "social production" is just one particular form of the complex causality involved. In general Marx applies some selective axioms based on typical late 18th and 19th century modes of thinking defining men as "producers" of nature, environment and even their own being. And as well based on the new ability to quantize that very production. It's noticeable in all of his theorizing and at times frustrating from the philosophical perspective which is all about questioning what is supposed and axiomatic.

And so, from the psychology of alienation of the Father, we end up with Father as alien!

Amen! And by removing any alienation, one removes the father as psychological role. And what about when father is just defined as anything substantially different from the mother figure? Anything deviating from the mum.

Take a shot over the bows of Pam's metaphysic and the charge of passionate and emotional is her response and a rush toward Mother Diebert for huggies.
Dread of nothing.
Fear of groundlessness.

Panic over Supply.

All is empty.

A little TR0 Leyla for these 'runners'?
Laughter is the best medicine.

Dennis I prepared the post below, hit the preview button, received the notification that "at least one post has been added to this topic, do you want to continue" and saw your post about Pam and her rushing over to Mother Diebert for huggies. I do not deny the passion and emotion in that response. What you cannot know is that it was that very rush for huggies that helped bring me to a re-dedication to remain in the dispassionate realm of philosophical reasoning. You are correct in your interpretation that is was fear of groundlessness that caused the running, but you are not correct in your interpretation that was a panic over Supply. Herein lies the core difference in our understanding of emptiness. Where you 'mine' Empiness Supply for infinite appearance of cause and effect, your worlds of bliss and grumpiness for example, I understand the concepts of mining Supply for infinite appearance of cause and effect to be the root cause of Ignorance, the 'why' of the turning wheel of samsara. In short, to mine is to suffer the repetition of mining. Turn, turn, turn. Laughter may be the best medicine while the wheel of samsara turns, but laughter, like all conceptual minings of Supply, is a temporary caused 'solution.'

My original response:

Dennis Mahar wrote:The profound experience of emptiness is non-conceptual.

That,

Why I say that dispassionate speech of philosophical reasoning is fruitful speech when addressing ultimate reality (emptiness)

isn't it.

Direct knowledge of emptiness is pure awareness, awareness void of concepts. Which means non-conceptual emptiness is neither profound or not profound, for these are concepts.

'Bliss' is also a concept of emptiness, one of feeling tone that suggests movement or a flowing in-and-out. Using the blueprint of Buddhist thought for the sake of understanding, bliss is the experience of emptiness-moving in the diva and god realms. Ask for this concept, and it shall be so. Being in the diva or god realms of bliss is, for the most part, a pleasurable causal experience, but being in the diva or god realms is not the parinirvana of having "been blown out" of all mental formations.

Neither is reasoning the parinirvana of having been "blown out" of all mental formations, but what reasoning achieves that bliss formations cannot achieve is the bringing about the end of all mental formations. How this happens is that by eliminating adjectives and adverbs [passion 'self' words] from one's thinking and knowing the reason why, one stops consciousness from flowing 'out' into rebirth as the turning, feeling world of time, space, distance and matter.

Bottom line: Bliss is neither nirvana or the way to nirvana, reasoning is not nirvana but is the way to nirvana.