GENIUS FORUMS

elderwoodxxx wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The observer, no matter how 'pure', 'quiet', 'powerful' or 'vast' it might appear is at the essence the naked appearance of the illusive self

I have picked up on your definition here of this 'illusive Self' And it is this that I am talking about. For me it is not illusive. It is this Self which comprises mystical or esoteric thought.

Yes, I know that and this is why I phrased it precisely the way I did. The reason I call it illusive is that this is pointing to an even more mystical or esoteric truth: that whatever you think or sense to be there is ultimately an appearance, caused by a ten thousand things. It only appears to be there but it doesn't truly exist.

This is why mysticism is steeped in mystery. My understanding serves to pin point exact understanding of this Self.

Can you still learn, would the more urgent question.

What i have learnt since i came here is the absolute complexity of the task I have placed before myself.

Team up with Alex!

Astrologically speaking we are in the age of 'awakening' and many people are waking up to their own realisations of their own unity in oneness. That of consciousness transcending our perceived 'illusion', opening up the realm of the spirit world, and phychic abilities, dormant within most at present.

Aquarius seems still a long time away and might not exactly be what you currently believe it is. It doesn't matter: we are now obviously in an age of war, consumerism, denial and delusion on scales never experienced before in known history. No wonder believes in spiritual progress arise to instill hope, suppressing the truth that most awakening seems to have been a past thing - at dawn.

Alex Jacob wrote: "An interesting mixture arises when the splintered psychological 'mystical' views are mixed with mono-theist law and technocrat approaches. One now loses the ability to deal with metaphor. By giving the image a reality beyond its initial purpose, it's basically being destroyed like a dying star collapsing; it keeps on imploding."

I understand what you are saying, mostly, it would be nice to have some examples of what you mean.

The biggest examples always work best: compare it with Nietzsche's dead & decaying God. Which was not just one meaning, it's a complete hub. A more recent example of a metaphor going the same direction is Self, tied with social being. From there on you get wreckages like peace, 'feed the world' and the whole house of cards made of freedom and progress trumps.

I did not understand the Swan reference (*bows head in shame*).

Oh, that's from Tennyson's poem The Dying Swan. But what do I really care about poetry? It was just a loose illustration thrown in. Beats youtube though.

Alex Jacob wrote:Would you be capable of critiquing your own formulation? Care to give it a shot? I can see some flaws in here, can you see them too?

YES.. have just posted about Judgement and discernment on another thread, this explains it more logicly:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4123&p=79632#p79632

There are no flaws in my understanding but feel free to point out any 'flaws' in your understanding how you 'perceive' me.

Are you refereing to he fact that my assertions are also 'subjective'? because if you read the above link you will see why that is so. I talk about being OBJECTIVE.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Yes, I know that and this is why I phrased it precisely the way I did. The reason I call it illusive is that this is pointing to an even more mystical or esoteric truth: that whatever you think or sense to be there is ultimately an appearance, caused by a ten thousand things. It only appears to be there but it doesn't truly exist.

If you 'think' it does not exist then for you it will not. I 'think' it does. And I can understand it. If that means that i understand deep mystical esoteric mysteries then I do. Which is why I am writing up my findings and ways for every one to 'understand'. And of course this is why I 'seemingly' talk 'rubbish' to a lot. Because my book/work is the journey of this realisation and universal understanding. So the whole would be the correct context for disernment, as basic issues are discussed in open mindedness so one does not lack their own understanding upon my words from the beginning. If you read the end of a book, then of course one would not perceive the whole flavour of the journey. I take the reader on a journey firstly of self awareness and self belief of themselves in relation to all others as an equal. My work comprises different aspects and grows as the reader would. I find it easy to understand the phycological make up of an individual as i am lucky to be able to look from an entirely OBJECTIVE vantage point. This may sound nonsense, but it is in a way my theory of understanding, and the truth is that everything then makes so much sense to the individual on a personal level in relation to their own life. So if one reads my work and relates to their own Self then they will begin to questoin other issues for themselves. I do not intend to enforce opinions or beliefs, as the only way people can know or understand anything is if they realise it for themselves.

Amandaxxx

elderwoodxxx wrote: If you 'think' it does not exist then for you it will not. I 'think' it does. And I can understand it.

It won't be captured by feeling, thought or sensations. Which leaves only logic to at least prepare the way. And one can logically 'see' why emptiness must be necessarily so. How that in turn effects our feelings, thoughts and experiencing in turn - can only be found out.

And of course this is why I 'seemingly' talk 'rubbish' to a lot.

Don't flatter yourself by thoughts of being misunderstood. I intimately know every twist and turn of your understanding. The question is if you're humble enough to imagine you could still travel a bit further, to see things from a different perspective without necessarily dismiss what you're experiencing now.

If you read the end of a book, then of course one would not perceive the whole flavour of the journey. I take the reader on a journey firstly of self awareness and self belief of themselves in relation to all others as an equal.

Where can I buy the book? Such work would be priceless of course, no sum too high to pay for such journey!

[Sensei Diebert writes: "Don't flatter yourself by thoughts of being misunderstood. I intimately know every twist and turn of your understanding. The question is if you're humble enough to imagine you could still travel a bit further, to see things from a different perspective without necessarily dismiss what you're experiencing now."]

[Spider to a Fly]

[One of the greatest gifts this site has brought me---and I hope you-all will think about this---is the value and power of the Stark Declaration. True, one cannot help but pick this up from Nietzsche, who handles it with exquisite irony and what might be called a hammer-fisted delicacy, yet nevertheless the taking up and the wielding of the Stark Declaration, which contains the Assertion that one knows something absolutely, completely, in all its 'twists and turns', is devilishly attractive. This is the psychological and philosophical wielding of the Poker Dead-Pan, and I must say it is wonderful for use in conversations with women who, as it turns out, are often so frail in self-possession, though they have learned to put up a front of 'certainty'. In the end, and perhaps by definition, 'woman' is UNCERTAIN, and so are female men, and what's left is the smooth, assumed power of a confident, knowing man's man, whose view encapsulates any other view, like carnivorous Russian Nesting Dolls, one encapsulating another, endlessly.]

[As it turns out, the Truth is not always really what we are after, it seems to me. The use of the word Truth in these forums is the most Giant Lie, and this is one of the Three Keys I have identified to master this Realm. Also, that you [deleted]. Because the Truth is, in fact, that it is Power that must be sought, one needs the platform of Power from which to wield 'Truth'. This is the basis of all politics, and has been true since we ascended from the Middle Worlds poking our noses into this sunny realm.]

[Freud said of Nietzsche that he was the most honest man on the block because he seemed to understand the most basic things, and saw the way that the most basic things really determine all things, and when you recognize this Truth it puts you in a really strange position in respect to your own philosophy, your philosophizing. It is the toughest question you can ask yourself! The toughest question anyone could ask you!]

[Hail Atlantis!]

[Don't tell me YouTube is not relevant!]

Alex Jacob wrote:[Sensei Diebert writes: "Don't flatter yourself by thoughts of being misunderstood. I intimately know every twist and turn of your understanding."

[One of the greatest gifts this site has brought me---and I hope you-all will think about this---is the value and power of the Stark Declaration.

Well, in this case it's way simpler, dear complexing mind. As it comes to this topic I did walk this specific way (topic) with the greatest possible attention and do simply know the twists and turns. Many have walked the road before, you know - that's what you start to learn while walking it. You see the signs were they've been, the markings they left behind.

That said, I'm still learning but I'm not doing that here. Or it has to be learning expressing, explaining oneself on something like a message board.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It won't be captured by feeling, thought or sensations. Which leaves only logic to at least prepare the way. And one can logically 'see' why emptiness must be necessarily so. How that in turn effects our feelings, thoughts and experiencing in turn - can only be found out.

I use logic and reason, and actually capture emotion with words through compassion and understanding. For a while now I have been aware of the 'power' of my words, which incidently is a by product and not the aim. All too often when people aim for power the words will illude them. This of course is because if the seeker is self seeking then of course it does not work. The energy which fuels my work is from selflessness, one of the main principles.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Don't flatter yourself by thoughts of being misunderstood. I intimately know every twist and turn of your understanding. The question is if you're humble enough to imagine you could still travel a bit further, to see things from a different perspective without necessarily dismiss what you're experiencing now.

I do not 'flatter', I get 'accused' daily of talking fluffy nonsense, so therefore it is others perceptions evidentially that misinterpret what I say. If I'm humble? how do you think I am able to understand what I do, this is of course another main principle. To be humble is to 1, acknowledge that we are all equal and 2, that there is always more. I see things from any perspective i want to. I am 'like the wind' the intangiable becomes tangiable, research becomes knowledge through wisdom and yet more understanding. Experience serves to ground that understanding into ones personal experience. So it works both ways, analysing ones experience, brings more understanding as does research. There was a time when i was experiencing personal and theoretical revelations daily. (Still need to type much of this up.)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Where can I buy the book? Such work would be priceless of course, no sum too high to pay for such journey!

If you are serious with that sentence then as i have already stated on another thread, I am currently working on a first draft. Of course i do need to use plenty of 'quotes' from reputable sources to 'enhance' the understanding so there is still more research to do. I actually went to a clarvoyant evening last week, never been to one before and funnily enough he said, 'You have lots more research to do!' amongst other things.

~~~

Alex Jacob wrote:yet nevertheless the taking up and the wielding of the Stark Declaration, which contains the Assertion that one knows something absolutely, completely, in all its 'twists and turns', is devilishly attractive.

I will confess I have never read much of Nietzsche, but yes knowing all those 'twists and turns' is amazing!

Alex Jacob wrote:This is the psychological and philosophical wielding of the Poker Dead-Pan, and I must say it is wonderful for use in conversations with women who, as it turns out, are often so frail in self-possession, though they have learned to put up a front of 'certainty'. In the end, and perhaps by definition, 'woman' is UNCERTAIN, and so are female men, and what's left is the smooth, assumed power of a confident, knowing man's man, whose view encapsulates any other view, like carnivorous Russian Nesting Dolls, one encapsulating another, endlessly.]

Well this woman is neither frail nor uncertain, and certainly there is NO front. Sorry to dissapoint you there. But I have mastered 'male' God logic and godess intuition together = one and knowing. so until you have mastered both how can you possibly profess to be master of your own Self. I am master of my Self and it IS a great place to be, I am in full control of all my stings on this world we call a stage! and in full control of being able to utilise my mind from the vantage point of the 3rd eye and crown chakras. Nothing deceives me.

Alex Jacob wrote:Because the Truth is, in fact, that it is Power that must be sought, one needs the platform of Power from which to wield 'Truth'.

As mentioned earlier one cannot seek it for in the external seeking/desireing you are blinded from it. I weild my own sword of truth with ease, I am master of my own realm within the pages of my book, and I ask the reader after examples of relevatory truths to become masters of their own realms they have an example before them in black and white. We are all gods, yet we all 'think' we are 'only human'. What did that Jesus dude tell us. It is perfect really for no self seeking evil 'dimwit' will be able to weild the power. It Is the divine plan. Only with kindness, unconditional selfless 'love' for all things, compassion etc.. principles of doctine, will one, once they have put these into practice be able to transcend the disruptive negativity which clouds the mind. The 'evil' which keeps us 'down' in the depths of illusion, below the veil of truth. who would want descension when ascension in positive energy of 'love and light' takes you above all the crap.
My platform IS my book, for in the 'now' in which one reads it they will be entering my world in my NOW, in which I am master of. I make my book as my book makes me...

Alex Jacob wrote:[Freud said of Nietzsche that he was the most honest man on the block because he seemed to understand the most basic things, and saw the way that the most basic things really determine all things, and when you recognize this Truth it puts you in a really strange position in respect to your own philosophy, your philosophizing. It is the toughest question you can ask yourself! The toughest question anyone could ask you!]

In understanding the basics one is able to then understand it all. I philosophise so much that I have to 'switch' of in certain company as some cannot 'cope' with my psycho analysis which slips out leaving them open and bare, personal issues for most are swept under their internal carpet to be dealt with at a later date or not at all, which of course always leaves them 'trapped' in adult behaviour of repetitive cycles. I see 'through' people, all the 'good' and all the 'bad'. One thing I notice often is conceit, this of course shows all insecurities, for when one says something they are simply airing their own thoughts. Most of the time I know what another IS thinking, as the mind just deals in logic, yet what makes a person who they are is their actions, their conscience and their warmth. Sorry men but what is the point if you are emotionally constipated and have a heart that is stone. You are a living being not a machine.

Amandaxxx

elderwoodxxx wrote:To be humble is to 1, acknowledge that we are all equal[...]

Equal from what perspective?

Equal with regards to eachothers worth and being. What makes one 'better' than the next. We are all the same, we are all born in 'human' form. We all posess a life, and above all we all bleed.
amandaxxx

Or do you perceive that some are more equal than others? You read animal farm- orwell.?

I don't think that reading Nietzsche would be at all a good idea. One, there is no possible place within you where his ideas could resonate. You would have to go through at least a few years of something like 'detox' to get to a point where anything he says would seem interesting to you.

"Well this woman is neither frail nor uncertain, and certainly there is NO front".

There is always a front. Always. It is simply in the nature of what we are. Your 'front' is wave after wave of amorphous prose. Your front is your rap, which is a completely modern creation. Your rap would have been impossible just a very few years ago (impossible to construct). I am glad that you feel 'certain' and I say that sincerely. I hope you won't react dis-favorably if I say that I'm thinking it might not be true. My theory is that this New Age gunk-philosophy is so much a construct that it must cover over a sort of hole in the person. The fog machine of language pumps out a sort of first-aid to the 'self' that has disappeared, or in any case is threatened.

I say this because I have been around a good deal of it. It is the sense I have had about people who wrap themselves in this 'thinking'. It seems to me it arises as a defensive measure, as a way to assert a minimized 'ego' (in the 'good' sense), an ego that is threatened. It is in that sense a sort of Will to Power, a will to live.

There are so many threatening features to modernity, everything and everyone is under assault, and the stakes are very high: genuine person-hood is threatened. Retreat, disappearance, co-option, madness---it is not inaccurate to say that we are under assault.

You could be crowing certainty but it is possible that, at your core, that maybe you aren't so certain. Sometimes we have to assert certainty, even if it is false, to hold ourselves together.

I think of this when I read all the different people who write here...

I see what you say.. but this is me asserting my certainty!!!! lol
I have never been more certain than anything ever. I not only feel certain ' I am'!! There are just too many things that continually acknowledge this certainty to me, unless of course i do not really exist and then of course neither do you!.

I am far from threatened. I am well aware how to voice my Self and this is what makes me certain! Many who are enlightened do not know how to voice it. I DO At my core I have utter self belief with no doubt... doubt is a construct of the mind which causes confusion and uncertainty. The only doubts I now experience are those from others who do not believe entirely in themselves. I see through it. I do not need holding together. If i were uncertain i would not be here. And dont you go thinking that because i have asserted that it is because i doubt. If you doubt me then thats your opinion not my own!!

detox??? I can read anything, if i perceive his understanding then it will resonate loud and clear, truth always does ;-)
I dont think language is a fog machine.. you evidentially do. I grasp language and HOW to make it clear.

Well you did say that it 'MIGHT' not be true.. so with that all important word there.. might, you show that you doubt yourself in relation to your surmising which of course means that with your doubts there is always a seed of truth. so really you know that i do not doubt otherwise you would not have said such!! (and that is just logical reasoning of your word structure and thoughts)

amandaxxx

Alex Jacob wrote:There is always a front. Always. It is simply in the nature of what we are. Your 'front' is wave after wave of amorphous prose. Your front is your rap, which is a completely modern creation. Your rap would have been impossible just a very few years ago (impossible to construct). I am glad that you feel 'certain' and I say that sincerely. I hope you won't react dis-favorably if I say that I'm thinking it might not be true. My theory is that this New Age gunk-philosophy is so much a construct that it must cover over a sort of hole in the person. The fog machine of language pumps out a sort of first-aid to the 'self' that has disappeared, or in any case is threatened.

The language or "front" or philosophical system is not where certainty resides if it exists outside of belief. The philosophical system exists only to assist in understanding within "logical" or associative clarity. Many philosophical systems may be valid, whether they be New Age, religious, Western Philosophic, indigenous, or what-have-you. Actual understanding within one will translate into understanding within any other, if effort is made to learn another language. The understanding, then, would not reside within any particular belief system but may be expressible and expandable through whichever is/are preferred.

divine focus wrote:Actual understanding within one will translate into understanding within any other,

This Whole statement IS very informative, and shows 'understanding' and truth. It is true, that what ever systems one chooses to look upon , if they understand then one may apply that understanding universally, 'to what ever system IS prefered'

I intially read the Upanishads and related wholly to the 'language' Then I wrote my doctrine in accordance with my own understanding and learned about a priori method which is what i had done only after in hind sight. I then furthered my own understanding in relation to other individuals as one. Now it happens that i can read anything and relate accordingly. If another understands then of course they always will perceive me. For those who do not, I am writing up my work and ways of 'how' to understand for themselves as i keep stating.

Amandaxxx

Amanda, your meaning is not very clear. You write:

I intially read the Upanishads and related wholly to the 'language'

What language? Sanskrit?

Then I wrote my doctrine in accordance with my own understanding and learned about a priori method which is what i had done only after in hind sight.

What doctrine? How would you define an a priori method? Do you mean you were only aware that you were using a priori reasoning after you wrote this doctrine? Can you give an example? Giving examples is a very good way of keeping your reader from getting lost or confused.

I then furthered my own understanding in relation to other individuals as one.

As one what? What does this mean? You keep writing like this. It doesn't seem to be saying anything.

Now it happens that i can read anything and relate accordingly. If another understands then of course they always will perceive me. For those who do not, I am writing up my work and ways of 'how' to understand for themselves as i keep stating.

What you seem to keep stating, and the only thing that you are stating which is even remotely clear, is that if other people understand you, then they'll see what you mean. But isn't thins always true with everbody at all times? Why don't you help us understand? What do you mean you can "read anything and relate accordingly?" Just from reading the Upanishads? You mean if I read all the Upanishads (which I don't believe you did) then I too can read anything? What do you mean by "relate accordingly"? You mean you could read a Quantum Mechanics textbook and be able to solve QM problems?

You don't need to explain the Upanishads to us. The Upanishads are themselves commentaries on the the Vedas. Most of us are familiar enough with them to discuss their merits. Why don't you tell us where and why you agree with them and/or disagree with them? That's more of what we do here.

Igor! Go fetch me my Tylenol!

I had just written a reply and lost it.

so this is now brief.

I will explain doctrine but in order to do so i will have to go back through my notes to give you an acurate analysis of my findings. I have already said at present that I am currently formulating a first draft. But in short yes i wrote it before then becoming aware that i had done so. The basic principles which i set down were for eg..'selflessness' 'unconditional love' 'trust' and more... they were if you like conditions of an experiement which enabled me to awake. It was not planned it just happened. Many people purposefully do things to enforce this awakeneing such as 'fasting' or 'denial' ... I equated basic principles of my own understanding to the commandments. I dont know what the probablilities were of what happened to me in all its entirety.. but are we therefore fated? or is it mere chance.. Ill leave you to ponder this..

Because you doubt that i have read the upanishads then of course this shows you base your truths on your doubts. How are you to know what I have and have not read. Doubt leads to confusion, yet within this myriad of seemingly confusing reality we are blinded by that very confusion. In belief one does not doubt. Yet if one only 'thinks' they believe and doesnt really believe or understand that they truly do then they will still doubt. Thoughts are all powerfull and are what create our reality.

Talking of mathematics, I create complex logical reasoning with words and understanding. I see numbers as 'empty' with no meaning or attributed understanding. So what i do with words, mathematicians do with numbers. My brothers phd was such that only someone in germany was able to understand his complex workings, Creating the outcome he desires. Mathmeticians are seen as 'intelligent' where as artists are generally not. Yet maths is creation as art is. I did briefly look at and create my own conclusions to string theory. Any one can do any thing if they apply their mind to do so. We underestimate the power of the mind so very much.


http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15013.htm

1. Death said: 'The Self-existent pierced the openings (of the senses) so that they turn forward: therefore man looks forward, not backward into himself. Some wise man, however, with his eyes closed and wishing for immortality, saw the Self behind.'[this Self is the one which i constantly refer to]

2. 'Children follow after outward pleasures, and fall into the snare of wide-spread death. Wise men only, knowing the nature of what is immortal, do not look for anything stable here among things unstable.'
[Outwardly seeking always leads to never finding, for in externalising one is blinded by the 'unstable']

3. 'That by which we know form, taste, smell, sounds, and loving touches, by that also we know what exists besides. This is that (which thou hast asked for).'[The knowing/understanding makes the illusive/intangiable, tangiable this exists as well as what these senses tell us]

4. 'The wise, when he knows that that by which he perceives all objects in sleep or in waking is the great omnipresent Self, grieves no more.'
[There is no reason to grieve for the confusion and turmoil has vanished replaced by this knowing and/of Self]

5. 'He who knows this living soul which eats honey (perceives objects) as being the Self, always near, the Lord of the past and the future, henceforward fears no more. This is that.'
[As i always say 'fear' casts doubts and confusion. Fear is only a construct of the mind, beyond this we know that fear does not exist]


http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15014.htm
1. 'There is a town with eleven 1 gates belonging to the Unborn (Brahman), whose thoughts are never crooked. He who approaches it, grieves no more, and liberated (from all bonds of ignorance) becomes free. This is that.'
[Ignorance creates deception within a turmoiled illusion that we 'think' is reality. Once liberated we see what IS and gain inner peace, joy and FREEDOM]


17. 'The Person not larger than a thumb, the inner Self, is always settled in the heart of men 6. Let a man draw that Self forth from his body with steadiness,[this is why i say that love is the key, for within the heart lays the answer to all things]

This I know is brief..and i hope it offers a little more understanding, but i cannot stayed glued here as i have 'reality' to do ;-)

amandaxxx

"This Whole statement IS very informative, and shows 'understanding' and truth. It is true, that what ever systems one chooses to look upon , if they understand then one may apply that understanding universally, 'to what ever system IS preferred'"

This kind of thinking, as I understand it, is attractive, but sophistic and false. Maybe linguistically all language-forming follows basic, underlying human rules, so that if you are familiar with one system you can transfer your familiarity to another system...

But it is seductive thinking and, perhaps, produces no much more than New Age gunk. Intellectual vomitability. The best cross cultural studies, e.g. between the Occidental and the Chinese as realized in the person of Richard Wilhelm (who wrote the most famous translation-interpretation of the I-Ching), was a lifetime process, with a lifetime investment, with all the trials and tribulations of bridging very different schools of thought.

It is ridiculous and vain (and vulgar) to assume that through some depthless reading of the Upanishads (in Penguin edition?) that one has somehow been given access to a sort of Rosetta Stone of Human Knowing.

This is neoplatonism at its worst, and the results can only be bad.

Alex Jacob wrote:This kind of thinking, as I understand it, is attractive, but sophistic and false. Maybe linguistically all language-forming follows basic, underlying human rules, so that if you are familiar with one system you can transfer your familiarity to another system...

If according to you it is false..have you any objective evidence for backing this assertion up? It is not about being familar to one system or another... What is implied is that with understanding of truth whatever system is looked upon truth can always be seen, understood,discerned and perceived.

,

Alex Jacob wrote:But it is seductive thinking and, perhaps, produces no much more than New Age gunk. Intellectual vomitability.

Nothing is 'gunky' or expresses 'vomitability' unless that is how one perceives it. And with your 'perhaps- ing' this I suggest that you perhaps wrongly. There is nothing derrogatory about matters of the Self. If you 'think' so and you know all about it then why do you see it as vomit?

Alex Jacob wrote:It is ridiculous and vain (and vulgar) to assume that through some depthless reading of the Upanishads (in Penguin edition?) that one has somehow been given access to a sort of Rosetta Stone of Human Knowing.

YOU assume this not me. I NEVEr professed such. In fact Alex why do you ASSUME so much??? I stated that upon reading it I UNDERSTOOD the concepts of SELF which it refers to. never did I say that this was the reason for all my knowing. And in that statement again you glaringly show your ignorance in an attempt to cast shallow aspursions upon me.
I was asked for brief examples and examples are what i gave. Did you not read the rest of the posts? for if you did you would note that I explained the context of my doing so.

WHY do you continually assert the way you do, when it serves no 'constuctive' purpose other than the appearence of your ignorance? Do you want to be seen as a fool as well as the jester?

amandaxxx

[ringside whisper, folks: Amanda has just scored a surprising knockdown of the favored Alex Jacob! A wicked uppercut out of know-where right in the jaw just floored him, and it remains to be seen whether The Shaman of Paraguay will be able to regain his feet before the count of ten.

A win would put the underdog in line for a title bout against the champion David "Zen Steamroller" Quinn, but let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet.]

[Lol..ringside whisper .... Im everywhere...the Self IS ;-) Just taking a break in the wings.. this do-jo certainly is a little exercise for my mind which craves it so. A feast of fruitful ripeness, there for the taking.. All praise to ALL SELVES who manifest as the many in expession of the ONE.;-) The 'ego'(Negativity) will be vanquished with the sword of understanding, Free your Self oh valiant honourable knights that you are! ;-) ] its EASY.

elderwoodxxx wrote:

prince wrote:Get over yourself

The very fact you write this is Suggestive that you have your own issues to get over. What exactly do you profess that i 'need' to get over? My own understanding?? I Understand my Self do you?
Amandaxxx

You don't understand yourself, otherwise you wouldn't write in the manner in which you do. It's that simple. You talk bunkum. It's totally transparent to some of those who read this forum. When you see this, the fight to "prove yourself" will go out of you. Currently you are just thrashing and flipping against the Truth.

Get over yourself has a common meaning, and the more accurate one which is, do not let your self get in the way of understanding reality.

well if you understand reality as you profess to do so then express it. You would not need to judge another. Truth is multfaceted, and always within others doubts it is easy to see their confusion in the way they [you] apparently want to make your own point against another. You cannot seperate yourself from others in this way if you did understand truth. It would be within my right now to simply say to you ..get over you and construct some understanding which actually holds relevency and acurate meaning, or are you doomed to 'feel' insecure so much that you emptily accuse others of things you do not understand.

Amandaxxx

When others speak they air their own thoughts.... people always have their own agenda, when back stabbing others.. how blunt do you want me to be? You told me to get over myself therefore plainly indicating you feel threatened in some way. If you understood why you 'think' things you would know this aspect of truth and reality. What we think certainly indicates how we perceive what is around us. Did you not even know this? Did you not know that how you perceive indicates your reality?... Obviously you are not aware of your own self in relation to your own reality let alone in a position to be able to assertain which is truth and which as you call it is 'Bunkum'. Your thoughts always give you away, so I am therefore able to suggest that you get some grip man.

Amanda wrote:Truth is multfaceted, and always within others doubts it is easy to see their confusion in the way they [you] apparently want to make your own point against another.

How is truth multifaceted? I'm kind of curious of where all the other angles come from.

I should give an example to illustrate my confusion. Let's take the Law of Non-contradiction, which is pretty definitively true. I don't see any facets to it: it's simply true that two contradictory statements cannot both be true. When you talk about other facets, do you mean something like, say, a strange loop (eg. "this statement is false.") where the truth value is indeterminate?

Or do you mean to say truth is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty? If that's what you mean, I'm even more confused. How can two people have different opinions as to what's true, without at least one of them being wrong?

"It is simply true that two contradictory statements cannot both be true."

1) Life is often very painful.
2) Life is often very pleasurable.

1) The moon is very small.
2) The moon is very large.

Et cetera.

Alex Jacob wrote:"It is simply true that two contradictory statements cannot both be true."

1) Life is often very painful.
2) Life is often very pleasurable.

1) The moon is very small.
2) The moon is very large.

Et cetera.

Since neither of those examples is a contradiction, you didn't violate the principle of non-contradiction.

These, however, are contradictions:

1) Life is mostly painful.
2) Life is mostly pleasurable.

1) The moon is smaller than the Earth.
2) The moon is larger than the Earth.

"You would not need to judge another."

Judge always, and often. Not only 'assess' (balance, weigh, compare, juxtapose), but make judgments about people, places and things. Make judgments about behavior, such as behavior you don't like (child-abuse, theft, bad interior decoration), and state your opinions. Become opinionated in your judgments, become judgmental in your opinions.

Go into judgment as if it is an art. Read and study all sorts of different sources for forming judgments, for example in history, in comparative culture. Get familiar with different modes, different possibilities. But do not sacrifice your own judgment ability or judgment activity, and never let anyone tell you that you can't or shouldn't do this. To judge may well be divine...

You need to learn how to make judgments, just as you need to learn how to use your force, your power, your assertive consciousness. True, there are dangers in making judgments, making selections and choices, deciding in favor of one thing as against another, but be willing to take the risk: it is the way the moral and ethical world is shaped.

"When others speak they air their own thoughts.... people always have their own agenda, when back stabbing others.. how blunt do you want me to be?"

You interpret 'back-stabbing', but who's to say 'back-stabbing' was intended? The Voice (the poster above) you are reacting to, at least in some way, mirrors your own expressed certainties about what is 'good' and 'bad'. I don't personally agree with his tactic of recommending behavior, however ALL OF YOUR POSTS are chock-filled with recommendation. You have, it seems, a sort of divinely ordained certitude (coming from 'realization of self') but it reads just about the same.

'When people speak...they air their thoughts...' What a strange thing to say! If they didn't 'air their thoughts' what the heck else would they do? Air someone else's thoughts? The thoughts of a cloud? True, people always have their own agendas, and what is the problem with this? You seem to propose that it's possible to be 'agenda-less', but this is factually impossible (unless you can say I channel the ALL---i.e. not myself but some Other---which is of course 'deeply problematic'). Better, therefor, to define one's agenda, to know it, to research it even, and to represent one's values truly, even if they rub up against other people's!

Even of this is a crappy reflecting pool of The World of Ideas, it is an attempt to communicate within that World of Ideas. What matters more in the World of Ideas is that you perfect your ideas...that you work on them...but never that you should not express them because someone is offended by what you say.

That is where and how PC-formulations come into the world.

"Your thoughts always give you away, so I am therefore able to suggest that you get some grip man."

To be really truthful, it is more accurate to say that it's YOU who needs to understand precisely where you are. If you understood where you are (the nature of this forum) you'd understand that the rules and laws of communication are different. Then, if you chose to act counter to those norms it would be, I think, more 'conscious'.