GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote:You may, in the end, be saying something I may at least partially agree with, but it's frankly impossible to tell. The distinction you make between mind and consciousness seems unnecessary for the purpose of that thread and the point you seemed to be making. The mind (or an aspect thereof) is capable of seeing the nature of the ego and its false constructs. It may help if I say that I see the ego-mind as the unconscious and the reasoning-mind as the conscious. The latter can see the former and also the nature of all things, which is how it expresses its own "infinite" nature.

Most people live their lives in an unconscious state because they've never been introduced to an alternative. I don't think astrology and New Age waffle is that alternative.

Dan if you 'see' the ego mind as the unconscious then what are you saying? Are you suggesting that you yourself have no control over your own 'ego desires'? since when has the subconscious ever been known as the 'ego'. As clarified in my post i do not refer to freuds analogy of the ego's, these are all within the constraints of a subjective mind which cannot see truth clearly.

I actually said that that one is able to see the mind as a simple tool for consciousness which (the mind)deals with infinite logic. So one can see the mind and ones own external desires or outwardly self seeking. This 'seeking' is what 'blinds' truth. Ironic because if you desire it you will not receive it. 'I was found by those who did not seek me' loosley quoting from the bible there but true. And just for clarification I see the bible as holding certain keys to truth. Of course one may read it and see nothing.

I did not say astology and new age waffle was the answer, i offered an example. It was incidently the ancient Mayans and Egyptians for that matter who utilised astrological knowing to understand that human consciousness comes in cycles and their calenders were based on the 13 month system which corresponds to the lunar months and the earths harmony. Not the relatively new Gregorian calender. According to the Mayans, we are now in the age of aquarius, awakening, or end times. Prophesy and predictions that are coming into fruition. The sacred feminine is taking back the role of the female and so men who seek control and power will come to realise that women are not worthless but actually equally as valid as you.

In what way do you perceive the ego mind as the unconscious for you? I am asking to gain understanding of you and also to say that what about intuition/knowing do you think that is the unconscious too?

Amandaxxx

elderwoodxxx wrote:My soul is painted like the wings of butterflies ;-) and the show will always go on... until we figure out the script that we are here to play. Are you a pupet? a puppeteer? or are you going to write the next part of the script? Well surely if you know why you are here you will. 'I am' and 'I am' has always been the way ;-)haha

Amandaxxx

You're goofy, but cute. Wanna date?

Carl G wrote:You're goofy, but cute. Wanna date?

Well since when has 'goofy' ever been a good chat up line haha.. Well im not into dating when one asks! Ironic but so to is the nature of it. If you ask, you are seeking, if you seek you never find! True.

amandaxxx

Ps was giving Alex a point to think about with regard to his previous post. The king of mockers he is!

elderwoodxxx wrote:Dan if you 'see' the ego mind as the unconscious then what are you saying? Are you suggesting that you yourself have no control over your own 'ego desires'?

My statements mean I see the unconscious nature of people and the vestiges of egotistical desires in myself. The more one awakes to the nature of Reality the more able one is break down egotistical frameworks.

since when has the subconscious ever been known as the 'ego'.

Since people are not consciously aware of their ego-based natures (i.e. the nature of the ego and its function).

As clarified in my post i do not refer to freuds analogy of the ego's, these are all within the constraints of a subjective mind which cannot see truth clearly.

I'm not talking about Freud's formulations/categories either. They may have practical merit in psychotherapeutic analysis but little or no philosophical import.

I actually said that that one is able to see the mind as a simple tool for consciousness which (the mind)deals with infinite logic.

One must first be conscious to see the mind as such a tool -i.e. awakened at least to some degree. In Buddhist terms this would be said to being reborn in the human realms. You can't begin to use the logical mind as a tool for anything till such time as you become aware of the need to do so - or, to put it differently, till the need takes over your mind.

So one can see the mind and ones own external desires or outwardly self seeking.

That, in part, is what being "conscious" means. i.e. the opposite of being in an unconscious, ego-driven dream world.

This 'seeking' is what 'blinds' truth. Ironic because if you desire it you will not receive it.

One doesn't "receive" Truth, one discerns it. That requires the desire to attain such discernment.

'I was found by those who did not seek me' loosley quoting from the bible there but true. And just for clarification I see the bible as holding certain keys to truth. Of course one may read it and see nothing.

What, not even words?

I did not say astology and new age waffle was the answer, i offered an example.

Which happened to be astrology and New Age waffle - i.e. a very bad example.

It was incidently the ancient Mayans and Egyptians for that matter who utilised astrological knowing to understand that human consciousness comes in cycles and their calenders were based on the 13 month system which corresponds to the lunar months and the earths harmony.

And is a load of arbitrary wank.

Not the relatively new Gregorian calender. According to the Mayans, we are now in the age of aquarius, awakening, or end times. Prophesy and predictions that are coming into fruition.

New Age waffle. Can you give one concrete reason as to why I should see such talk as less than horseshit? The Mayans must have been really upset to have had their own "end times" rather prematurely.

The sacred feminine is taking back the role of the female and so men who seek control and power will come to realise that women are not worthless but actually equally as valid as you.

Um, what is the "sacred feminine"? And why do I feel a cow joke coming on....

In what way do you perceive the ego mind as the unconscious for you?

Have many people have you met who are consciously aware of their ego and the desire cycles they generate (samsara)? People are not conscious of these things, or their natures, at all. To become aware is to partially rise above it. Such awareness only comes when a person, for whatever reason, begins to ask about the nature of the self.

I am asking to gain understanding of you and also to say that what about intuition/knowing do you think that is the unconscious too?

Knowing cannot be unconscious by definition. As to intuition - there are somewhat different forms of that, but one can generally say it is simply data flow that has yet to filtered through conscious thought processes. Some intuition - essentially the feminine form - is unconscious from start to finish and never attains the status of conscious thought - the content is basically just "feelings". Other forms of intuition, essentially the masculine - are the primordial slime from which conscious discernments may arise, or simply fail to evolve. Intuition is just embryonic data flow. It doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

elderwoodxxx wrote:With regard to true or false as quoted above, there is no right or wrong/true or false, in peoples assertions, just different UNDERSTANDING. when we all can understand the issues raised by others, then we can all realise truth for ourselves.

Excuse me, are you saying that when one person says there's a personal, creator God with human characteristics like emotion, and another says there isn't, there's no right/wrong dimension to that? Since these positions are fundamentally contradictory there are only 2 possible options that I can see: one of them is right and the other wrong, or they are both wrong.

Having an understanding doesn't mean the understanding is right. Your use of "understanding" here seems to be a mere synonym for "belief".

elderwoodxxx wrote:

Carl G wrote:You're goofy, but cute. Wanna date?

Well since when has 'goofy' ever been a good chat up line haha.. Well im not into dating when one asks! Ironic but so to is the nature of it. If you ask, you are seeking, if you seek you never find! True.

amandaxxx

What, dates with you just kinda happen by osmosis?

I think she means that to date her it has to be your innate nature, not something you desire. i.e. you have to be innately desperate. We should hook Laird up.

Dan Rowden wrote:My statements mean I see the unconscious nature of people and the vestiges of egotistical desires in myself. The more one awakes to the nature of Reality the more able one is break down egotistical frameworks.

Agreed. I have always seen others 'unconscious' desires, and have always been acutely aware of my own. when i was small i expressed a naievity to the fact that i could not understand why others did not. So i do not know what it is like not to. However i have not always been able to 'understand' the full reasoning as to why, and it has been always my questions to understand this. I do now. I equated my once 'blindness' to doubt forming subjective experience on a personal level. I was always aware of others and knew that i was 'lost within myself'. Others just thought I was deep and sensitive. I never feel anger just anguish to the fact that i could not understand. I now know that all negativity was created by myself and through understanding i do not secumb to the subjective doubts of another. Fear and doubt do not exist unless one creates them. With self belief and trusting in me, I now 'feel' if you like that i can be my true self as i do not fear my own worth in relatiuon to any other. Therefore i could say that i have always been self aware but not aware of Self which I now am. Having seen beyond the mind i understand my once perceived confusion, while being 'trapped' within it. I previously always felt trapped. Now i understand mySelf in relation to all other minds.

In the past my anguish turned to turmoil as i 'felt' completely void of any purpose or understanding within my life. Most say that i do not have an 'ego' but i obviously had outwardly desires and these were to gain understanding and to feel 'complete' How ironic! I already was complete, yet we seek this often from another. All I ever needed was to know pure love.. and then i realised i had met mySelf. Upon this understanding all my desires were fullfilled as the Self is all our desires. Then consciousness was set free from inside, and understanding burst open as a seed would into a tree...

Dan Rowden wrote:Since people are not consciously aware of their ego-based natures (i.e. the nature of the ego and its function).

True. But for me what has become conscious is consciousness itself. As the 'tree' bloomed i realised that my once sub conscious (For me Self) has become my conscious. I see through people. Sometimes i see it for the grace and blessing it is, however rarely i do question: do i know and see too much, but then to question continually expands growth. for in doubts we realise solutions, further understanding and acknowledgements. I drink up wisdom as verily as i understand and my 'book' contains new wisdom.

Dan Rowden wrote:One must first be conscious to see the mind as such a tool -i.e. awakened at least to some degree. In Buddhist terms this would be said to being reborn in the human realms. You can't begin to use the logical mind as a tool for anything till such time as you become aware of the need to do so - or, to put it differently, till the need takes over your mind.

Indeed my mind IS renewed, as consciousness has become my mind. I do have to force myself to 'switch off', and come down to earth, but i am slowly integrating this in to every living moment of my reality, and live in the 'now' for a balance is needed in enjoyment and experience to ground my understanding, but then the majority of the time my mind is in consciousness 'mode' and realisations continually flood in. when one is aware of consciousness then you can never go 'back' for 'sat-chit-ananda' is absolute reality, pure awareness and unconditional joy.

Dan Rowden wrote:That, in part, is what being "conscious" means. i.e. the opposite of being in an unconscious, ego-driven dream world.

Yes the 'dream' world where one may only dream, now i dream dreams and write them into my book through understanding... I am all to acutely aware of mystical and esoteric thought. My reality is now what I create instead of it creating me.

Dan Rowden wrote:One doesn't "receive" Truth, one discerns it. That requires the desire to attain such discernment.

Indeed, I meant receive it only in the context of it being given to you through wisdom and discernment rather than outwardly 'ego' desiring it. Balance always comes from giving and receiving, not desiring and taking.

Dan Rowden wrote:What, not even words?

when i said: one may read it [The bible] and see nothing, i meant in the context of 'perceive' understanding and truth, wisdom and knowledge.

If we look back into history and creational myths, there are a pantheon of God's and Godess'es. One may discern truths from these also. The 13 tablets of thoth make an interesting read for this discernment, and for those who are able, the writing does speak to ones core.
New age is not new, paganism as you are well aware was absorbed by christianity, gods and dates replaced by the church, of course this is religions evolution either by choice or invasional force. The mayans predicted that 2012 would be the end times, which coincides with obviously revelation etc. some think that 2012 has already occured, others say it will create catastrophe others beauty. These of course are just others assumptions. The Mayan Galactic butterfly is the symbol of universal consciousness, our global world is indeed becoming 'small' especially with the internet for example. Bhuddist thought dictates that the same self dwells in all, that same universal self. The evolution of awareness will i believe make this so.

Dan Rowden wrote:Um, what is the "sacred feminine"? And why do I feel a cow joke coming on....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_feminine

Mother godess Isis is depicted with child and the sun. Three forming One, there are always three in creation.. equate that to God, mary and jesus.. (Father son and spirit) Paganistic worship is that of mother earth. Male God logic and female Godess intuition form ONE leading to third eye open-awareness in consciousness.. Celtic knotwork and the serpent linked to another serpent tail to mouth, realise this union of Complete Self. we transend 'perceptions' to open consciousness. Many mystery schools deal with ascension, intuition and logic are both left and right brain seeking.. in the past, within the schools we had one form(Exactly which, illudes me at present) it may have been left brain but we are a right brain planet...

The world has only worshipped a male God deity for 2000 yrs, previously and for much longer than this it was the feminine.

This site may be of interest to you,
http://www.crystalinks.com/merkaba.html

Samsara.. I find that sensitive people are very aware yet 'feel' helpless and lost, as they do not realise the desire of others inpact upon them.

Dan Rowden wrote:Knowing cannot be unconscious by definition. As to intuition - there are somewhat different forms of that, but one can generally say it is simply data flow that has yet to filtered through conscious thought processes.

Knowing is a sense one has of certain things, some people 'know' but do not realise why they know, how often you heard people say 'i just knew'.. it is those 'feelings' we have. so we could say that knowing is likened to intuition.. or are you saying that when one understands why it turns from intuition to conscious knowing.

Dan Rowden wrote:Some intuition - essentially the feminine form - is unconscious from start to finish and never attains the status of conscious thought - the content is basically just "feelings". Other forms of intuition, essentially the masculine - are the primordial slime from which conscious discernments may arise, or simply fail to evolve. Intuition is just embryonic data flow. It doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

I have to say Dan that here I do disagree. we are not machines. You would be wrong in assuming that females do not know intuition. To vocalise Self is to voice that intuition. 'Humans' are somewhat primitive in their understanding. Just look around you! we cannot even organise our own species let alone understand ourselves. What do you 'think' feelings are for?? They serve to teach us our actions and consequences. Without 'feelings' we would not even bother to question why we have them and what they are for. They are essentially part of our conscious evolutionary growth. without compassion we would get nowhere, we would be 'dust'. Do you feel that upon transcendence and understanding of them that they are 'slime'. Without them you would not be you. An intuitive person will automatically 'know' when something is not right. To listen to that intuition or innervoice will always serve you well, for it is that which allows conscious developmental growth to form from the subconscious.


Amandaxxx

Excuse me, are you saying that when one person says there's a personal, creator God with human characteristics like emotion, and another says there isn't, there's no right/wrong dimension to that? Since these positions are fundamentally contradictory there are only 2 possible options that I can see: one of them is right and the other wrong, or they are both wrong.

These are just assertions.. If one can logically reason with you so that you can understand it 'how' they do then they would have some reasoning to imbue. You could then say, I understand where you are coming from but i do not agree, this is how i understand it to be.. Simple.

If one just picks something and says it then they must be able to explain their understanding. What I was saying was just that, we all understand things differently even down to the meaning of words and the context in which we use them creating needless argument. We can always agree to differ but can we always explain why.

Carl G wrote:What, dates with you just kinda happen by osmosis?

Dan Rowden wrote:I think she means that to date her it has to be your innate nature, not something you desire. i.e. you have to be innately desperate. We should hook Laird up.

What I mean IS that things either are or are not. Why do you think there is so much divorce and relational hardships. If two 'enhance' the other then excellent, but within most relationships one feels 'needy' of the other and constant arguments arise etc.. We must work at this.. they say.. well either change the way you think and what you 'need' or repeat your 'samsara'. For me if I were to meet someone who 'enhanced' me and i him then both would 'know'. I believe that two people should be together if they can do nothing but and the mere presence of the person is sublime and makes you feel alive, if not then you just have emptyness.

amandaxxx

[Golf whisper here folks...Dan has written: "Since these positions are fundamentally contradictory there are only 2 possible options that I can see: one of them is right and the other wrong, or they are both wrong." I offer a couple of comments, just as public service.]

[While on the one hand, or should I say 'And in the Left Corner!', Amanda is in the amorphous, I-accept-you-and-all-you-say-because-it-is-your-'experience' camp (hats off and a bow to Ronnie Laing), and 'In the Right Corner!' we have Dan with his binary computer of the mind who perceives all things in stark black and white and literally cannot see an alternative...]

[In this case you have two people, 180 degrees apart, whose conclusions about life will always be skewed. It really does seem to at least point in the direction---as a thing of value and necessity---of a mind that can synthesize, that can operate in duality, that can bridge different aspects of reality].

[Also, Amanda is destined for Kevin, some one's got to make a man of him].

wahey! Here comes Alex, with his obviously non-skewed 'objective' continuul running commentary.. haha The Jester raised his head for another encore.. yet again. although his commentary doesnt really stand about right and wrong if he read and understood my comments upon this ;-)
amandaxxx

Amanda,

I thought you said you were able to write so much because you have taken time off to be a mum...naturally I am thinking a man has got to be supporting that...but now you speak as though you are single. What gives?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:This doesn't mean the dictionary is the Word of God but without some good reasons one shouldn't stray too far from it if you want to have a meaningful conversation. And there's no good reason here apart from what appears to be some very fragile, scared ego wish-wash.

You are not quite correct in your intuition this time. The distinction i am making between judgment and discernment is unknown to most, and the value of it is essentially unrecognized. Words need not be rigidly defined when one is on the path of new understanding. Growth requires flexibility, since a more accurate perception may entail a revised definition of a word for practical purposes of understanding and communication.

In this, I'm suggesting (quite strongly!) that judgment as distinct from discernment is a huge hinderance to growth. It involves placing yourself above (or, sometimes, below) something you deem to be "not-you" and perpetuates a sense of absolute separation (ego). This is an obviously valuable distinction to make, since discernment has no such negative effects. This is not to say that this definition of judgment is now newly rigid again. Depending on context, judgment may mean the personal opinion, likes/dislikes, and discretion of the individual. This was not the context in which Dan used the word, though.

Dan Rowden wrote:
My statements mean I see the unconscious nature of people and the vestiges of egotistical desires in myself. The more one awakes to the nature of Reality the more able one is break down egotistical frameworks.

As well as limitations. You can acheive what you believe is possible.

Since people are not consciously aware of their ego-based natures (i.e. the nature of the ego and its function).

It hides in plain sight, unless, as you say, one is aware of it by awakening to its presence.

Amanda:
I actually said that that one is able to see the mind as a simple tool for consciousness which (the mind)deals with infinite logic.

Dan:
One must first be conscious to see the mind as such a tool -i.e. awakened at least to some degree. In Buddhist terms this would be said to being reborn in the human realms. You can't begin to use the logical mind as a tool for anything till such time as you become aware of the need to do so - or, to put it differently, till the need takes over your mind.

Both Dan and Amanda seem to indicate that the mind dwells in the realm of awareness. When the mind is seen as a giant chalkboard, that makes blueprints, that designs great movies with sound and sometimes smells all integrated, it is the best and only tool to visualize possibilities. If it can be designed, it is possible.

That is why the mind is the designer of the universe as it dwells within consciousness..

Amanda:
This 'seeking' is what 'blinds' truth. Ironic because if you desire it you will not receive it.

Dan:
One doesn't "receive" Truth, one discerns it. That requires the desire to attain such discernment.

Well said and I think Divine Focus said the same thing. We cannot 'judge' our way there, one must discern or discriminate what is form and what is beyond all form. This does indeed stem from deep desire.

Thank you for these thoughts Dan.



Amanda:

Does any one hear me??

Who I am always hears itSelf ;)

This forum is a great dojo. You trust your intuition because it is what is self evident and the stunningly obvious. The logic will come and is just simply, a more precise language. It is akin to math in measurements to construct concepts in the mind.

The scripture known as the Bible is encrypted more than any Holy scripture I have ever read. The funny thing is, once One gets it - it is so simple eh! The blueprints are all there.




To all

I have enjoyed reading many threads, I am expanding in understanding from reading here.

divine focus wrote:The distinction i am making between judgment and discernment is unknown to most, and the value of it is essentially unrecognized. Words need not be rigidly defined when one is on the path of new understanding.

Fair enough. To me the distinction seems unnecessary though and possibly adding to confusion. What is wrong with just having good and bad discernment and judgments?

In this, I'm suggesting (quite strongly!) that judgment as distinct from discernment is a huge hinderance to growth. It involves placing yourself above (or, sometimes, below) something you deem to be "not-you" and perpetuates a sense of absolute separation (ego).

How can there be judgment possible if one is not 'above' the issue, sometimes the issue being another person, at least in some regards, not in some absolute sense. In court the judge has the highest rank so he can pass judgment. This is necessary, there won't be enough order, not the right structure, no power for effective judgment otherwise.

Truth is, we're never equal to whatever is being perceived. There starts the order already.

Depending on context, judgment may mean the personal opinion, likes/dislikes, and discretion of the individual. This was not the context in which Dan used the word, though.

It sounds to me you're making the definition so fluid that it fits your convenience. Like when you are passing judgment it's "good" and we call it discernment, truth and such. And when someone else judges something you value, it's the whole judgment process that is being deemed wrong.

This is how it appears like to me. On the other hand I'd be the first one to admit that the right judgment to make is a very tricky process and often abused for egocentric purposes. But I'd see that as challenge, not as a reason to ditch the judge and jury.

Alex Jacob wrote:Don't forget, that is the end product, and that is your readership. Where y'all get hung up is in thinking it has to be one certain way, and when y'all are left to define that way, your readership wants to go home and put a bullet in their head.

Are you trying to shock? Ever looked into a gun that way? Nobody said it wouldn't be dangerous. It takes for most people experiences leading quite close to death to even experience life consciously instead of some vague memory of it. That's obvious because life and death are the same under the Janus face.

Many times I have received notes from people who never even post who express to me some value received.

And that's a good thing, that a couple of probably sick lurkers and some jesters send you compliments? Better think again.

But it's a common argument I've heard before during discussions." Argumentum ad Publica Invisus". There's a pattern here though: such arguments are always made by charlatans, on the edge of desperation as their story is falling apart at the seams and credibility needs to be repaired fast.

The medium, Diebert, is strangeley conducive to mediumship, and behind every medium is a kind of magic, and a magician, juggling shiney balls.

The medium is always a spiritual creature in itself and attracts similar tuned creatures to clog it. Think about it before sacrificing another note to it!

Yeah, until you have 'handled' so many that the theme of a greater game seems to stand behind all of them. Ain't that so, Diebert? So, you stop juggling but the audience stares at you in anticipation. You look back at them. They stare at you, and there is silence. You set down your magic wand and shake your head negatively. You walk away. But what do you sense? It's...it's...desperation! They need you! They need a show.

Nah, Lila's play! It's more like Club Silentio [courtesy of David Lynch].

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm not talking about Freud's formulations/categories either. They may have practical merit in psychotherapeutic analysis but little or no philosophical import.

You were referring, I think, to Freud's usage of the term "ego." The fact is, your usage - the "philosophical" one - is quite close to the Freudian. The problem I find is the way you "philosophers" co-opt specific terms and make them mean something else.

One doesn't "receive" Truth, one discerns it. That requires the desire to attain such discernment.

Let's clarify this. All ideas are not present at once in a great mass from which one "discerns" which are true and which are not. One does, in fact, receive them, either on one's own or through having them taught to one. If one has had the desire to attain the discernment necessary to distinguish which of these ideas represent Truth, it is possible to acquire such a capacity. The desire alone is not sufficient, however. Work is required. Only then can someone say he is able to "discern" what is true and what is not. And as with all abilities, ongoing practice is required if one wants to retain this ability.

Excuse me, are you saying that when one person says there's a personal, creator God with human characteristics like emotion, and another says there isn't, there's no right/wrong dimension to that? Since these positions are fundamentally contradictory there are only 2 possible options that I can see: one of them is right and the other wrong, or they are both wrong.

Your problem, Dan, is that you lack discernment in this area. The notion of a personal Creator does not imply the Creator posesses human weakness and frailties such as emotions. Because you may have heard one Christian claim so, you are unable to discern the wheat from the chaff for yourself. You must then reject the idea of a Creator in its entirety. This is the mark of a lack of discernment.

Iolaus wrote: thought you said you were able to write so much because you have taken time off to be a mum...naturally I am thinking a man has got to be supporting that...but now you speak as though you are single. What gives?

I am single. Time of from the 'rat race' as it were. I have just put myself through Uni...

Beingof1 wrote:Well said and I think Divine Focus said the same thing. We cannot 'judge' our way there, one must discern or discriminate what is form and what is beyond all form. This does indeed stem from deep desire.

Yes but this desire is not to fuel the 'ego' which usually where desire as most know it comes from. with selfless desire we achieve far more. Yet even still with desireing to attain the awareness we have we cut ourselves of from the knowing. To then just know, it is revealed according.. but if you question what you know by only thinking you know it then you question the very existence of what you want more of. If you 'think' you have further to go you will always 'think' that.

Beingof1 wrote:Who I am always hears itSelf ;)

This forum is a great dojo. You trust your intuition because it is what is self evident and the stunningly obvious. The logic will come and is just simply, a more precise language. It is akin to math in measurements to construct concepts in the mind.

The scripture known as the Bible is encrypted more than any Holy scripture I have ever read. The funny thing is, once One gets it - it is so simple eh! The blueprints are all there.

I am does indeed 'hear' itself. Some howerver here 'think' intuition is 'primordial slime' But in trusting ones knowing then of course we rely on intuition to guide, which incidently never leads you astray.

I love the challenge of 'de-crypting' the bible this gives so much satisfaction and yes of course it IS easy. What I enjoy is the way it 'secretly' speaks to Self, beyond all dogmatic hippocricy..and the blue prints are certainly most wholesome. Food for the soul.

brokenhead wrote: One does, in fact, receive them

[Truth]
Thank you for what i feel brings clarity here. Ongoing practice is indeed needed, which is why after I have 'discerned'... i then write it down so that i may 'relax' 'know' and continue. Instead of trying to remember continually which is impossible.. this way i have documented my journey of understanding, revelation, experience and awareness.. into my new creation.. when i look back i find that all the work relates to the whole as one body and that understanding creates further and further understanding as thoughts become deep rooted into more and more knowing.

Amandaxxx

Diebert, you didn't understand. Life, no matter how it comes to one, is always very dangerous, troubling, disturbing, fatal.

But there are certain routines of mind, certain ruts of mentation, certain cold and harsh ways of seeing the world, certain patterns into which one forces all experience, that can diminish the Saving Grace of some of the beauty and loveliness of life. Art, you know, is sometimes God's Gift. Nature is harsh and cruel and unforgiving, but the rustling wind is also 'the breath of God', and that meaning is also very, very relevant for living entities, and I include QRS in that...

It has occurred to me that this ruthless rejection of Life on the part of the QRS, an absolute unwillingness to participate, is a sort of 'schizophrenia' in the original sense of the word: a division, a schizm, a break. I do not think such a break can be sustained, and I say this truthfully.

There are many pressures our modernity thrusts at us. We need 'conceptual pathways' that lead us to wholesomeness, but I do not say that I exclusively understand what this is.

brokenhead wrote:

Excuse me, are you saying that when one person says there's a personal, creator God with human characteristics like emotion, and another says there isn't, there's no right/wrong dimension to that? Since these positions are fundamentally contradictory there are only 2 possible options that I can see: one of them is right and the other wrong, or they are both wrong.

Your problem, Dan, is that you lack discernment in this area. The notion of a personal Creator does not imply the Creator posesses human weakness and frailties such as emotions. Because you may have heard one Christian claim so, you are unable to discern the wheat from the chaff for yourself. You must then reject the idea of a Creator in its entirety. This is the mark of a lack of discernment.

C'mon, dude, that was just silly. My point had nothing to do with the coherence or reality of the options I offered - it had to do entirely with the flat out contradiction in the opposing nature of the views and the natural logical consequence of that. Those views could have been anything -they weren't meant to suggest anything real. I'm well aware that concepts of a personal God take many forms, some of then nothing like that which I used for that particular exercise. Your sensitivity in this area is something you wear on your sleeve - you know that, right?

Oh, and the term/concept of "ego" predates Freud by quite a margin.

Alex Jacob wrote: But there are certain routines of mind, certain ruts of mentation, certain cold and harsh ways of seeing the world, certain patterns into which one forces all experience, that can diminish the Saving Grace of some of the beauty and loveliness of life.

Certainly, at least, they do that to you.

Dwelling in the beauty and loveliness is just as much a 'routine of mind' or can become one.

Some surely see beauty and depth in what you describe as 'cold' and 'harsh'. Nietzsche went on and on about his mountain top.

Art, you know, is sometimes God's Gift. Nature is harsh and cruel and unforgiving, but the rustling wind is also 'the breath of God', and that meaning is also very, very relevant for living entities, and I include QRS in that...

Sure, the Great Comforter:

To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come

It has occurred to me that this ruthless rejection of Life on the part of the QRS, an absolute unwillingness to participate, is a sort of 'schizophrenia' in the original sense of the word: a division, a schizm, a break. I do not think such a break can be sustained, and I say this truthfully.

Rationality itself could be said to be a sort of schizophrenia - a fractured sense of being.

Not sure what you mean with unwillingness to participate. In what? The air, food, talking? The great hunt perhaps?

No, Diebert. (Or 'Yes, Diebert', as you wish), I am trying to work out some generalities. There are certain routines of modern production, like assembly-line work, that produce a monotonous, uninventive individual. There are certain ruts of mentation, certain 'assembly-line' ways of looking at life and living that could have a similar effect on an individual.

It is really---so very really and truly!---inaccurate to bring up Nietzsche in the context of the QRS. Nietzsche was a unique being, a voracious intellect, a broadly educated man very connected to the world of art. It is in a very real sense a sin to compare David Quinn or Kevin Solway to Nietzsche. They are not at all on the same platform, nor are they close.

In a certain sense that is exactly what I mean: If Nietzsche and other of these great intellects are to be an example to us, it seems we might emulate a bit more of their formation.

What is considered and discussed here (by QRS) is often so extremely narrow, so limiting, and in a sense shrinking.

I think there is a misinterpretation about this 'cold' and 'harsh', just as there is often misinterpretation about Nietzsche.

"Rationality itself could be said to be a sort of schizophrenia - a fractured sense of being."

That is of course true, and I am not advocating an avoidance of pushing the limits, nor of taking no risks, and I am not advocating avoiding 'rationality', and am more concerned for mediocrity that masquerades and superiority.

Yes, that's it.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

divine focus wrote:The distinction i am making between judgment and discernment is unknown to most, and the value of it is essentially unrecognized. Words need not be rigidly defined when one is on the path of new understanding.

Fair enough. To me the distinction seems unnecessary though and possibly adding to confusion. What is wrong with just having good and bad discernment and judgments?

Eihh, it doesn't matter. It's useful when it's useful.

In this, I'm suggesting (quite strongly!) that judgment as distinct from discernment is a huge hinderance to growth. It involves placing yourself above (or, sometimes, below) something you deem to be "not-you" and perpetuates a sense of absolute separation (ego).

How can there be judgment possible if one is not 'above' the issue, sometimes the issue being another person, at least in some regards, not in some absolute sense. In court the judge has the highest rank so he can pass judgment. This is necessary, there won't be enough order, not the right structure, no power for effective judgment otherwise.

Notice that a judge can pass judgment and a "higher" judge may disagree. The judgment is individual and not "objective." It's not above anything, since it's all opinion and discretion (when it comes to ruling). To be above "in some regards" is in an absolute sense in those regards. To be "above" actually means to have no "below."

Depending on context, judgment may mean the personal opinion, likes/dislikes, and discretion of the individual. This was not the context in which Dan used the word, though.

It sounds to me you're making the definition so fluid that it fits your convenience. Like when you are passing judgment it's "good" and we call it discernment, truth and such. And when someone else judges something you value, it's the whole judgment process that is being deemed wrong.

Deeming it wrong is an absolute judgment, so I don't do that. Absolute judgment is a barrier. I can deem it that without looking down (or up) at it.

divine focus wrote:Absolute judgment is a barrier

Absolute judgement Is a barrier.. for it is limiting Self....one needs to be able to acknowledge a certainty or principle.. within the judgement.. in order to be able to then process more. within the realm of the infinite, there are no limits. This way understanding grows and consciousness, expands.
amandaxxx

elderwoodxxx wrote:

divine focus wrote:Absolute judgment is a barrier

Absolute judgement Is a barrier.. for it is limiting Self....one needs to be able to acknowledge a certainty or principle.. within the judgement.. in order to be able to then process more. within the realm of the infinite, there are no limits. This way understanding grows and consciousness, expands.
amandaxxx

Well, I'm glad we got that all sorted out. Where ya been?