GENIUS FORUMS

Mr. Quinn, have you no attachments? Not attached to food, or rest, or comforts, or breathing? Why stand by to suffer the aches and pains that will soon come your way? Why watch your teeth fall out? Who said you have to stand by? You have a brain to stop it all. You can always end it with a match and some gasoline - then your unattachment will reign supreme for all to see. What greater sign of enlightenment can there be than setting yourself on fire? Why watch anymore of it? No one here will peep. We will shed no tears. If you tell me there is no need to make such a decision - that you are a simple observer - that you have no opinions about your own decomposition, then why do you have an opinion about any other observation? Why do you have such strong likes and dislikes? Are your dislikes not attachments? Be free of them. If you see someone in pain with cancer, do you feel they suffer from an attachment to the body? What are all these judgments? Are all other people capable of your detached opinions? Are these people the results of all the same causes that make you what YOU are? We are all exactly free in the same way? Free to choose as you do? We all have this total free will? Free to use our brains in the same exact ways and come to the same exact conclusions?

Who is this person doing battle with the world? Is he real?

David wrote:

Why do you feel for these people? They have greedily attached themselves to a person, or a thing, in order to suck out as much pleasure as possible, and then, when Nature comes along and takes away their plaything, they completely lose the plot and fall into a prolonged, black-minded, narcissistic tantrum. And we are supposed to respect this?

Yes, it may be an interesting psychological exercise, but it seems you are implying that Nature plays no part once it comes along and takes away their plaything. ???

Frank wrote:

It is really quite spectacularly beautiful, this flux, there is neither reason to judge it perjoratively nor intervene in the drama as it plays itself out...

I can relate to this, but yet, the judging, intervening or otherwise also includes this drama, making it much more spectacular and wonderful, in fact, beyond any verbal expressions in my opinion.

Sapius: I can relate to this, but yet, the judging, intervening or otherwise also includes this drama, making it much more spectacular and wonderful, in fact, beyond any verbal expressions in my opinion.

I can relate to it too Sapius...and I too am catapulted into a Space beyond verbal expression due to that way of looking at things..

It causes me to think there's nothing the matter...nothing to fix...and it's quite funny...and yet quite beautiful...and I'm loathe to declare it enlightenment...because there are so many different viewpoints abiding...and so many claims of enlightenment...I simply don't know...

I'm quite happy to draw a line and say that Humans are fond of MeaningMaking..

Why?

That Humans not only have Food Hunger but also have Script Hunger...

The urgency to develop a Script to Live in congruence with as an antidote to avoid some kind of fate happening because there's something wrong.

To me that's Hilarious.

frank

DavidQuinn000 wrote:When you watch a grief-stricken person, what do you see? You see a person who is nasty, angry, violent, narcissistic, emotional, black-minded, irrational, thoroughly absorbed in their own petty dramas, unempathetic and condescending towards other people's concerns. In other words, the very worst of all human traits.

Someone to whom I felt very close died suddenly a few months ago & it's been weird to find myself involved in this activity of grief much more than I would have expected. I don't think I'm feeling nasty, angry or violent but I guess I do seem to be viewing things rather more starkly than usual, which some people interpret as hostility.

I think what you're talking about is when grief is compounded by righteousness, a feeling of nobility for having suffered, a kind of pride of having had something 'terrible' happen. That's what causes some grieving people to be condescending & unempathetic. For example I heard of a woman whose daughter was killed when the World Trade Center was destroyed who wore her grief like a medal of honor & used it as a means of manipulating the susceptible. A lot of people who lost friends & relatives in the World Trade Center seem to be like this, & they have been mightily encouraged by incessant media attention.

I have understood that what complicates my own situation is the feeling that I could have done more than I did, acted better, been more helpful, less critical, more sympathetic than I was. Not that this would have changed anything, but I regret the lost opportunity. Someone I once knew said "Knowledge not lived is sin". This feels meaningful to me. I should have been able to do better than I did. I had the understanding, but somehow I did not always act in the best possible way. This is regrettable & I am finding it hard to let it go.

Maybe it's not grief, but remorse, which is actually a way of holding onto the dead person as if it weren't all over & something could still be done differently. It's ugly because it's a distortion of reality, but I don't think it's as vicious as you say.

[edited for spelling]

frank wrote:

Sapius: I can relate to this, but yet, the judging, intervening or otherwise also includes this drama, making it much more spectacular and wonderful, in fact, beyond any verbal expressions in my opinion.

I can relate to it too Sapius...and I too am catapulted into a Space beyond verbal expression due to that way of looking at things..

It causes me to think there's nothing the matter...nothing to fix...and it's quite funny...and yet quite beautiful...and I'm loathe to declare it enlightenment...because there are so many different viewpoints abiding...and so many claims of enlightenment...I simply don't know...

I'm quite happy to draw a line and say that Humans are fond of MeaningMaking..

Why?

That Humans not only have Food Hunger but also have Script Hunger...

The urgency to develop a Script to Live in congruence with as an antidote to avoid some kind of fate happening because there's something wrong.

To me that's Hilarious.

frank

Hmm… yes, there is nothing REALLY the matter, but however, (this ‘however’ and ‘yet’ are really very crucial when speaking from the perspective of All that there is, because you cannot pick a single side of a coin and call it a coin), as a process, I don’t blame or hold cause and effect responsible in and of itself, although nothing escapes it, since it does produce a Thing which is not some thing else at any given causal moment. Hence, all effects are necessarily “responsible” as causes of the next effect when seen reflected in Things, more so when the process is facilitating a mental attribute of rejection or acceptance of some-thing (ideas, concepts,) in a progressively higher form of consciousness.

As far as human attributes are concerned, be it emotional or logical, they naturally exist, but all that seems possible is how are things (humans) made to handle them, to the point of almost total suppression or irresponsible use of them both. You can use emotions reasonably and responsibly too, for example, the love of wisdom, or on the other hand, pointing to cause and effect to delusion-ally escape the thing-ness of a Self which is a necessity in order for a decision to be made. Even if one still insists that it is all just cause and effect at work, then cause and effect is free to make decisions, hence free-will exists inherent in existence. Talking of the intricacy of the word inherency … sue me.

Be it logical or otherwise, this is cause and effect speaking, of course. ;)

Hi Sapius, and Hi Shardrol. I've wanted to say hi to you both for a while. I'm sure I have in the past. Just in case I die tomorrow, I'd better tell you both I love you as well!

Well, everyone else too! I love you!

suergaz wrote:Hi Sapius, and Hi Shardrol. I've wanted to say hi to you both for a while. I'm sure I have in the past. Just in case I die tomorrow, I'd better tell you both I love you as well!

Well, everyone else too! I love you!

I know that icludes David and Mooks too. :)

My memory is not that perfect, but I remember we did share thoughts during those early days of B0ndi, Thomas K, etc. But you disappeared for quite some time. A year? two? At times I do disappear myself, but not for more than a month or so. Some times when I’m back, I find such dull discussions, that I take another month off to watch the bees and the birds, again.

Sorry for this social interruption, people.

Cp wrote:

Yes, but there is a certain futility in it, challenging an incredibly stupid man to his face is just like sticking your arm into a wild fire.

Are you saying that you have not responded defiantly to your father when he has tried to control and influence you to conform to his values? When he encourages you to have a drink with him, take you to a bar, gamble with him, to eat his meat, to eat his sugar – are you obedient? You are defiant, no? And has he ever asked why? You have spoken un-diplomatically to him. He has shouted back in anger. You have broken away from his influence to a certain degree. But you remain under his roof in self pity – just like me.

What I’m stressing is not the importance of trying to relentlessly influence and control people – but to realize that people are constantly trying to influence and control you.

People want you to please and entertain them. Unfortunately we are not only willing to do what they want, but we are in self-pity because we sometimes or most of the time can’t even when we try.

How do you respond to peoples expectations of you? You must tell them your opinion and you continue to do what your clarity will, rather than compromising to his/her childish fantasies. That’s all I’m saying.

Cp wrote:

Challenging a philosopher is different because they have developed somewhat of an emotional awareness, and can take the pain of truth to grow from it. It’s actually worth the suffering.

I agree you are not able to take communication as deeply with a weaker man as you are with a stronger man. The weaker man will make it very clear to you what his threshold is by means of his reaction. Whereas the strongest man has no reaction.

No one can hurt him because he is always subjecting himself to painful truths faster, more intensely, and more readily then anyone could possibly impose upon him.

When the weaker man reacts to your truthful words, then it is not fear that stops you from taking it further. But rather, it just becomes an obvious waste of energy to wrestle with him–

It becomes clear that the person you are dealing with has limitations that you are not responsible for breaking down.

However, I still see no reason to be diplomatic.

I don’t think Buddha or Diogenes responded diplomatically in order to avoid suffering either.

They would respond with their intelligence and passion (which is born from the suffering they underwent on their own initiative rather than being hurt by people).

That does not mean that you don’t give your man a chance to say what he wants to say. You don’t relentlessly bombard him without giving him a chance to breath.

A wise man is all too ready to listen to the indignant or proud opinions of the deluded, but not unless he is allowed to speak as well.

That is why the fool is one of the wise man’s many teachers.

The wise man is the student of the fool. The fool doesn’t know he is a teacher, and sometimes even fancies himself as a teacher.

What he tries to teach and what he actually teaches are two different things.

Cory wrote:

If we were truly compassionate and humble we would respond honestly and ruthlessly instead of diplomatically.

I don’t know - I’m not going to stick my head into the Lion’s mouth if he bites it off every time.

What do you mean, bites it off? Do you mean you don’t want him to yell at you? Be angry at you? To banish you from his home?

It would probably be for your own good if you left home or were told to go away. It would be good for me to do the same as well. In fact, I feel I am on the brink of leaving home for good any week now.

We are fearful and greedy with our money, our savings, with our life.

Living with beasts gives us more security, more luxury – we can depend on them in order to maintain our self-pity and our hopes. We should leave home and suffer the loss of our dreams.

CP wrote:

I just don’t believe some men can be tamed by truth’s arrow so what’s the point?

Men who truly want to be wise - can be wise. Men who don’t want to be wise, but rather, want to be a hero in the eyes of others as well as in their own eyes, or simply want to masochistically submit to power(or both) - can’t be wise.

If your fellow man doesn’t want to be truly wise, it is foolish to think you can make him be wise.

I am not advocating that we try to make people drink who don’t want to drink.

I am saying we need not ever be diplomatic with the people who try to control and dominate us (and people always will).

Physical sensitivity of the orgaism, of sight and hearing is important.

Whereas sensitivity to the feelings of others is really just preservation of a mind state that is based on self-pity.

To overcome self pity is to destroy all attachments to parents, family, friends, dreams, and world. A state of non-being/supreme comprehension is the goal.

Cory's wrote:

Since we don’t want to suffer, we fear suffering.

CP wrote:

So you’re suggesting we should all relentlessly confront the incredibly stupid men of the world just based on your principle that one shouldn’t fear suffering?

No I didn’t say that. On the contrary, I say that our actions should not be a mere preachy rehearsal or parroting of knowledge.

What we say and has everything to do with our circumstances, with how people approach us and condescend us, how they try to influence us and dominate us, how they desire pleasure from us.

Its not diplomacy, it called fear in its right place.

I know what you’re getting at. But I don’t believe in the ‘fear in its right place’ idea.

For the past 2 years I have avoided most people in my community because I couldn’t and can still hardly bear the suffering and hatred I feel when faced with the shallow craven demand of engaging diplomatically with the womanly swine.

I couldn’t and can hardly bear them being diplomatic with me either. So tedious, so arrogant, so condescending. That is what is so frustrating about dealing with common man – he is so tedious and dull, yet he is constantly assuming is superiority over the rare man.

The rare man is not assuming his superiority, he is fearlessly sure of it.

The common man assumes his superiority over you fearfully with uncertainty.

The common man is always being sneaky, he may flatter you one moment, yet he is really bent on trying to advise you to be cowardly like him – he'll sneakily and sadistically try and cut you down to a manageable size in order that he can maintain the false confidence he needs to continue being the criminal he is.

I understood and understand that people generally don’t want wisdom, whereas my desire for it was and still is burning.

I suspect that my penchant for avoiding people may be weakness and fear on my part. But it has been necessary.

There will come a time when I can walk in public and know confidently who I am.

But for now, I haven’t the strength or confidence.

This is probably because of how much time I invest in hopes of making a career out of film and music. I have too much femininity as far as I can tell.

I usually hate the opinions and smugness of the persons I run into, mainly because they hate me. I wouldn’t hate them if they didn’t have values that make them hate me.

But for now, I dread them - as they dread me.

For the past 2 years I have done and continue to do most of my grocery shopping in places where there are only strangers.

Strangers are much more tolerable than the people you have a history with.

Anyway, I have fear. But I'm working on it.

Sapius:

My memory is not that perfect, but I remember we did share thoughts during those early days of B0ndi, Thomas K, etc. But you disappeared for quite some time. A year? two? At times I do disappear myself, but not for more than a month or so. Some times when I’m back, I find such dull discussions, that I take another month off to watch the bees and the birds, again.

Yes, I was banned, I remember you from the very beginning of genius forum when it split off from genius-L.

Cory, I agree with your above post, I have nothing to add or comment on.

Cory Patrick: Anyway, I have fear. But I'm working on it.

I don't think you will have to work on it too long. Don't you think that firstly self-acceptance, and then actually saying so requires courage? Including cos-pros post above. I find it cowardly when people brush such things under the carpet to maintain their false pride and ego.

frank wrote:

It causes me to think there's nothing the matter...nothing to fix...and it's quite funny...and yet quite beautiful...

And yet here you are, on this forum, trying to fix things .....

and I'm loathe to declare it enlightenment...because there are so many different viewpoints abiding...and so many claims of enlightenment...I simply don't know...

I'm quite happy to draw a line and say that Humans are fond of MeaningMaking..

That pretty much says it all. "I have no interest in using my brain to work out what is true, so I will just plant myself at some harmless, low-brow perspective and laugh at everyone who attempts to achieve anything in life."

It's pitiful.

The urgency to develop a Script to Live in congruence with as an antidote to avoid some kind of fate happening because there's something wrong.

To me that's Hilarious.

You don't seem to have any insight into your own behaviour. Out of everyone on this forum, you are probably the one who lives most by a script. You have a one-dimensional theme which you keep raising as an antidote to everything that is happening on this forum and elsewhere. Even physically, your posts look like scripts.

-

Shardrol wrote:

DQ: When you watch a grief-stricken person, what do you see? You see a person who is nasty, angry, violent, narcissistic, emotional, black-minded, irrational, thoroughly absorbed in their own petty dramas, unempathetic and condescending towards other people's concerns. In other words, the very worst of all human traits.

S: Someone to whom I felt very close died suddenly a few months ago & it's been weird to find myself involved in this activity of grief much more than I would have expected. I don't think I'm feeling nasty, angry or violent but I guess I do seem to be viewing things rather more starkly than usual, which some people interpret as hostility.

I think what you're talking about is when grief is compounded by righteousness, a feeling of nobility for having suffered, a kind of pride of having had something 'terrible' happen. That's what causes some grieving people to be condescending & unempathetic. For example I heard of a woman whose daughter was killed when the World Trade Center was destroyed who wore her grief like a medal of honor & used it as a means of manipulating the susceptible. A lot of people who lost friends & relatives in the World Trade Center seem to be like this, & they have been mightily encouraged by incessant media attention.

Yes, that is classic feminine behaviour - whether it be expressed in women or men. For the feminine-minded person, forming attachments is a win-win situation. First, there are the pleasures to be found in enjoying the attachment while it is still in existence, and then, when the attachment is ripped away, there are the pleasures of self-pity, anger, feeling special and being in the centre of attention.

The feminine ego is very cunning and knows how to get enjoyment out of almost every situation. It's almost like a coping mechanism for those who have nothing else to call on.

I have understood that what complicates my own situation is the feeling that I could have done more than I did, acted better, been more helpful, less critical, more sympathetic than I was. Not that this would have changed anything, but I regret the lost opportunity. Someone I once knew said "Knowledge not lived is sin". This feels meaningful to me.

That's a good saying. I like that one. It applies to my own views on grief, in that if a person knows that being attached to things is an expression of ignorance and a violation of the Truth, then falling into grief is a sin. Or perhaps more accurately, it is a consequence of sin.

Are you saying that now, in your grief, you realize that you had lost perspective during your relationship with your friend while he or she was still alive, that you had got caught up in more petty concerns which led you to be more antagonistic towards him or her?

Isn't this just a form of narcissism? I suppose you could sublimate this narcissism and elevate it into a spiritual practice by vowing to never lose perspective ever again. But then, how can one ever form an attachment and not lose perspective?

-

Unwise wrote:

Mr. Quinn, have you no attachments? Not attached to food, or rest, or comforts, or breathing? Why stand by to suffer the aches and pains that will soon come your way? Why watch your teeth fall out? Who said you have to stand by? You have a brain to stop it all. You can always end it with a match and some gasoline - then your unattachment will reign supreme for all to see. What greater sign of enlightenment can there be than setting yourself on fire?

Diogenes was asked, "What is the difference between life and death?

"No difference."

"Well then, why do you remain in this life?"

"Because there is no difference."

Why watch anymore of it? No one here will peep. We will shed no tears. If you tell me there is no need to make such a decision - that you are a simple observer - that you have no opinions about your own decomposition, then why do you have an opinion about any other observation? Why do you have such strong likes and dislikes?

Because I strongly value wisdom.

Are your dislikes not attachments?

If my ego still exists and if I emotionally invest in these likes and dislikes, then they could correctly be classed as attachments. But if I am perfectly wise and completely conscious of the nature of Reality, then my ego wouldn't be in existence and there would be no reason to emotionally invest in anything.

Be free of them.

Do you mean, "Strive to become perfectly conscious of Reality and thus completely unattached to the views one expresses"?

Or do you mean, "Stop expressing views altogether"?

What are all these judgments?

Helping hands for others to climb up into enlightenment.

Are all other people capable of your detached opinions? Are these people the results of all the same causes that make you what YOU are? We are all exactly free in the same way? Free to choose as you do? We all have this total free will? Free to use our brains in the same exact ways and come to the same exact conclusions?

Do you think it would be undesirable to have a society made up of truthful people?

Who is this person doing battle with the world? Is he real?

He is an instrument of God.

-

David: That pretty much says it all. "I have no interest in using my brain to work out what is true, so I will just plant myself at some harmless, low-brow perspective and laugh at everyone who attempts to achieve anything in life."

It's pitiful.

Have I got this right by concluding that in David's Viewpoint....David is the Hero and Frank is the Villian?

hiss hiss boo boo

frank

If my ego still exists and if I emotionally invest in these likes and dislikes, then they could correctly be classed as attachments. But if I am perfectly wise and completely conscious of the nature of Reality, then my ego wouldn't be in existence and there would be no reason to emotionally invest in anything.

That is very interesting because that is exactly what I would say. - How I make account of my alleged passions. Maybe I should leave you alone......

frank,

David: That pretty much says it all. "I have no interest in using my brain to work out what is true, so I will just plant myself at some harmless, low-brow perspective and laugh at everyone who attempts to achieve anything in life."

It's pitiful.

f: Have I got this right by concluding that in David's Viewpoint....David is the Hero and Frank is the Villian?

hiss hiss boo boo

Is that the only thing you got out of my post?

No, this habit of yours of turning everything into a cartoon story before you can deal with it is definitely a defense-mechanism. Instead of attending to your own hyprocisies and mental blocks, you are constantly trying to deflect the spotlight onto someone else.


-

Vomit on wisdom. The level of entertainment has stooped that low.

Faizi

Sapius: Hmm… yes, there is nothing REALLY the matter, but however...

That's the Truth.
There is nothing REALLY the matter.

but however is where the Meaning Making begins and the Drama unfolds...

Meaning Making has enjoyed a long History in the Mind of the Human Being...it just grows and grows...

We are here for the Drama...apparently.

A Fave club of Meaning Makers of Mine...put together a package widely marketed as Veda...sometimes it's No. 6 with a Bullett and sometimes it slumps from the Top 40...but it's been thereabouts for a long time...it persists.

These dudes thought there are 2 Major Forces in Nature...the Void and the Drama...

Their thinking was that Men gravitated towards the Void end of thangs and the Women headed over to the Drama...

That Men sought 'emptiness' and Women sought 'fullness'...that Men preferred to simplify things and Women sought to complicate them...that it was Caused and was OK...

The Picture they presented was that the Void is like the Dry Riverbed and the Drama is the River that runs thru' it...these 2 Forces travel together pushing their way thru' Space and Time apparently endlessly...

The Chinese started singing the same tune with the lovely Yin/Yang scenario...

Shakyamani was well versed in Veda and invented a Script for the Void Freaks...he made Desire the 'Bad Guy' and trumpeted it about as a failing of the Drama Queens...so he put together a nice little number called the Attachment Theory...

Shak's band of merry little men have now established a base camp in the Void going on for 2500 years..and from this imagined 'tower of loftiness' they've been pointing the critical finger at the Drama side of Things...Jerks, Jerks, Jerks is pretty much the tenor of their statements directed at the Dramatics...

Which of course is very much in the Drama side of things.

Truth Tyrants like the Quinn-tessentially Regurgitating Solway faction (hehe)....never came to understand the entire Buddhist Script...

They never heard Shak when he said his Reign with it's Attachment Theory would linger for 5000 years and a New Buddha would emerge called Maitraya, the 'Laughing Buddha'..the Buddha who 'gets the Joke'...the Buddha who reveals Shak to be the pipsqueak he is....

The 'Laughing Buddha' whose cronies live in Palaces with
a good deal of delectable Pussy to enjoy..to pass the time Royally...

The Shak Script is halfway done now but why wait?

Do Maitraya Now!

Sometimes you think you're sitting inside
a B Grade Movie but you're not...It's a Blockbuster...we're here for the Drama...and it's Spectacularly Entertaining...It's fun, it's Interactive and you have your Role to Play...

Feel Gratitude for the Producer if this Show!

It's a Wonderful, Awesome Production!

doing frank

Frank is a deep mo fo. He knows the score.

DavidQuinn000 wrote: No, this habit of yours of turning everything into a cartoon story before you can deal with it is definitely a defense-mechanism. Instead of attending to your own hyprocisies and mental blocks, you are constantly trying to deflect the spotlight onto someone else.

I see this demonstrated by people all too often.

David Quinn wrote:

Grieving people are the ugliest people.

Worse still is when you get a whole mob of grieving people together at a funeral - talk about UGLY! Every conceivable emotion is brought forth to feed the wretched cannibals, who use and abuse the corpse for their own amusement. Each person claws and bites at the fresh kill. Some laugh, while others cry. They tell and retell stories of the good times and bad times. Some feel remorse, while others forgive. They don’t stop until they have had their fill, but even then they take home a doggy bag of bits of the corpse to snack on later.

And what about the corpse; is his life “celebrated”? No way. What was once a complex person with both enemies and friends; is now thought by all to be a saint. His life is made a mockery of through the elimination of all that is now found “not nice” and the highlighting of traits that he had when he was a young boy. His whole life is boiled down to a colourless gruel fit to be consumed by those who ‘love’ him.

“He has gone to a better place” they say, “where he has neither troubles nor woes”. What a load of codswallop. Even in death they aren’t going to let him loose. They’ll drag him around for as long as he is useful, only letting him drop into oblivion when every last ounce of emotion is sucked dry – only then can the poor bugger get to rest in peace.

Sue

Frank: That's the Truth.
There is nothing REALLY the matter.

Yes, it is.

but however is where the Meaning Making begins and the Drama unfolds..

Again, yes, but…

I’m terribly sorry, my apologies, no buts, right? I shouldn’t be saying anything beyond ‘yes’.

Just one thing though, why is the ‘but’ part not included in the ‘There is nothing Really the matter’? Your post does suggest that something IS the matter. May be you don’t REALLY mean nothing, but ‘nothing except something’. Or may be not REALLY but SUPERFICIALLY there is a matter, because you yourself do not stop after realizing ‘There is nothing REALLY the matter’. If nothing is really the matter, full stop, then why does drama bother you? Or is your full stop REALLY a comma?

Frankly speaking, if what you say is REALLY the Truth, it would be illogical for you to have a negative opinion about anything at all, unless you redefine – nothing, in the "There is nothing REALLY the matter"

.

Quote:
but however is where the Meaning Making begins and the Drama unfolds..

Again, yes, but…

I’m terribly sorry, my apologies, no buts, right? I shouldn’t be saying anything beyond ‘yes’.

Just one thing though, why is the ‘but’ part not included in the ‘There is nothing Really the matter’? Your post does suggest that something IS the matter. May be you don’t REALLY mean nothing, but ‘nothing except something’. Or may be not REALLY but SUPERFICIALLY there is a matter, because you yourself do not stop after realizing ‘There is nothing REALLY the matter’. If nothing is really the matter, full stop, then why does drama bother you? Or is your full stop REALLY a comma?

Frankly speaking, if what you say is REALLY the Truth, it would be illogical for you to have a negative opinion about anything at all, unless you redefine – nothing, in the "There is nothing REALLY the matter"

No it's fine...absolutely fabulous...make all the Meaning you wish...fill the World with it...build your Meaning Mansions...create your scripts...and live them...and live them thru'...completely live them thru'...actually it's Where You Get Your Life From...Your Script Hunger.

There's nothing REALLY the matter.

It's empty and meaningless
THAT
It's empty and meaningless

frank

The last and increasingly popular resort for any ego: the impregnably postmodern castle made of nihilist bricks, carrying the golden shiny dome of misunderstanding. Beware of the dragon guarding the entrance: blocking the bravest knights by sucking their meanings. Here, here, brave knights: without the lady of the ivory tower lowering her braid, the quest is doomed from the start!