GENIUS FORUMS

Diebert writes: "The whole point is to be leery (not leary, like the LSD guy) of the poison. It doesn't need explaining as it should appear to be repulsive and life-threatening, since it's called "poison" for good reason. Explaining how bad it is for the "social body" or ones "emotional life", or Catholicism, or worship of Bach, would be a kind of "duh" moment."

Well, a 'regional spelling' of leary COULD be a subtle reference to King Lear:

• Let not women's weapons, water-drops,
  Stain my man's cheeks!
  
  No, I will be a pattern of all patience; I will say nothing.
  
  Who is it that can tell me who I am?

If 'the whole point' were to be leery of the 'poisons', one would frequently and regularly speak about that in these discussions that have to do with Solway's 'poisons' and with the whole notion of 'poisoning oneself' to do away with what is superfluous and to uncover 'truth'. Only a fool, I suggest, would not recognize the diminsions of the dangers that occur in individuals, in modernity, and the extremes to which people have gone and go with their poisoning.

For you to imply, Diebert---my stately Lauretta of long, long limbs---that you are NOT merely a fool in need of correction, in need of a few good slaps across your poised little mouth, is in itself foolishness. I suggest that, in fact, you are one of the greater fools round these ultra-refined parts. You are filled to the brim with your own conclusions, your own assumptions, but more than anything Diebert (and listen here:) you have made yourself a fierce little parrot of QRStian doctrines. I only suggest to you that, somehow, you get a little more maturity, if you can.

"My post was about pointing out contradiction, inconsistency, willful uninformedness in your argument, like your claim that some "Nietzschean lense" convinced people's minds that the Christian theology is just a fiction and should be cast out, while Nietzsche actually pointed out the enormous importance of that fiction as well as the enormity of its decline. And sure, like all powerful ideas it can wreak havoc in the weaker mind of a reader, creating whole cults and subcultures around a body of work. But at least all the smoke can lead some people to the fire, if it's there at all and if one is tuned to the specifics of style and ego involved."

In the context that I mention, Nietzsche and many others operating in concert are the sources of breaking-down the conceptual pathway that offers a connection through the mind of man to what one can call a Living God. I am not suggesting that Nietzsche is exclusively the author of this movement within modernity, such an assertion would be inaccurate, but he is certainly a major player. What I do say, and what I did say, is that with a partial education, aggressive and clever 'boys' (not to exclude a local cross-dresser) think that they understand everything there is to know and regularly assert that they have mastered knowledge and wisdom and can explain it and defend it to ALL COMERS. I might have said here that 'If there were a shed of honesty' in you, Sweet-Tits, you would recognize and call others here on this absurd certainty, this QRStian quackery, but the fact of the matter is you are a ring-leader of this 'game'. You are indeed the Forth Genius. There is a little concierto always being rehearsed here and you play first oboe.

The corresponding use of knowledge in those of QRStian faith would be a clear exposition of the dangers that surround the 'path of knowledge'. Not only that, but the Main Players would have that profound Nietzschean self-knowledge where of them it might be said "they knew themselves better than any living man today" (Freud's comment about Nietzsche). But that position is rather much an impossibility since one, here, is absolutely certain of one's position. One has only to get more forceful in insisting that one is Right and everyone else is Wrong.

"And sure, like all powerful ideas it can wreak havoc in the weaker mind of a reader, creating whole cults and subcultures around a body of work. But at least all the smoke can lead some people to the fire, if it's there at all and if one is tuned to the specifics of style and ego involved."

I prefer to read what you have written as a commentary on GF---do you mind? And so I say: here, we can watch 'powerful---poisonous?---ideas' wreaking havoc in the weaker minds, of which your own mind is just one other one. How does that sound, Dilly-Beans? You gotta admit it CHANGES the dynamic a bit, don't it?

And the 'smoke leading to the fire'---who here in your estimation is 'carrying' that fire, oh Great One? Speak, oracle, and stop kissing the asses of those (other) great ones who express themselves so eloquently here.

Talking Ass wrote:Who gets to make these pronouncements?

And yet you just referred glowingly to Roman Catholicism which is all about pronouncements of a "carpenter son" who was traveling around prostitutes and tax collectors if he was not enjoying other people's hospitality. The function of serious forms of hospitality, extending generosity toward strangers in town as well as much charity has been largely taken over by the state in modern times, like it or not.

You're just hung up, very much emotionally, on the whole work ethic thing. There's no real content here, not to mention the fact a significant amount of people you seem to lump into the criticism here do have jobs which seem in my eyes more respectable than the one you're occupying, if it comes to it. It's really not as relevant as you think; one wise act is worth tens of thousands unwise works of labor. One really wise act could be worth life times of waste. Garbage collecting and art production will perhaps always be there but the son of Man, the apex of consciousness itself might be way more fleeting or cycling.

Talking Ass wrote:In the context that I mention, Nietzsche and many others operating in concert are the sources of breaking-down the conceptual pathway that offers a connection through the mind of man to what one can call a Living God.

Why consider them as sources at all? Some people (was it Russell?) put Nietzsche in the aesthetic corner, some "philosophical art", literature more than analysis. And perhaps there's truth in there, in that it's merely describing quite lyrically, dramatically, more like an artist often, important currents of Western culture and metaphysics, dealing with what is, existentially, feeling and reason, from the perspective of the thinker. A quite common viewpoint on Nietzsche and existentialism. The true power of ideas after all lies not in "normality" or over-imagination, they lie in how well they reflect the actual state of the larger scale affairs, which our narrowing senses and traditions deceive us about.

...explain it and defend it to ALL COMERS

Well, we're talking about very simple and obvious stuff here. The complexity is formed by the intricate blinders which prevent folks to accept the simplicity, the purity. As Quinn said, it's some form of active hostility, an act against it. So "it" doesn't have to be explained or defended, but only attachments and blocks need to be challenged.

one, here, is absolutely certain of one's position. One has only to get more forceful in insisting that one is Right and everyone else is Wrong.

You've never managed to summarize or indicate this "position" and the "Right" which you think is upheld. It seems to me you're misunderstanding big time, the issue is too small for you, perhaps. Or too large, depending on perspective. It's not a very intellectual or emotional thing, that might be a problem too.

And the 'smoke leading to the fire'---who here in your estimation is 'carrying' that fire, oh Great One?

Some of your own earlier posts at this board contained that fire and I remarked on that, praising it even. What happened? I think those posts were about topics you had studied very well and internally verified and was able to dispassionately write about it and it showed some serious brightness. During further discussions you appear to have become more "smoky" - less fiery: more emotional, more hostile, not satisfied with the direction, the currents you noticed. And you opposed yourself to it. Sadly enough you started to employ more irrationality: misreading, ignoring or misrepresenting arguments, posturing, joking, diversion, leaving and returning, denigration, projection, etc. These all are signs to me that you are facing significant emotional hurdles, rendering your reasoned attacks powerless and to most people here I'm sure, appearing pretty disappointing and immature. It's really a shame!

Dan: How utterly deplorable, yet how utterly predictable.
Dave: But there is no use in my explaining why, because you will never understand it.
Diebert: It's really a shame!

If only I could---someday!---rise up to see things in Three D! Being an Ass, my eyes naturally point downward to my food source. It strains my neck to turn to look at the clouds or the stars.

A secret viewer of these exchanges commented to me:

A rephrasing of your meaning:

"Very simple and obvious stuff"
"The issue is too small for you"
Ultimate Truth as simplicity itself.
A is A.
That's all there is to it!
Now come along and join the gang!
We know all that's worth knowing!
And we can tart it up with David's grandiosity or with my intellectual veneer!

'Carpe diem quam minime credula postero'.

Catch you, old bean, on the rebound...I'm off to pluck the flowers within my grasp.

Diebert writes: "This is a common experience and also to me he was like that in my youth, to my good natured Christian mind."

One wishes to ask, though one doubts one will get a straight answer; AND WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU NOW?

Many who perform here, though not all, have an intelligible position more or less. I will bet you a Tennessee hopping frog that most of us readers here do not have any concrete sense of just what you in fact *believe*.

The birds of the field have their belief, foxes like Dan and Kevin and David and Kelly have their lair, but what in the end does the Son of Man believe? What does he live in accord with?

Talking Ass wrote:Kelly writes: "As soon as one understands the Tao, the psychological hooking inherent in music starts to jar quite uncomfortably. It actually becomes laughable, and one wonders how one was ever enthralled by it."

But you know, Kelly, it is really easy to set oneself up in the cat bird seat and make sweeping pronouncements about 'value' and 'elevation', but to be unqualified to do so, or to be 'thinking' and analysing from an 'afflicted' position. Take David....

You say to take David as an example of an unqualified or afflicted position. He says, on how to make fair judgments:

Rather than trying to cease being judgmental, our goal should be to ensure that our motivation for making judgments is pure, and that our judgments are always true. And that can only come about by improving the quality of our thought and eliminating all traces of egotism from our actions. The pure man who exercises his faculties for judgment to the fullest is a rare treasure indeed. He openly articulates the truths that nobody wants to hear. Although evil people hate him, he acts as our conscience in this overly-fake world of ours. Rather than killing him off, we should all become like him.

Continuing, you speculated:

... who describes the best of his attainment, what his heart longs for, but it can quite easily be seen as just a way of getting high and enjoying being high.

It would only be seen easily to be a way of getting high, if you have no idea of his views. David consistently points to the core delusion of grasping hold of things, which is what getting high is all about.

If he is a little theatrical and poetic, it's to make his message more suitable psychologically for others. One can't feed others what one eats oneself.

It is POSSIBLE to suggest that 'real human work' might lie somewhwere else. So, from one perspective (mine) you have a group of people making fabulous claims about themselves, their level of maturity and understanding, and who literally sit in judgment of the whole world, which might be acceptable in itself, but who as a group are equivalent to garbage-pickers and state leeches and psychiatric cases

If your criterion for wisdom is being socially acceptable, then, no thanks. In my view, wisdom is the only qualification for making judgments about wisdom, and so it matters not a whit if one looks like a tramp, steals, or is judged insane by others. What matters is being wise, and one's distance from perfection.

and yet type that the greatest of the great minds of the West are, in essence, merely fools!

You are claiming to be qualified to judge the great minds of the West, while others aren't. This is no different to what you are criticising in others.

Who gets to make these pronouncements? Some Australian peasants better suited to kick shit? Or, some aggressive pansies jacked up by their reading of Nietzsche yet living in their parent's basement? Does it ever occur to you to see the absurdity of this? Does it ever occur to you to see how un-wise this is?

Your inability to judge wisdom except by social acceptability is the reason why you think my judgments are absurd.

I don't live in my parent's basement, but there would be nothing wrong with doing so. I am also not a "psychiatric case", since the final psychological diagnosis - almost strictly verbatim - was that I am unfit for employment in the classical sense of the word, but that I am quite satisfied with the employment I have chosen for myself. He didn't believe I had a psychiatric illness, but that I was a social deviant.

Also, there is nothing wrong with picking things from the garbage, or reusing items that are thrown away by greedy egotists who want the latest and greatest, to show off with.

Many of your judgments are foolish. This judgment is unlike your own contributions, because it is openly made, without hypocrisy, and soundly reasoned. I don't claim to be perfectly wise, but I am on the right track. I am also not afraid to be judged, which is probably why I don't mind admitting these things.


...

Kelly Jones wrote:Also, there is nothing wrong with picking things from the garbage, or reusing items that are thrown away by greedy egotists who want the latest and newest, to show off with.

Yeah, like when bicycle riding, who cares that I stoop to pick up pennies, nickles, dimes, even a few quarters. It covers some of the sales taxes or contribute it to homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, food banks. Why people throw money out the car windows is beyond me. If one doesn't, they're swept up into street sweepers or the storm drain. Oh, but Alex yaps it's not socially acceptable ..

Coin Collecting - What a beautiful choice!

I really think it's time for Alex to trundle off and finish his novel. He is wasting everyone's time by remaining here, including his own. The issues have been thrashed about enough. There's not much point in us continually chasing each other around and around the same circle.

So come on, Alex, try to disentangle yourself from this place and focus on your more serious project. Come back when you're done.

-

It's unsurprising that people wish to judge the quality and value of the wisdom of a person based on their finances and their advertising appeal. Alex probably watches a lot of t.v. What a notoriously crappy society it has become.

I found five dollars on the side-walk last week. I waited in a nearby park, to see if it would be reclaimed, before taking it, because my income is so low that I didn't wish to deprive its owner of such a large amount of money. :-)

My area is among the worst in Australia for low incomes (and illiteracy, and ill-health), yet the minimum wage is almost double my own income. In other words, I've been living well under the poverty line for over five years. So accusing me of leeching from the government seems bizarre, given that it's so little in return for my ginormous and ongoing efforts.


...

• 'Canst thou fathom the secrets of God?' asked Zophor scornfully. His question clearly expected a negative reply, and such a reply is in the fullest harmony with the faith of Israel. The biblical doctrine of God is not the achievement of the philosopher, arguing back to some first cause or an architect of the universe, or seeking some pale abstraction of thought behind all phenomena. It is not the personification of the powers of Nature, or the blind acceptance of the gods of the remote past. It rests on the belief that the God who is veiled from our sight has revealed himself to men. There are, indeed, many passages which call on man to seek God; but their thought is not that by seeking, man can find God for himself. Rather it is that God can only reveal himself to those who will receive the revelation, and will only give his fellowship to those who desire it. The initiative is his, and the revelation can only come from divine initiative. Yet it is no presumption to seek him humbly, since he has called on men to seek him. For his revelation of himself is not forced on unwilling creatures, but given of his grace to those who by eager sensitivity of spirit are open to receive it.
  
  H.H. Rowley in 'The Faith of Israel'

I never watch TV by the way.

;-)

This, for me, I see as opening up a passageway to an alternative view of spiritual life, to alternative relationship to spiritual life, and one that fairly obviously is inconsiderable here.

As per David's desire, I've asked Dan to deactivate the Wonderamus Talking Ass. Just imagine me...trundling off into the melancholy sunset (though it is more accurate to say 'clop'). Well, you're not gonna have ole Talking Ass to kick around any longer! Okay then, I guess I'll be on my way. Lessee, where's the door anyway? Well---I'm leaving now. So if you wanna say Goodbye, now's the time. Oh, look here: an admirerer just wrote: 'Sorry to see you go. I really am. You're the current contributor whose posts I find most value in and most resonance with, by a long way. The place is going to be a lot worse off without you.' (Well, some people at least have a little GOOD TASTE.

Anyway, goodbye goodbye dearly beloveds! I am hovering nearby and like a convent of Carmelite nuns all the various beings that reside in me shall be praying for you!

Away! Away I go! (Who knows what Fate awaits me...)

Gratuitously theatrical to the end :)

That is one prima donna.

But wait, she is just doing her curtain calls, no doubt Alexis will be back for an encore.

Bye Alex, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, again. Perhaps try not to be so enamoured with words and 'playing' with them, it might do you good stead in the future as far as being able to extract correct interpretations from what you are reading/choosing to ignore.

Carn, prince, you're being an ass (but not a Talking Ass[tm]). Truth is that Alex contributes far more of value in a single post than you've contributed over the entire period I've seen you posting. I'm not trying to be an ass myself, I'm just calling it as I see it. The vast majority of your contributions are insulting, derogatory, or otherwise negative. You have very little constructive to say, and very little of substance. When you show a similar depth to Alex, rather than the shallow coarseness that you customarily do, then you might gain the right to comment.

Yes, lets all gain the right to comment first!

What a weird thing to say. Even to Prince Deconstruction.

Yeah, that bit was a little ill considered. Scrap it. Put it down to posting at the end of a long day, in not the clearest of minds.

I don't really know anyone here, but I would imagine that "guest of logic" made a valid statement in regards to talking ass. The only problem with talking ass is that he allows himself to get defensive and swept up in the sometimes valid but mostly blind and narrow-minded attacks against him. The TRUTH is that talking ass provides a much needed diversity to this forum of seeming hegemony. His heart felt postings on this particular thread are what inspired me to write again after a long hiatus. If time permits, I will validate the necessity of this kind of diversity in regards to obtaining absolute truths and/or spiritual insight.

So let's see if I can properly articulate this in a medium that I don't consider my "art" and therefor not as significant to my understanding and expression of truth.

David Quinn:

Complete and utter freedom, all opposition gone, all cares gone, all life and death gone, delight in the formlessness of Nature and the spontaneity of everything, immersion in the lack of trace of anything and the impossibility of leaving nirvana, liberation from the need to see or do anything or to even understand anything ....

My back's a bit stiff at the moment.

OK. I buy this. As I posted earlier the goal of all art, religion, and philosophy is freedom and that my definition of enlightenment is freedom from body, ego, and time.
You finished by stating that your back is a bit stiff. Even though you claim to have obtained freedom from your body (among other things) I would imagine that when your back is stiff you do something to alleviate that stiffness. Correct? Maybe take a walk, stretch, move around a bit, or take a painkiller of some sorts - whatever it may be? I am guessing that you don't try to prolong the stiffness of your back to relish in the spontaneity and newness of every moment.

In essence, he was a spiritually lazy person with little or no interest in truth.

I don't see this discussion of Dostoevsky going anywhere especially since I consider his most spiritually significant works to be The Brother's Karamazov and Dream of a Ridiculous Man (which you have not read). It is also obvious that you are merely stating your opinions of Dostoevsky (which I have exchanged in return) and frankly your opinions are not very important in regards to the discussion of truth - especially when they are less than informed. I consider him among other things to be a genius artist and that is a more poignant detail to this discussion. I think ultimately what you are saying is that "art" doesn't penetrate the heart of truth it merely "floats around at the edges in an ambiguous manner", but philosophical words on the other hand are a better tool at penetrating the heart of truth - do you agree?

But then again, you would think that such a person would also be able to obtain similar inklings from many other sources - indeed, from utterly anything that happens. So Bach's music quickly becomes superfluous.

Yes one could even obtain enlightenment by relishing in the stiffness of their back, so everything is superfluous in that regards. But I am arguing that one could more easily recognize that state of enlightenment by listening to Bach's music than he/she could by doing other superfluous activities (like mental masturbation aka philosophizing on the genius forum). The reason being that Bach is more apt at expressing it and higher on the mountaintop than others.

I grant you that for most people Bach's music occupies a realm above them. Most people are coarse-minded, overly-emotional and spend their impoverished lives bunkered down inside a few prison-like attachments. For them Bach's music is an enriching experience, a way for them to catch a sniff of the sweet air emanating from beyond the walls of their small, narrow worlds.

OK. So let me ask - what is a better way to free them of their prison-like attachments? Would it be better to tell them to immerse themselves in a "mystery which encompasses utterly everything without exception, a mystery in which everything is understood and nothing is understood"? How do you think those impoverished, course-minded people will react to that advice? It this sense, your philosophizing is useless to them. Whereas Bach's music creates a more vivid and tangible realm allowing MORE people to at least believe it possible to be immersed by "the mystery that encompasses utterly everything without exception". Bach's abilities far exceed that of most human beings. He didn't accomplish this by consuming more calories or by better processing chemical energy than others - no he obviously tapped into the infinite and brought hints of that essence to the finite realm. When one is truly free they can enjoy that freedom while listening to the profound expressions of other free geniuses like Bach - or if they prefer by relishing in the stiffness of their back. For those who are not free Bach presents a compelling case that Freedom is in fact possible.

PS: Jupiviv - you can replace Bach with Beethoven or Dostoevsky with Oscar Wilde (especially De Profundis) if you prefer. We all have our opinions, my point is that many people on this forum confuse their "opinions" for singular expressions of ultimate truths. That is a fatal error in the pursuit of truth. It is possible to "think" yourself towards enlightenment then experience it. But it is equally possible to experience enlightenment by MANY other means (Vivekananda outlined four: Karma-Yoga, Raja-Yoga, Jnana Yoga, and Bhakti Yoga - I use these in combination). Once someone has experienced this realm, they become free - time becomes a blank canvass, ego becomes the paint, the body becomes the paintbrush. Life becomes a work of art that can be expresses any way one chooses. Or you can sit on bench all day just enjoying your freedom and doing absolutely nothing.

The actual process that leads to enlightenment - an attainment which allows the mind to experience the world with complete freshness in every moment - goes far beyond the realm of music (and art), such that one quickly leaves the Bachs and Beethovens behind. But I agree that music can help awaken people out of their slumber a little bit and possibly inspire in them the desire to develop more spiritually.

Please be more specific about what this "actual process" is.

Feminine unconsciousness differs from masculine unconsciousness in many different ways. But it's a big topic and I'm not sure that I want to go into it right now.

That's fine. Let's leave that subject - it tires me anyway. But if you consider masculine consciousness to be superior to feminine consciousness as an actual truth - then you should clearly prove that truth or get rid of it. I feel it to be an insignificant statement and not very useful.

Truth is the fullness of all things which don't really exist. That I am in tune with it should be evident in my writing.

Yes I see some evidence of this in your writing. But if you have reached the mountaintop of "the fullness of all things which don't really exist" then you would not be so incredibly singular and narrow-minded in your insistence on favoring philosophical truths over artistic and experiential (ie Raja Yoga) truths. If you are truly free, if you've entered the realm where causality meets infinity/zero - I think you would be more open-minded on your acceptance of the different paths to obtainment - as Vivekanda and other geniuses are. In the nine volumes of philosophical writing that comprise the complete works of Vivekananda - there is a cornucopia of evidence that he reached a mountaintop and has effectively expressed it to those willing to listen. He would shun your insistence on a singular and limiting approach. Also it is important to recognize those who are much higher on the mountaintop then we are - I don't see this "recognition" in your writing (which means that you are not as high up as you claim to be).

The key difference is the content. One goes straight to the heart of the matter and directs the mind to the core truth of life; the other floats around at the edges in an ambiguous manner.

I disagree completely. I think that Bach's music penetrates the heart of truth by more effectively expressing the "experience" of truth. It is perfectly fine to outright say that you've experienced "complete and utter freedom, all opposition gone, all cares gone, all life and death gone, delight in the formlessness of Nature and the spontaneity of everything, immersion in the lack of trace of anything and the impossibility of leaving nirvana, liberation from the need to see or do anything or to even understand anything." And that "Truth is the fullness of all things which don't really exist", but these statements "float around at the edges in an ambiguous manner" just as much, if not more so than a musical expression of "the fullness of all things which don't really exist". I experience states of complete liberation and recognize that in everything that exists and doesn't exist without exception - including your writing. But I also recognize that others have climbed far higher on the mountain than you and I have. Bach is one of many examples.

Both. There can't really be one without the other. You can't begin to immerse yourself in the experience of nirvana without first identifying what it is, and what it is not.

It's the chicken or the egg, either one immerses themselves in the experience of nirvana then recognizes what it is and what it is not, or one could spend their life trying to recognize what it is and what it is not and MAYBE just maybe get the chance to experience nirvana. I am not arguing that your approach is wrong, I am merely stating that it is one of many approaches and not necessarily the most effective approach.

To try to put it more simply, when you are at the absolute peak of the mountaintop, touching the infinite heavens and the earth simultaneously, and you look down at all the various angles, sides, directions, and methods in which people are trying to climb up, you realize that scaling the East face of mountain has different challenges than scaling the South face and therefore requires different tactics. There are MANY different paths to reaching the top and each person comes at their own pace by their own methods. You never scoff at the person scaling the East for not being more like the one scaling at the North nor do you laugh at those whose methods cause them to scale more slowly or take them in a counter-productive direction. When you look down at those dwelling in the valley, you don't begrudge or belittle them for not sharing the same vantage point as you or even care whether they find it necessary to scale the mountain and come closer to the heavens. In the distance you can see that others have occupied different mountaintops by different methods at different times. You wouldn't proclaim that just because they don't occupy your mountaintop that they are therefore impostors. If you decide to go back down and continue in your daily activities of valley life, you don't ever get a sense of superiority for having seen a higher perspective of the myriad of finite activities. If you are advanced enough to take the infinite heavens down to the valley with you, you can play a song for the valley dwellers that they may briefly experience that infinite with you, even having never been there themselves. If there are others around who have visited the mountaintop they will harmonize with your song and rejoice in your mutual experiences. If you so choose, you can tap a valley dweller on the forehead and instantly launch them to the mountaintop effortlessly.

AlyOshA wrote:I don't really know anyone here, but I would imagine that "guest of logic" made a valid statement in regards to talking ass. The only problem with talking ass is that he allows himself to get defensive and swept up in the sometimes valid but mostly blind and narrow-minded attacks against him. The TRUTH is that talking ass provides a much needed diversity to this forum of seeming hegemony. His heart felt postings on this particular thread are what inspired me to write again after a long hiatus. If time permits, I will validate the necessity of this kind of diversity in regards to obtaining absolute truths and/or spiritual insight.

I agree that diversity is desirable, but not at any cost. To tell you the truth, I'm utterly bored with Alex (and Laird for that matter). The quality of their contributions is repetitious and poor. Kindergarten dribblings dressed up in erudite facades. Pure, enervating mediocrity.

Anyone with even the slightest inkling of nirvana can see this.

It would be nice to have some opponents who are not so enslaved to mainstream thinking and can actually provide a challenge. That would at least make whatever diversity there is interesting and meaningful. If not, I'd rather have the forum grind to a halt.

AlyOshA wrote:

Complete and utter freedom, all opposition gone, all cares gone, all life and death gone, delight in the formlessness of Nature and the spontaneity of everything, immersion in the lack of trace of anything and the impossibility of leaving nirvana, liberation from the need to see or do anything or to even understand anything ....

My back's a bit stiff at the moment.

OK. I buy this. As I posted earlier the goal of all art, religion, and philosophy is freedom and that my definition of enlightenment is freedom from body, ego, and time.
You finished by stating that your back is a bit stiff. Even though you claim to have obtained freedom from your body (among other things) I would imagine that when your back is stiff you do something to alleviate that stiffness. Correct? Maybe take a walk, stretch, move around a bit, or take a painkiller of some sorts - whatever it may be? I am guessing that you don't try to prolong the stiffness of your back to relish in the spontaneity and newness of every moment.

I did suspect you wouldn't understand that comment. Try looking at it as a re-wording of the previous sentence, or even as a culmination of it.

I think ultimately what you are saying is that "art" doesn't penetrate the heart of truth it merely "floats around at the edges in an ambiguous manner", but philosophical words on the other hand are a better tool at penetrating the heart of truth - do you agree?

More or less, although words themselves are powerless if the desire for truth isn't there.

But yes, I agree that words are far more effective at directing the mind towards deeper areas via the dialectical process. It is why people exchange words on a philosophy forum, and not, say, images or paintings.

It is like the difference between following instructions, maps and road signs that lead directly to Rome, and that of looking at paintings of Rome, or hearing songs sung about it. The former can take you to Rome itself, while the latter at best can only awaken the desire to go there.

AlyOshA wrote:

But then again, you would think that such a person would also be able to obtain similar inklings from many other sources - indeed, from utterly anything that happens. So Bach's music quickly becomes superfluous.

Yes one could even obtain enlightenment by relishing in the stiffness of their back, so everything is superfluous in that regards. But I am arguing that one could more easily recognize that state of enlightenment by listening to Bach's music than he/she could by doing other superfluous activities (like mental masturbation aka philosophizing on the genius forum). The reason being that Bach is more apt at expressing it and higher on the mountaintop than others.

It's pretty clear that we have vastly different ideas of what constitutes enlightenment.

AlyOshA wrote:

I grant you that for most people Bach's music occupies a realm above them. Most people are coarse-minded, overly-emotional and spend their impoverished lives bunkered down inside a few prison-like attachments. For them Bach's music is an enriching experience, a way for them to catch a sniff of the sweet air emanating from beyond the walls of their small, narrow worlds.

OK. So let me ask - what is a better way to free them of their prison-like attachments? Would it be better to tell them to immerse themselves in a "mystery which encompasses utterly everything without exception, a mystery in which everything is understood and nothing is understood"? How do you think those impoverished, course-minded people will react to that advice? It this sense, your philosophizing is useless to them. Whereas Bach's music creates a more vivid and tangible realm allowing MORE people to at least believe it possible to be immersed by "the mystery that encompasses utterly everything without exception". Bach's abilities far exceed that of most human beings. He didn't accomplish this by consuming more calories or by better processing chemical energy than others - no he obviously tapped into the infinite and brought hints of that essence to the finite realm. When one is truly free they can enjoy that freedom while listening to the profound expressions of other free geniuses like Bach - or if they prefer by relishing in the stiffness of their back. For those who are not free Bach presents a compelling case that Freedom is in fact possible.

You basically just re-worded by my own comment here. Yes, for coarse-minded people, Bach would undoubtedly resonate far more strongly than my words ever could. But my words, and these forums in general, are not intended for those kinds of people.

We all have our opinions, my point is that many people on this forum confuse their "opinions" for singular expressions of ultimate truths. That is a fatal error in the pursuit of truth. It is possible to "think" yourself towards enlightenment then experience it. But it is equally possible to experience enlightenment by MANY other means (Vivekananda outlined four: Karma-Yoga, Raja-Yoga, Jnana Yoga, and Bhakti Yoga - I use these in combination). Once someone has experienced this realm, they become free - time becomes a blank canvass, ego becomes the paint, the body becomes the paintbrush. Life becomes a work of art that can be expresses any way one chooses. Or you can sit on bench all day just enjoying your freedom and doing absolutely nothing.

Again, I have a different understanding of enlightenment to you. For me, enlightenment means perfect understanding steeped in the experience of nirvanic freedom. For you, it would seem that enlightenment refers to sublime altered states or mystical experiences, which are an entirely different kettle of fish. This would account for why you consider music to be important.

But it is equally possible to experience enlightenment by MANY other means (Vivekananda outlined four: Karma-Yoga, Raja-Yoga, Jnana Yoga, and Bhakti Yoga - I use these in combination).

How many different ways are there to drop a burning ember? How many different ways are there to drop all delusion?

I would couch the matter in this way: Rather than saying that there are many different paths to the mountain top (i.e. to nirvana), it is more accurate to say that there are many different paths to the foothills (i.e. to the stage where the search for nirvana becomes serious). After reaching the foothills, in whatever manner, it then becomes a matter of simply climbing straight up to the top (i.e. of consciously shedding all delusions until none remain).

AlyOshA wrote:

The actual process that leads to enlightenment - an attainment which allows the mind to experience the world with complete freshness in every moment - goes far beyond the realm of music (and art), such that one quickly leaves the Bachs and Beethovens behind. But I agree that music can help awaken people out of their slumber a little bit and possibly inspire in them the desire to develop more spiritually.

Please be more specific about what this "actual process" is.

It's a matter of first intellectually identifying what nirvana is in principle (e.g. the totality of all things) and then stripping away every delusion one has about it until there is nothing left in the mind but nirvana. It is a sustained, conscious process that, if pursued diligently, quickly leaves behind the need for contrived injections, such as music or yoga.

AlyOshA wrote:

Truth is the fullness of all things which don't really exist. That I am in tune with it should be evident in my writing.

Yes I see some evidence of this in your writing. But if you have reached the mountaintop of "the fullness of all things which don't really exist" then you would not be so incredibly singular and narrow-minded in your insistence on favoring philosophical truths over artistic and experiential (ie Raja Yoga) truths.

Although I regard art as a lowly pursuit (preferring instead to regard Nature itself as a continually unfolding artistic masterpiece), you are wrong in thinking that I reject experiential truth. Quite the reverse, the experience of nirvanic truth goes to the very heart of everything I say and do.

If you are truly free, if you've entered the realm where causality meets infinity/zero - I think you would be more open-minded on your acceptance of the different paths to obtainment - as Vivekanda and other geniuses are. In the nine volumes of philosophical writing that comprise the complete works of Vivekananda - there is a cornucopia of evidence that he reached a mountaintop and has effectively expressed it to those willing to listen. He would shun your insistence on a singular and limiting approach. Also it is important to recognize those who are much higher on the mountaintop then we are - I don't see this "recognition" in your writing (which means that you are not as high up as you claim to be).

To be honest, I don't think much of Vivekenanda. To me, he was an ordinary-minded man whose only virtue was having the good fortune to know Ramakrishna (a real genius). His attempts to keep the flame of Ramakrishna's spirit alive through his own dissertations were banal and lifeless - much like Paul's ham-fisted attempts to promote the teachings of Jesus.

Ramakrishna often made the point that the jnana path (the intellectual path) was the highest path, but because most people don't have the capacity to follow that path, he also endeavoured to teach about the Bhakti path (the path of devotion). He reasoned that it was better for the wider population to have some simple religious beliefs that they could understand and follow, rather than turn away from religion altogether. I can understand his point of view, but I don't agree with it. To my mind, such a policy is detrimental to wisdom in the long run.

AlyOshA wrote:

Both. There can't really be one without the other. You can't begin to immerse yourself in the experience of nirvana without first identifying what it is, and what it is not.

It's the chicken or the egg, either one immerses themselves in the experience of nirvana then recognizes what it is and what it is not, or one could spend their life trying to recognize what it is and what it is not and MAYBE just maybe get the chance to experience nirvana.

No, it's definitely a case of identifying what it is and then breakthing through into it. Nirvana is not something you can experience accidentally. It is something that can only be apprehended via a supreme act of consciousness, and even then only after a sustained period of growth in which most of one's delusions have consciously been shed. The supreme act of consciousness at the end removes the last of the delusions.

What happens is that as a person mentally develops - as his reasoning powers sharpen, his delusions progressively fall away and his insight deepens - his intellectual understanding become so refined that his mind begins to mirror the formlessness of Reality and, in so doing, he reaches the very threshold of enlightenment, such that he is only a finger-snap away. And then, when the decisive moment comes, the last of his delusions suddenly fall away, his intellectual understanding becomes perfect, and only in that very moment, and not before, does he experience nirvana in its fullness.

-

David Quinn wrote:To be honest, I don't think much of Vivekenanda. To me, he was an ordinary-minded man whose only virtue was having the good fortune to know Ramakrishna (a real genius). His attempts to keep the flame of Ramakrishna's spirit alive through his own dissertations were banal and lifeless - much like Paul's ham-fisted attempts to promote the teachings of Jesus.

He has said some good things, although I suspect he copied them from Ramkrishna.

David Quinn wrote:I would couch the matter in this way: Rather than saying that there are many different paths to the mountain top (i.e. to nirvana), it is more accurate to say that there are many different paths to the foothills (i.e. to the stage where the search for nirvana becomes serious). After reaching the foothills, in whatever manner, it then becomes a matter of simply climbing straight up to the top (i.e. of consciously shedding all delusions until none remain).

In keeping with Pye's 'The Underground Man' theme, what you have said above recalls of a place where I was a couple years back (on the path to Nirvana) and reminded me of a place in Indiana, called Marengo Cave. Walking through the cave and envisioning how one would wind up on the mountaintop, though "underground". Marengo Cave in Indiana, USA >> http://www.marengocave.com/schools/walking_tours.php

Alyosha,

I have been thinking about this thead which, like many before it, is heading back down into oblivion where it had long been. It was some person who just showed up (long-since-dead I think his name was) who posted to it and brought it to my attention, and of course I was pleasantly surprised to read your comments and the discussion about Dostoevsky, a writer who I value a great deal. I have been thinking for a few days of how to respond, and flipping back and forth between a simple directness of speech, or if it were 'better' to keep up with the ironical shtick. When one has 'enemies' as I do, and when one is identified as a sort of spiritual slug along the gutterways of mediocrity, it does open up the arena to a certain amount of irony, but doing that one gets locked into a role and it is hard to break out of. Hard but not impossible. One of the reasons why I have played, and still do play, with identity is because I see people here getting locked into their own forum-personality creations. It is more fun and more creative to have the luxury and freedom of moving back and forth through different kinds of solidities of personality, while always of course remaining essentially the same person, or maybe even being more of the person one really is.

To cut to the chase: here, it seems, the predominating definition of spiritual life---'Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment'---is a very peculiar and (I think) quite non-rational path of harsh rationality, and all that pushed through a mill of neo-Buddhism where Buddhist personages are fetishized in a peculiar and I think unwholesome way. What comes out the other end is a unique product that only a very few people---an odd bunch of rather strange cats and a few even odder women---can relate to. Like old Weininger, who had grand visions of his offering to society but has fallen by the wayside, I have the impression that the QRS trip, will suffer a similar fate. I do represent another voice, another way of seeing and looking, and the value here for me has only been to test my own views. Some people appreciate it (ignorant, deluded loosers all) and others don't (ultra-wise, ultra-committed voyagers toward the 'infinite'). You get the picture.

The thing that I wanted to mention, and I think it is a way to understand another *sort* of spirituality, another way of living and practicing spirituality, is bound to some ideas that as far as I can tell NEVER appear in this forum, at least on the part of most who post here, or keep posting here. My essential orientation, though I lived in India with my parents at an impressionable age, grew up in California in a community of people surrounding Esalen Institute, and have been around so many influences of an Eastern sort, is to now be interested in the Judeo-Christian 'revelation'. I asked if you thought that 'enlightenment' was really a category, and I am inclined mostly to reject it as a destructive idea, and part of a strange idolatry. It tends to lead to those distortions more than anything else, and perhaps this is especially true in the West where these ideas have been imported. It is a rather wide and broud conversation to talk about all that...It is hard of course to talk about it here because the idea(s) is/are almost violently resisted, which is understandable to some degree. The reason for this, I feel, moves into 'unconscious' psychological territory but that is an assertion hard to present, for justified reasons.

Anyway, there is an 'idea' or a 'fact' or a 'process' that is quite central to both Judaism and Christianity and it stems from an understanding of God as a personal force or consciousness 'operating' in nature, in history, in psychology, and in personality. It is the notion of the Holy Spirit or the Sacred Spirit or paraclete, which I see as the same or similar to the Jewish concept of shekinah. These 'things' are 'things' that have been relevant in my own life from an early age and are part of an order of experience I am not really inclined to 'discuss' or debate. But it leads to an idea that is really what I was interested in bringing up: the baptism of fire. That is to say, when one has an experience with a 'spirit' that is a 'personality' and that is charged with 'meaning', and when your own personality stands in a peculiar sort of relationship to that where one is not the boss, one is not in control, and where one comes under the influence of something 'greater'. I am fairly certain that my essential differences here on GF (obviously) stem from all the 'beliefs' that I would have that would support and uphold these 'views' which are (to the Wise) deluded, regressive, etc. So, I think that what Dosteovsky is really dealing on is, in the essence, the manifestation of the Spirit in the souls and lives of his protagnonists. It is a way of 'working' with 'the spirit' in a very intense and unique way, and it is a way of understanding how this spirit penetrates into the very inner dimensions of man. It is both funny and a little tragic that David interprets all this as adolescent and of no value. But when you think about it, it is consistent with the sum total of their 'beliefs that are not beliefs but stone-cold facts about Reality'.

The other idea, and I am certain it has a great deal of relation to Dostoevsky is the Christian idea of 'the body of Christ'. Obviously, if one were really to take it all to heart (and you mentioned De Profundis which, in one part, really drives this message home), one might understand that we are all deeply united, that our fates are intertwined, and in that peculiar sense (if one accepts or even entertains the Jesusonian message as possible):

• If we may trust Like here, Jesus at the Last Supper confirmed to his disciples what was already clear to them, that they were no lomger free to go their own ways, but voluntarily bound to the other and to him both now and in the future in what Paul was to call the 'body of Christ'. ---A.J.B. Higgins in The Lord's Supper in the New Testament.

It seems to me that, almost beyond any doubt, Dostoevsky is operating under the influence of such exalted ideas, and demonstrating, and further revealing, just how bound up we all are, and the obligation we have to serve one another. This idea of service is something no one here ever mentions, ever. More than anything, if one were really to be honest, what certain people do is to tear apart, themselves and others. This is a value here. In this sense, as someone first said to me when I joined, 'the place is dysfunctional'.

So, it is in exactly the same spirit---the spirit of service---that someone could say: 'I stick by the QRS and their oddly deluded trip because I see that in significant ways they are just lost kids who have had ripped out from under them a sense of how they are connected to one another. Indeed, there is no defensible and rational means to even DESCRIBE connectedness in the universe of neurosis they chant back and forth between themselves like a weird mantra, and which captures them, holds them, impels them; not as free, conscious beings but as victims of ideas that control and dominate them'.

I also think that Violeta Parra in her song of coming back to a central part of herself, a part of a younger, unjaded and innocent person, is very related to the idea of the sacred and the holy, as well as to interconnectedness between all of us. In that sense, her song is one about a visitation of the Holy Spirit. If one has ears, one hears. If one doesn't, one doesn't. I fear that this might sound like some sort of Christian lecture (?) but that is not at all where I am coming from. My personal feeling is that the 'core' of the Judeo-Christian revelation and message is immensely relevant and powerful, but we have to interpret it anew and make it real. Dosteovsky is an example of a man who did this in a profound way.

That was a bit too insightful, TA. Methinks you'll be offloaded.

Alex,

Gertrude Stein played around with the flexibility of meaning, and her legacy was a stream of consciousness style of writing, holding to no central meaning, as in "a rose is a rose is a rose".

Similarly, you play around with multiple personalities, and your legacy are long, poetic posts full of literary allusions (Judaeo-Christian kinds), professing to hold to nothing solid or fundamental.

Yet since centrelessness is already the case always, in all things, and since there is nowhere one can hide from the eternal, boundless, and free, then don't you think it is closer to the truth to stop building constructions to play with? Why not simply rest, and be simple?


...

What's happened to your novel, Alex?

I have to hand it to you. You do try. I can see that you do try to be as profound and as insightful as possible in your posts, and, in many cases at least, you do have the best of intentions. The amount of time and effort you put into your posts for so little reward is quite remarkable, and quite touching, really.

But .... and I say this with the best of intentions ..... it's just that you miss it completely, and always have done.

I'm reminded of something Kierkegaard said:

"Before long the generation finds imitation [of Jesus] to be inconvenient and hits upon something new. They say: To imitate in this way is a little too earnest. Let us rather go out to the meadow and play at Christianity, but call it Christianity. That is, they introduce another actuality, an artistic actuality, or they introduce Christianity into the arts, removed from actuality by the distance of imagination."

-