GENIUS FORUMS

bert wrote:hi lost one,

so...you are here to work on your sillyness?

Perhaps, although I am still trying to decipher what exactly there is to work on.

beginnings and endings have no reality - they are dramatic changes.

What do you mean by "have no reality"?

When I'm working on a Dream I had and I separate the Archetypes and try and spot the 'sense' of it...or 'meaning' of it...after I've spent a good time immersed in the feeling of the Dream, like an hour...I'll go shuffle a Tarot Deck and 'pull' a card...it's uncanny how that 'pulled' card Acts on the process...how new doors of perception fly open...sometimes you can see forever...

Yes, that is right, Frankie Boy. And sometimes very pointed personal meanings will magically jump out. Jung found this in astrology, I Ching and all the divinity systems. This universe is full of gods watching over you, willing to help out if asked. This universe is not the dry, dead donkey carcass it is perceived to be here by these joyless logicians. I'm here to try to help them. I see that is your 'mission' too. To love life is a form of worship.

Sue,

I read your post.

Kathie was abrasive and difficult. No one would disagree with me about that. Very few people would agree that she was also kind. Few people ever knew her kindness.

My knowledge and assessment of her was not my projection or imagination.

It was utterly realistic and truthful.

I did not grieve for her because she was this thing or that thing. I grieved for the loss of a friend. Utterly.

I had one friend and I will not have another. I will have acqaintances. But I will not have another true friend -- more than a sister.

Kathie was not false. The deep grief I experienced at her death was not false.

Say whatever you want. Your opinion does not matter to me.

Faizi

Absolutely not, Sue.

Kathy was always considered ruthless, abrasive, blunt by everyone. Not just me. It was a concensus.

That is not the way I choose to see her. She was ruthless, abrasive, blunt. No one saw kindness in her unless he/she knew her very well -- kind of like a Pit Bull.

She died about eight years ago -- when we were beginning to discuss philosophy -- Nietzsche, Kierkegaard.

Had she lived to start writing here -- well, she would have been an excellent contributor.

I think you must have this belief in ghosts. Human beings are flesh and blood and have characteristics. Ghosts are negotiable.

Kathie was not a ghost.

Faizi

Marsha,

I understand that most people find the topics of death and grief difficult to discuss because of their attachments to their own life, and the lives of others. But this is a philosophy forum, where every facet of psychology and everyday life is to be examined in a rational way in an attempt to uncover the truth about them. This means that the petty concerns which occupy most people’s lives are also to be examined, and their truth exposed.

With this in mind, you might like to read over my last post and look at the philosophical insights I made and comment on them. For example: I spoke of how people only experience the world through their attachments. This is an important issue, and perhaps one that you may be interested in.

Sue

Lost Prophet wrote:

bert wrote:hi lost one,

so...you are here to work on your sillyness?

Perhaps, although I am still trying to decipher what exactly there is to work on.

beginnings and endings have no reality - they are dramatic changes.

What do you mean by "have no reality"?

to observe it,is to be without content - it is not to be related.

What do you mean by "have no reality"?

to observe it,is to be without content - it is not to be related.

Still not sure what you mean. If you observe something, then that thing has existence. If you observe a beginning or an end, then that is a beginning or an end (or both).

Lost Prophet wrote:

What do you mean by "have no reality"?

to observe it,is to be without content - it is not to be related.

Still not sure what you mean. If you observe something, then that thing has existence. If you observe a beginning or an end, then that is a beginning or an end (or both).

yes,there is existence,and it is by compulsory "means" .
have scientist ever observed protons,electrons and electromagnetic waves?
it is a fictional construct whereof they assume that it matches our reality.They pretend them to be true.So they would speak of beginnings and endings and causes.but there are only means.

With this in mind, you might like to read over my last post and look at the philosophical insights I made and comment on them. For example: I spoke of how people only experience the world through their attachments. This is an important issue, and perhaps one that you may be interested in.

Sue

I saw no philosophical insights. Therefore, I have no comment.

Correct observation has nothing to do with attachment.

Faizi

Marsha wrote:

I saw no philosophical insights. Therefore, I have no comment.

Yet, you do comment: “Correct observation has nothing to do with attachment”.

Again, Marsha, this is a philosophy forum where people come to discuss philosophy. It is not the place to sit cozy and warm in front of the fireplace, glass of wine in hand, chatting about our feelings. This is a cold, hard environment, where every thought and emotion is held up for examination. Truth is the quest here – not the justification of people’s petty concerns.

If you more than just feel that “correct observation has nothing to do with attachment” - then explain how this can be true.

Sue

The obvious is obvious.

There is nothing philosophic to discuss. No comment. No philosophy posted.

Correct observation has nothing to do with attachment.

Interesting how you suppose you can dismiss me with your bossiness.

Interesting how you can point out my emotionalism while boosting the emotionalism of your underlings.

Not sucking up, Sue.

Faizi

Correct observation has nothing to do with attachment.

You have not met yourself yet, Marsha. But, you have, in a sense.

sue wrote:
that people use other people to satisfy their own needs and desires with no care or consideration for anyone else except themselves.

OK, you've got a Subject and a Predicate with the verb use

This implies a hidden belief system that events are started by Nouns or Things...

It's Hilarious!

frank

yes,there is existence,and it is by compulsory "means" .

Compulsory

1. Obligatory; required: a compulsory examination.
2. Employing or exerting compulsion; coercive.

Or, in other words -- Existence is Reality.

have scientist ever observed protons,electrons and electromagnetic waves?

Yes.

it is a fictional construct whereof they assume that it matches our reality.They pretend them to be true.So they would speak of beginnings and endings and causes.but there are only means.

Existence is hardly fictional. The mere fact that something can be observed gives it existence. Why do you deny what you perceive?

I label the digits on the end of my hands to be fingers. The act of labeling is necessary so that things can be discussed in a meaningful manner. I can choose to ignore them yet they are there nonetheless.

Quote:
have scientist ever observed protons,electrons and electromagnetic waves?



Yes.

really?tell me about it...

Quote:

yes,there is existence,and it is by compulsory "means" .



Compulsory

1. Obligatory; required: a compulsory examination.
2. Employing or exerting compulsion; coercive.

Or, in other words -- Existence is Reality.

when you observe a beginning or end ,you have realised the reality of the compulsion of the beginning/end?
go ahead and tell me about the reality of beginnings and endings...I can hardly wait.

The inability to realise infinity does not make it any less real than what we may describe as finite.

Sue:

For example: I spoke of how people only experience the world through their attachments. This is an important issue, and perhaps one that you may be interested in.

How is it an important issue Sue? What else could anyone experience it through? And are ones attachments then what is ultimately important? What is important overall is ones nature. Our attachments carry import only as far as we carry ourselves.

The inability to realise infinity does not make it any less real than what we may describe as finite.

and being able to realise that beginnings and endings have no reality,just dramatic changes, make you realise what the word beginning means, and even more what the word reality means.

suergaz:The inability to realise infinity does not make it any less real than what we may describe as finite.

bert:and being able to realise that beginnings and endings have no reality,just dramatic changes, make you realise what the word beginning means, and even more what the word reality means.

I can't realize that! It's like realizing infinity, but don't think I don't want it! I realize that beginnings and endings have no ultimate reality, and that is where my realization, to all appearances and purpose, ends. To me, their reality is not in question.

Recently, my 15 year old daughter experienced a dear friend committing suicide. She was grief stricken. I did not see it as ugly. I saw it more as though she was taking it personally. She said it did seem personal at first, but with some time she felt differently. She moved through several stages. She ended up at a kind of compasionate state. The whole thing never appeared ugly to me. It was just sad. Very sad. I gave her space to go through it, even though I wanted to fix it. I knew I could do nothing. Compassion can be very helpful.

Suergaz wrote:

Sue wrote: For example: I spoke of how people only experience the world through their attachments. This is an important issue, and perhaps one that you may be interested in.

How is it an important issue Sue? What else could anyone experience it through? And are ones attachments then what is ultimately important? What is important overall is ones nature. Our attachments carry import only as far as we carry ourselves.

It depends on your goal in life whether or not you see attachments, and their consequences, as something that needs to be understood. From your last two lines it is hard to know what your goal is in discussing this matter, as your ideas read very airy-fairy. It looks like you are saying “we are what we are, and no amount of thinking will change that situation”. If this is the case, then you are attached to immediacy. This means that you find your happiness in this mind set.

You are the type of person who has many attachments: most of them to do with relationship building. You will believe in things like kindness, love, empathy, the uniqueness of each ‘self’, the need to be in touch with one’s emotions - all wrapped up in a general feeling that “it is all good”. Nothing wrong with this, as long as you are aware that immediacy has nothing to do with philosophy: it being the complete opposite to everything philosophy stands for.

But, let’s say you decided that you did want to understand something about life – the first thing you’d set your mind to work on is finding out the reasons why people and society do the things they do. With this information, you could begin to build a picture of how society operated, allowing you to discern what part you wanted to play in it. Once your ability to reason has become sharper, you'd then have the potential to make even greater discoveries about the nature of Reality, with the consequence that you'd take up philosophy and direct your life to the goal of enlightenment.

From the goal of immediacy: to the goal of enlightenment. Each goal is sought through very different attachments, with very different consequences.

Sue

My ideas were to the point. Yours are all over the place. Just an observation.

Sue,

I also share suergaz's desire for "relationship building" [as perilous and impermanent as Nature itself] - so I think I'll throw in my pocket book. Your philosophy is modeled after David Quinn's, right? Have you given any thought to the idea of sage as unifier? Bringing harmony to their environment, as a result of their high consciousness? Do you think that the westernized philosopher's are the only one's worthy of merit? Kierkegaard was correct when he observed that the philosopher will grow to love God more than man. But, what about the Taoist masters? Lao Tzu? Confucius? What about Buddha? And Jesus? Who all philosophized that God is in everything, and that helping others is the path to true liberation.

This speaks more of my attachment to the ignorance of others.

Suergaz wrote:

My ideas were to the point. Yours are all over the place. Just an observation.

If you are an observer - sit quietly in the stands. If you are a participant - apply your mind to the discussion of philosophy.

* * *

To understand what I have written, you could ask questions and discuss your confusion.

Sue

Sue, your desire to clearly distinguish between observation and participation is well understood. I don't think you're being as philosophical as you might desire in misplacing what I had the initiative to put into question ie. the importance you attribute to the fact that people experience the world through their attachments to it. Misconstruing my clear-sightedness with an apparent pleasure in the facility of immediacy is but a cry from the stands (to participate in your imagery.)

So long as my ability to reason is found threatening, I will not sharpen it beyond its general utility, I promise.