GENIUS FORUMS

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Laird, you haven't seen through the illusion yet, you're still being fooled.

:D

Very good, SOW. You win a cob of maize.

There's not nothing. as in absolute zero.
There's a spectrum of consciousness.
2 truths.
Spirit is the summit of being, the highest rung on the ladder.
It's also true that Spirit is the wood out of which the entire ladder and all it's rungs are made.
Spirit is the isness of each and everything that exists.
No phenomenon is closer to Spirit than any other for all are equally made of Spirit.
Spirit is prior to world but not other to world.

There you go, explained clearly from another purposefully obscure and vague guy ^

I posted a thread just recently about language analysis like you're's Laird! I you might find it interesting.

Why don't you just tell him Dennis, "break the news" so it isn't only coming from me the crazy guy,

Laird, imagine a new Plato's cave, the shadows are there, but there are no men and no fire!

What!

How?

That's "empty"

Going to be quoting your last comment often Dennis

I'll just replace "Spirit" with "mind".

guest_of_logic wrote:It's refreshing after your earlier comments in a different thread that oh how surprising to see Laird popping up in support of women and puppies - to know that you are, after all, capable of a generous spirit towards our sisters.

You have a graceful type of humor. But my generosity only extends to brothers since I was in both cases addressing weaknesses in men. As you probably know by now I consider the female as psychological type rather hollow and superfluous. Completely a male invention and forming some kind of blow back. But should women become men? I'm not so certain anymore about that recommendation. Perhaps other psychological types are evolving. Perhaps the poles themselves are splitting and shifting, even disappearing but it's hard to say how disastrous that will be.

Seeker from another thread: I have no issues, other people have issues, and I'm simply in the way, circumstance, so I attempt to try and lessen issues for everyone's calming benefit, either way for me it's still the same, there is no departure and arrival, only the journey.

You're just "singling yourself out."

Seeker: You agree that a lot of what you experience is only of the mind, (dreams, imaginings) then go on to say that other things experienced aren't only of the mind, that they are "more" real, how are you making this distinction?

Seeker, you're doing it again, doing it again, doing it again - not reading, not listening, not hearing. I've said nothing about "more real," etc. and I'm done repeating myself. You are the very picture of the doggedness that claims it "knows" - a walking example of what you want to eliminate. You're sitting alone in that thread singing "I can do anything better than you can" all to yourself, as it should be, since it belongs to you. No one here has put themselves over you in the manner you have them. Love your enthusiasm and good will; you're nascent brilliance: keep it up. Do something, though, about your own fraudulence regarding your own sense of "knowledge." And don't tell me you aren't buddhist! Your conclusions are largely its own and you can't get it said without recourse to quotes.

Dennis: Spirit is prior to world but not other to world.

Seeker: When in reality, your seeing of body is a result of consciousness which already was.

What I find interesting about the pathology of spiritual nihilism is its haste to identify/dismantle dualism without recognizing its own. Spiritualism of these kinds of stripes has to posit a dualized world, over and over, in order to 'transcend' it: there's the "physical" (embodiment) and there's the "spiritual" (mind) and one must transcend, precede, give-birth-to the other, in these kinds of thinking. A mighty manichean struggle must ensue, and one piece of existence must win out over the other (i.e. be "more" real, more authoritative, more original). The work is continuous, ongoing, endless, because the dualism is embedded right in it. It's a thinking pathology that has to live in the bed of its own making. It believes these things "opposed" rather than united as existence. It believes one 'wrong' and one 'right' - one deluded, one real, on and on and on. dualism, dualism, dualism . . . . or, in this case, spiritual nihilsm: matter must be annihilated in order to get to spirit/mind. ick.

Diebert wrote: A typical male issue, the all too sexualized but at the same time overfamiliar talk when it's thought to be a woman at the other end. It's playing for the audience actually, staking out positions while hardly meant for the female involved (even when no audience is actually there).

and Laird replied: It's refreshing after your earlier comments in a different thread that oh how surprising to see Laird popping up in support of women and puppies - to know that you are, after all, capable of a generous spirit towards our sisters.

I rather see this as critique of his brothers having little or nothing to do with women at all. But that's what happens when the 'male principle' is thought to be the engine of everything ;)

(beat me to it, Diebert :)

guest_of_logic wrote:Because Alex has bid his adieu, I won't address this post to him, but it is in response to his leaving post.

...

Laird, well you've certainly convinced yourself.

Pye wrote:What I find interesting about the pathology of spiritual nihilism is its haste to identify/dismantle dualism without recognizing its own. Spiritualism of these kinds of stripes has to posit a dualized world, over and over, in order to 'transcend' it: there's the "physical" (embodiment) and there's the "spiritual" (mind) and one must transcend, precede, give-birth-to the other, in these kinds of thinking. A mighty manichean struggle must ensue, and one piece of existence must win out over the other (i.e. be "more" real, more authoritative, more original). The work is continuous, ongoing, endless, because the dualism is embedded right in it. It's a thinking pathology that has to live in the bed of its own making. It believes these things "opposed" rather than united as existence. It believes one 'wrong' and one 'right' - one deluded, one real, on and on and on. dualism, dualism, dualism . . . . or, in this case, spiritual nihilsm: matter must be annihilated in order to get to spirit/mind. ick.

Pye, pure immanence?

brad writes: Pye, pure immanence?

Just existence, brad. Existence. In it shall be found the immanent, the transcendent, and everything else we [have] become conscious-of, stubbed our toes on, or dreamed, etc. . . . .

What, your first paragraph was not sincere, why would you again go against "more real" when you know exactly what that means? And you have said some objects are "more real", almost everyone has. Plus I made very clear its meaning.

You already know some objects of consciousness are only imaginative experiences and those objects don't truly exist, like in a dream,

while "more real" means you think other objects do truly exist externally, in waking state. (I made this very clear already and it is a very basic and true concept, I will spell it out again for you)


Some things you think are only dream things! - Imaginative experiences

Some things you think are there despite the dream! -Real objects

Clear?

Am I wrong here? Or is it true you think some objects of consciousness correlate to physical objects while others don't(only imaginings)?

I wasn't doing anything again, again, again, you were ignoring/avoiding what you know you are doing, assigning some objects of consciousness as real and others as only imaginative experiences, correct?

And consciousness already was, it says before the body* And it was before this body... You were implying dualism by thinking we meant it was before all experience of "physical" but experience and mind are one and the same.

It definitely was before the body though.... (Mind is not a result of your body but exists independently)

oh, frack it. :)

can I borrow that?
love it.

I'm prone to 'fuck it!'

'frack it' opens up a new possibility for me for cursing.


It's a bit scary. Big change.
Will I be OK?

Dennis writes:
It's a bit scary. Big change.
Will I be OK?

Not only will you be okay, you will have added natural gas, busted black shale, and toxic waste to the mix (:D)

-.-

Not only will you be okay, you will have added natural gas, busted black shale, and toxic waste to the mix (:D

Fuck that!

not goin' there.

Dennis: Fuck that!

Well, we don't mean this very nicely either, do we - taking a bittersweet fundamental ecstasy like fucking and turning it in on itself!?!

(frack would be one of a few code-curses I might drop into the livelier answers to student questions in class. "Bolshevik" is another :)

I'm chastened by my outburst there chief.
This possibility will take time.
I'm gonna commit.

bolshevik looks like avoiding the harshness of 'bullshit'.

I think I'm catching on.

Dennis writes:
This possibility will take time.
I'm gonna commit.

Well, think of it. If we really want to curse something, oughtn't it be frack? :)

I think I'm catching on.

caught.

Well, think of it. If we really want to curse something, oughtn't it be frack? :)

There looks to be a subtlety in that this 'readership' can't catch.
Help!

Pye,

Heidegger's trying to get at the being of human being.

language 'does' something.

softening the curse is 'in order to',
generative of?

for the ultimate sake of?

The Buddha, a master of causality, recommends a speech pattern that isn't blind to consequences.
it's difficult to view 'niceness' perjoratively per se.

and yet an inauthentic, rehearsed niceness,
'in the presence of that'
'jars'.
'is jarring'.

Don't tell me I'm overthinking it please.
do a John on me.

PS.
I trust you Pye.
not a tricker.
thankyou dear.
safe.

Dennis Mahar wrote: The Buddha, a master of causality, recommends a speech pattern that isn't blind to consequences.

If one can be aware of possible consequences, even to the point of near certainty, what does this show?

For example, someone can think "I will make this person cry", or, "I will make this person laugh", or even as extreme as "I will make this person kill themself" and then could well and truly bring those future events about, (All spawning from the original intention of the individual, which logically and supposedly came before the thought "I will make them laugh", and then manifested into reality through action), is this not showing a limited capability to "predict the future" based on our actions and conditions? What does this show?

causality.

And would you say that intention is just as much subject to causality as anything else? That the thought "I will make them laugh", is also "caused" and dependent on conditions?


If so, then this shows clearly the lack of free will and hence lack of ego.

The intentions/thoughts aren't "chosen", they are constantly flowing, acting/reacting, out of control.

This completely destroys the idea of individuated consciousness, it also destroys the credibility of thought.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I posted a thread just recently about language analysis like you're's Laird! I you might find it interesting.

You mean your "A bunch of GF users walk into a room..." thread? It was entertaining, very amusing, it got several chuckles out of me. I was surprised at how well it sustained a rhythm - unpractised poets often struggle with that, but you barely missed a beat. That, plus barely any of the rhymes were forced - another rarity for unpractised poets - and they were quirky and fun. But maybe you're more practised than I would have guessed.