You should be speaking to yourself as well, and not solely through others, for "your self."How many yous are there, and which you would like to decide to choose to will which to do what and why, exactly?
...The persistence of ignorance is indeed bliss, for some -- and a continuity in the minds of those who are not ignorant.
Causal choices are made.sapius wrote:May be, but no need to apply any meaning to it; human race will persist irrelevant of any meaning being given to it, and so will every jot or a title irrelevant of the human race. And in that persistence, casual choices are made, provided by the complex diversities created by casual conditions, that are ultimately utterly empty and meaningless, and That is Really awesome.
Why the quotation marks? Shouldn’t it be, then:Mental imbalance, a result of a combination of high consciouness and a lack in "appropriate" social skills.
There is one me. I'll judge your work soon :DLeyla:zag somehow managed to put his fingers to the keyboard and type:
Quote:
I'd like to decide to choose to will myself there already...
Man…
How many yous are there, and which you would like to decide to choose to will which to do what and why, exactly?
The one that can will itself to be somewhere it isn't but must also carry out that will.Quote:
…but I am predestined to go through the motions.
Which you? The one that would like to will itself to already be somewhere it isn't, but cannot?
What is subcontinuity?The only continuity your “individuality†has is that of being continually subcontinuous.
What is it to be beneath continuity?! My assertions stand on their own. Yours (Nothing inherently exists) require continuous asserting.Quote:
But what will you do with your chances, or since you have an aversion to the word,…
I have no aversion to the word though, to you, it may seem so since you are beneath continuity and, thus, the ability to consider meaning other than that which applies to your fundy assertions.
How shallow and dogmatic is your interpretation of my expression!I am making a point about the inference “taking your chances†from the idea "'choice' of the person in question." Interesting that you should take it as an aversion to the word “chances.†How shallow and dogmatic can you be in understanding and expression!
Both are of consciousness and reason.The difference between “taking issue (with something)†and “taking your chances“: one is of consciousness and reason; both of which are entirely dependent on their causes just as anything else.
Leyla, can't you take a joke? Woman, you're something else!So, to me, your statement that “I will overlook it if I truly believe†you have no choice translates to “be and let be unconscious/ness.†And this you would posit as a demonstration of your understanding/wisdom and enlightenment? Or did you simply assume -- as a consequence of your own ignorance -- that I could not possibly consider such a notion?
You're echoing Kevin I see. It's extraordinarily irrational of you. You mean, you mean. Stingy. If you didn't think I was creative, you wouldn't have expressed your desire to fuck me. :DI mean, zag, you really don't say anything. What you do do is repeat the sounds of the symbols that make up the words you love to sing. I mean, you're not even creative. Same ol' melody, same ol' rhythm...
It would seem to be so, but actually it is strife that guarantees continuity. First and foremost, memory strives to maintain the identity in every moment of changes, even as we dream. We simply take it for granted hence we might think it is just continuity, which would mean nothing by itself. How can continuity be experienced if memory does not continuously strive to maintain the thought of it? It is not like written by the finger of God, you know.Sapius : Persistence is plain simple strife, irrelevant of the direction, including that of overcoming ourselves, or that of taking over others.
Zag: What makes you so sure? I mean, for some, it is untrammeled delight.
Sapius:Sure it could be, but that too is included, a strife towards the feeling of unhindered delight, for it needs to be maintained in this continuous flow of changes, through memory, which does the work for us.
Zag: And so it is not necessarily a strife, but a continuity.
As far as I know, they don’t say there is no self at all, but that it is an illusory one. In the sense that we assume the self to be an independent, unconnected entity, a false ego, that does not recognize the fact otherwise, in which one cannot actually find a beginning or end to a self.I believe the latter part of that statement is the opinion of the QVC here - that there is no self to receive judgment or karma and all is C&E.
Code: Select all
I do not share this view.Firstly, you got to ask the QRS as to what they actually mean by “illusionâ€, and secondly, I can understand how the idea of a Cosmic singular soul arises, but that is a different subject altogether.While I believe in a Purusha - or Cosmic singular soul or consciousness or Self, the individual self is not an illusion anymore than a table or cat is an illusion.
Are you saying ‘consciousness’ is not natural?'Totality' is not a very good name for Nature since Consciousness is not in Nature.
There is nothing to worry about, yes, but you say it is from the perspective of Purusha, and QRS say it is a simple logical truth, only a matter of perspective I guess, but I would certainly take the logical one. Makes more sense to me. As far as ‘actually exits’ is concerned, you would need to define ‘actually’.In Nature, these things do actually exist although they are fleeting. To say that it is Maya or illusion is only true from the perspective of Purusha. Nothing to worry about.
I perfectly understand how this web has been woven over certain very natural but rare occurrences of supposed reincarnations. I could tell you what I know about it, but I’m sure you will not believe, because it requires personal experiences. You cannot explain me the taste of an apple if I have never eaten one, and vice versa. Any ways, this too is a vast subject and connected to the birth of a cosmic soul idea, to be discussed some another time perhaps. Here we discuss 'choice'.All of your psychological profile is kept in the cosmic storage file to reappear again as a new person. Your name and number is only good for this life. You will have no memory of it when you reappear as someone new. In THAT sense there is no personal self. But, THAT person will be born with traits - karma.
Sure they do, basically it is the same for all, but what choice is made ‘in order to’ achieve what is not the same for every one. It depends on ones values.Causal choices are made.
This is where the Idea of 'in order to' fits in.
I examine the details of my Life and grok my choices have an aspect of 'in order to' about them.
Hey! One cannot help but respect if one values truth, and I respect your truthfulness about it.I actually do respect the QRS position...I feel their position is to withdraw from the Herd 'in order to' free up Mental Space to ponder the deeper philosophical questions of Life....being in the Herd full time is full of distractions like raising kids, business...distractions,that is, from pondering the infinite...
Well, it is not so much about women as it is about femininity that I agree with. As for their beating it up, it is their style of delivery, that is, shock treatment, which I do not agree with, because it unnecessarily aggravates the very emotions that they want people to get rid of, and people become more hostile rather than understand the point logically. In my opinion, one cannot pull out a tree in a single jerk, especially when the roots go as far as femininity is deeply entrenched.I just don't like QRS spending time beating up on 'woman, workers and the other things they perp on...
You mean a whole herd? :Dthese are the Philosopher Kings...
That is wisdom in my opinion, and when one actually realizes the reality of all that there is, one cannot help but respect all irrelevant of who they are or what it is, because of the ultimately-ness of all things is fully understood and hence respected in that sense, but that does not mean that differentiation and personal values die.The Philosopher Kings were not given a Script that gave them the silly preoccupation of ridiculing breeders and workers...these entities are realised to also have a Value...the Various entities were 'organised' into an interdependant System where the Value of each was respected...
Scripting eh? :DC&E and choices, the way I see it, are based on how to get from here to there....'in order to' obtain something desirable.
I was referring to the difficulty that Truth can initially bring to an individual, and all those that come into contact with them.Steven: Mental imbalance, a result of a combination of high consciouness and a lack in "appropriate" social skills.
Leyla: Why the quotation marks? Shouldn’t it be, then:
“Mental imabalance,†as a result of a combination of “high consciousness†and a lack in “appropriate†social skills.
Or, are you trying to say that beating people up, for example, is in fact an appropriate social skill?
No, you reckon that you don't possess these traits, so you label them as "pure femininity." You also harbor resentment towards others who may know things about yourself that you don't know, or don't want to recognize, as a result.I reckon your “high consciousness†-- “hypersensitivity†-- epitomises pure femininity -- you “feel†everyone/everything so much so that you are convinced you know every other person better than they can know themselves.
You see weakness as a weakness, which only fuels your ego, falsely.I do not engage in the act of “speaking to myself.†Perhaps this is another aspect of bipolar? For me, thinking is sufficient. I do not need to imagine myself as a separate and divided (ironically, this is what you are asking whilst in the same breath as saying I “revel in divisionâ€) thing to speak to in order to understand self.
I understand, but I'd encourage you to carefully read what you write, seeing that it is you that is writing it.I am not speaking "through" you, Mr Postmodernist; I am speaking as a consequence and on the basis of applied thought.
So, let’s see how this plays out, based on what you have said to me in our numerous interactions on and off this board.I was referring to the difficulty that Truth can initially bring to an individual, and all those that come into contact with them.
This difficulty vanishes as understanding increases.
Strongly believe, eh? What happened to the (degree of?) realised “Truth†that you imply came with this condition?I strongly believe that all biological problems are rooted in the psychological. As a result, I increasingly reveled in division, to get to the core of the matter(s) - in the process, uncovering what methods not to apply, to myself or others.
No, you reckon I reckon that. I reckon exactly what I reckon. That you resent that is your problem. Deal with it.No, you reckon that you don't possess these traits, so you label them as "pure femininity."
You also harbor resentment towards others who may know things about yourself that you don't know, or don't want to recognize, as a result.
Very good. So you will understand why I do not accept your attempt to cast ultimate responsibility for your feelings and misconceptions on me.On that basis, yes.
Yes, A=A. There’s nothing false or egotistical/egocentric about it, however.You see weakness as a weakness, which only fuels your ego, falsely.
You understand nothing but your own idiotic mumblings and false (rooted in belief) assumptions.I understand, but I'd encourage you to carefully read what you write, seeing that it is you that is writing it.
In this instance, (in this instance) I was referring to Truth. The truth that all that exists is my own mind. A difficult realization to come to grips with, especially while attempting to balance a stock of karmic impurity.You told me that you were diagnosed with and medicated for bipolar after your girlfriend passed away and you became violent. This piece data, coupled with your definition of bipolar above, implies that the passing of your girlfriend was a catalyst to your “difficulty with Truth†in some way. What I infer from your expressed understanding and detail of self and the situation, is that her passing caused you to realise and, consequently, have “difficulty†with what you are calling Truth. What kind of Truth is it that is precipitated by all the emotional turmoil and trauma surrounding such an event? The “Truth†that you do not exist? The “Truth†that you are everything?
That's right. "All you see."From my understanding of self coupled with the (at best) half-thought out and often diversional ideas you express upon questioning, all I see is a guy who flipped after suffering a great loss and reacted emotionally. You have no explanation for this idea of racing thoughts and how they are consequent to a realisation of “Truth.â€
Oh, well excuse me "reasoning individual."Being nothing short of emotional on the subject, what are you giving a reasoning individual to work with aside from your emotions?
That’s right, nothing.
Already got it.S: This difficulty vanishes as understanding increases.
L: Yes, it does. Am I to accurately conclude, then, that once you attain “full understanding,†you will no longer be bipolar?
What?I strongly believe that all biological problems are rooted in the psychological. As a result, I increasingly reveled in division, to get to the core of the matter(s) - in the process, uncovering what methods not to apply, to myself or others.
Strongly believe, eh? What happened to the (degree of?) realised “Truth†that you imply came with this condition?
What?Yet earlier you questioned (your own supposition) that I revel in division as if it were a bad thing? My, how contradictory you are when it suits you. Remember, I don’t have such a biological problem. That alone, according to your own ideas, makes us very different.
I never meant, or to my knowledge, did imply that.Be careful about implying that anyone who has come to know Truth must, as a result, become bipolar. Personally, I see no reason supporting the idea that bipolar is a biological by-product of the realisation of Truth.
Ok, Marsha. Calm down :)No, you reckon that you don't possess these traits, so you label them as "pure femininity."
You also harbor resentment towards others who may know things about yourself that you don't know, or don't want to recognize, as a result.
No, you reckon I reckon that. I reckon exactly what I reckon. That you resent that is your problem. Deal with it.
I know I'm not you.You are not me. If you were, I’d be bipolar, too.
You'll never progress your thought if you don't honesty examine yourself.On that basis, yes.
Very good. So you will understand why I do not accept your attempt to cast ultimate responsibility for your feelings and misconceptions on me.
Please don't twist my words to fit some idea you have, please.You see weakness as a weakness, which only fuels your ego, falsely.
Yes, A=A. There’s nothing false or egotistical/egocentric about it, however.
Does it?Unless, that is, you yourself want the survival of weakness rather than truth and wisdom. Are you paying attention to what you are saying? Is that what you want? Must be. It explains very well how you react and respond -- your every word and action.
Nah, nah, nah.You understand nothing but your own idiotic mumblings and false (rooted in belief) assumptions.
Never asked for you to feel sorry for me -- bringing up the past?I am aware of our interactions, and who I am -- quite willingly and consciously, I might add -- within each of them. Quit asking me to feel sorry for you. It ain’t gonna happen. I don’t care how you feel about what I write. There is another possibility: you could write a complete idea that is logically consistent and therefore intelligible to me. But, yes, it’s only a possibility.
You don't know anything about telepathy.Tell me, Steven, since you are a self-proclaimed telepath -- why is it that you cannot anticipate my replies to you and, thereby, change the future? Why is it that instead of making me into that which you obviously desire me to be, you continue to make me into something you can know better than I know myself? Are you Yahweh?
She said, he said.What makes you think I will consider an “encouragement†from a person who doesn’t even understand their own psychological condition yet professes to understand mine? What, can’t fully be yourself but you can be anyone else? I am interested in the complete logic behind that, Steven -- nice and neat, in one post. Until then, revel in your beliefs as you will.
Continuity guarantees itself. Strife is an effect of our experience. First and foremost there is the universe. We understand this through experiencing ourselves before all else.Sapius : Persistence is plain simple strife, irrelevant of the direction, including that of overcoming ourselves, or that of taking over others.
Zag: What makes you so sure? I mean, for some, it is untrammeled delight.
Sapius:Sure it could be, but that too is included, a strife towards the feeling of unhindered delight, for it needs to be maintained in this continuous flow of changes, through memory, which does the work for us.
Zag: And so it is not necessarily a strife, but a continuity.
Sapius: It would seem to be so, but actually it is strife that guarantees continuity. First and foremost, memory strives to maintain the identity in every moment of changes, even as we dream. We simply take it for granted hence we might think it is just continuity, which would mean nothing by itself. How can continuity be experienced if memory does not continuously strive to maintain the thought of it? It is not like written by the finger of God, you know.
What is enlightenment, Leyla?Leyla Shen wrote:You have got to be kidding me! Really, you're pathetic if you think you have demonstrated progressive thought.
My God, you are a woman.
You don't have the balls for enlightenment, Steven!
One of the differences between you and I, philosophically speaking, is that you call that event an expression of desire and I call it a fleeting thought based on a comment you made prior to it. But, in the same vein as you, does this mean you have a repressed desire to fuck Kevin because, in actuality, I have been saying it for a while now.You're echoing Kevin I see. It's extraordinarily irrational of you. You mean, you mean. Stingy. If you didn't think I was creative, you wouldn't have expressed your desire to fuck me. :D
If you follow Nietschke/Schopenhaeur and discover the Idea of a Judgemental/Punishing God is rubbish.frank wrote:
I just don't like QRS spending time beating up on 'woman, workers and the other things they perp on...
sapius wrote:
Well, it is not so much about women as it is about femininity that I agree with. As for their beating it up, it is their style of delivery, that is, shock treatment, which I do not agree with, because it unnecessarily aggravates the very emotions that they want people to get rid of, and people become more hostile rather than understand the point logically. In my opinion, one cannot pull out a tree in a single jerk, especially when the roots go as far as femininity is deeply entrenched.
What, can't handle a little criticism?Leyla Shen wrote:Enlightenment is my new policy to quickly separate the "women" from the men and not bother expecting any depth from women!
I'll stick to notions of airy-fairyness with you from now on (if I'm bother to say anything to you at all) so you don't feel compelled to deflect truths about yourself onto me, sissy.
I used to offer up the same argument. I wondered about its efficacy toward the stated goals of the forum. Thing is, when you observe those particular qualities -- masculinity (which would be the capacity for truth, wisdom and the ability to reason) -- predominantly in conjunction with males, then you can logically call them “masculine,†notwithstanding the fact that most males, on the same basis, can be observed to exhibit their opposite qualities, ie “femininity.â€If that's what it means then SAY IT!....SAY delusion/ignorance, get the Gender thing out of it...it doesn't WORK!..
The Terms 'femininity/masculinity' don't Work...fail to Enrol...contribute to Conflict and are utterly useless in the QRS Game Plan of Relieving Suffering.Leyla wrote:
I used to offer up the same argument. I wondered about its efficacy toward the stated goals of the forum. Thing is, when you observe those particular qualities -- masculinity (which would be the capacity for truth, wisdom and the ability to reason) -- predominantly in conjunction with males, then you can logically call them “masculine,†notwithstanding the fact that most males, on the same basis, can be observed to exhibit their opposite qualities, ie “femininity.â€
Ok, if so, then is ‘Continuity guarantees itself’ devoid of any experience?? Of course not, so that is besides the point. In my opinion it is the opposite; experience is the effect of strife, and so is everything else, and strife is what keeps the continuity well and alive, in effect, causality.Continuity guarantees itself. Strife is an effect of our experience.
If you say so… But first and foremost, I wonder who is saying that?First and foremost there is the universe.
Are you saying that a mind is first and foremost here? I mean, that helps understand that the Universe is first and foremost?We understand this through experiencing ourselves before all else.