GENIUS FORUMS

as we always see only a refraction of the mighty reflection;because we experience everything of the 'then' reawakened now "as now",by memory,through an ever changing relationship because of changing environments,forms,desires and beliefs...then the 'I' becomes illusionary ,and we become lost to ourselves;then,how can we know whether we desire to lose or to find ourselves?

We must find ourselves in order to lose ourselves.

Original state: unconscious (merged with the one)
First step: conscious, and separate
Second step: transcended into the one, with consciousness

bert wrote:the 'I' becomes illusionary ,and we become lost to ourselves;then,how can we know whether we desire to lose or to find ourselves?

Neither, as there is no "I" to either lose or find.

I don't even know what you guys are responding to; I can never make head nor tail of 99% of Bert's posts.

Dan -

bert writes in essences.

He also responds to the eternal (Tao).

Which, I think, is the answer to his own question:

"...how can we know whether we desire to lose or to find ourselves?"

By returning to our knowledge of the eternal flux, which is our own nature.

Steven wrote:

bert writes in essences.

That is no excuse for not writing in sentences.

He also responds to the eternal (Tao).

By not writing in proper sentences, all he is “responding” to is that infernal Cow (the Feminine).

Which, I think, is the answer to his own question:

"...how can we know whether we desire to lose or to find ourselves?"

By returning to our knowledge of the eternal flux, which is our own nature.

What “knowledge” are you speaking of? Can you explain how this “eternal flux” is our “own nature”?

-
Sue

Steven: bert writes in essences.

Sue: That is no excuse for not writing in sentences.

I guess so.

Though I can understand his impulse.

Creative expression self-ignites.

Steven: He also responds to the eternal (Tao).

Sue: By not writing in proper sentences, all he is “responding” to is that infernal Cow (the Feminine).

[laughs]

Could be.

But again, it takes knowledge of the Tao to really recognize his intention.

He makes his own rules.

His writing could use some verbatim.

bert, can you translate your own language?

Steven: Which, I think, is the answer to his own question:

"...how can we know whether we desire to lose or to find ourselves?"

By returning to our knowledge of the eternal flux, which is our own nature.

Sue: 1. What “knowledge” are you speaking of? 2. Can you explain how this “eternal flux” is our “own nature”?

1. The empty nature of reality - and its reliance to our own perception.

2. "You were never born, and you will never die."

Seeing that Nature is uncaused [. . . something can't arise out of nothing . . .] - it makes sense that we are also uncaused: Which makes all our actions caused, as well as predetermined.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

bert wrote:the 'I' becomes illusionary ,and we become lost to ourselves;then,how can we know whether we desire to lose or to find ourselves?

Neither, as there is no "I" to either lose or find.

:)

Quote:
Steven: He also responds to the eternal (Tao).

Sue: By not writing in proper sentences, all he is “responding” to is that infernal Cow (the Feminine).


[laughs]

Could be.

mine 'I' is a creator of cows! and 'he' loves their breasts!
not a cow-herd,or cows,nor grass!

What is Cow?isn't it a fountain?didst thou not crowd the spaces with cows of desire,unknown and manifesting and teach nature all secrets , didst thou not create God!?didst thou not create and destroy Woman?

But again, it takes knowledge of the Tao to really recognize his intention.

He makes his own rules.

His writing could use some verbatim.

bert, can you translate your own language?

to what?

bert wrote:didst thou not crowd the spaces with cows of desire,unknown and manifesting and teach nature all secrets , didst thou not create God!?didst thou not create and destroy Woman?

Quote:
But again, it takes knowledge of the Tao to really recognize his intention.

He makes his own rules.

His writing could use some verbatim.

bert, can you translate your own language?


to what?

Um, perhaps to modern English? Oh, I mean: If thou couldest, sire, imagine thine self to be in the 21st century. Nay, the 20th century would suffice. Speak then sire, with the tongue of your new native time.

bert, can you translate your own language?

why do you think artist use art?
what are they expressing?
why are creative ideas ill-birthed?
why did the ancient egyptians use illustrations?
how precise can you speak of a concept that dwells in between?


what we make factual ceases to have abstract value and thereby becomes his exact opposite.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

bert wrote:didst thou not crowd the spaces with cows of desire,unknown and manifesting and teach nature all secrets , didst thou not create God!?didst thou not create and destroy Woman?

Quote:
But again, it takes knowledge of the Tao to really recognize his intention.

He makes his own rules.

His writing could use some verbatim.

bert, can you translate your own language?


to what?

Um, perhaps to modern English? Oh, I mean: If thou couldest, sire, imagine thine self to be in the 21st century. Nay, the 20th century would suffice. Speak then sire, with the tongue of your new native time.

isn't my previous post 20th worthy?

The one quoted is 13th worthy. Your other posts that I saw were more modern - I thought you might be joking with your "thou"s and "didst"s, so I was following up with that.

bert wrote: what we make factual ceases to have abstract value and thereby becomes his exact opposite.

I can see value in various ways of communicating, but the degree to which people have no clue what we are talking about is the degree to which we are not communicating our ideas.

Salvador Dali may have been a great artist, but without listening to the tour guide, most people see far less than what is really in the paintings.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The one quoted is 13th worthy. Your other posts that I saw were more modern - I thought you might be joking with your "thou"s and "didst"s, so I was following up with that.

can you speak 21st?
I would enjoy some tips on that.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

bert wrote: what we make factual ceases to have abstract value and thereby becomes his exact opposite.

I can see value in various ways of communicating, but the degree to which people have no clue what we are talking about is the degree to which we are not communicating our ideas.

Salvador Dali may have been a great artist, but without listening to the tour guide, most people see far less than what is really in the paintings.

yeah,of course.

you look a good guide,
you explained it by 'factual thinking'.(a 21st century notion :))

bert wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The one quoted is 13th worthy. Your other posts that I saw were more modern - I thought you might be joking with your "thou"s and "didst"s, so I was following up with that.

can you speak 21st?
I would enjoy some tips on that.

The current year is 2006. We have been in the 21st century for almost seven years now.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

bert wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The one quoted is 13th worthy. Your other posts that I saw were more modern - I thought you might be joking with your "thou"s and "didst"s, so I was following up with that.

can you speak 21st?
I would enjoy some tips on that.

The current year is 2006. We have been in the 21st century for almost seven years now.

great!,many years time to catch up then

the factual thinking link:
http://nnw-folding.berlios.de/docs.php/intro-ftl

bert wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

bert wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The one quoted is 13th worthy. Your other posts that I saw were more modern - I thought you might be joking with your "thou"s and "didst"s, so I was following up with that.

can you speak 21st?
I would enjoy some tips on that.

The current year is 2006. We have been in the 21st century for almost seven years now.

great!,many years time to catch up then

the factual thinking link:
http://nnw-folding.berlios.de/docs.php/intro-ftl

Whoever wrote this website is a blithering moron. I'm sorry. The emperor is naked with his tiny flapdoodle exposed to all.

millipodium wrote:

bert wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

bert wrote: can you speak 21st?
I would enjoy some tips on that.

The current year is 2006. We have been in the 21st century for almost seven years now.

great!,many years time to catch up then

the factual thinking link:
http://nnw-folding.berlios.de/docs.php/intro-ftl

Whoever wrote this website is a blithering moron. I'm sorry. The emperor is naked with his tiny flapdoodle exposed to all.

how come?

bert wrote:

bert, can you translate your own language?

why do you think artist use art?
what are they expressing?
why are creative ideas ill-birthed?
why did the ancient egyptians use illustrations?
how precise can you speak of a concept that dwells in between?

what we make factual ceases to have abstract value and thereby becomes his exact opposite.

No, no . . .

I get where you're coming from (also an artist).

"Can you translate your abstractions into a more easily accessible form?"

Maybe by using illustrations, or mixing your visions with supporting statements, you'd be able to get your mind across more effectively.

I think you'd also find that by communicating with more effect, you'd sequentially access more knowledge -- seeing that all knowledge is self-endowed.

Steven Coyle wrote:

Steven: Which, I think, is the answer to his own question:

"...how can we know whether we desire to lose or to find ourselves?"

By returning to our knowledge of the eternal flux, which is our own nature.

Sue: 1. What “knowledge” are you speaking of? 2. Can you explain how this “eternal flux” is our “own nature”?

1. The empty nature of reality - and its reliance to our own perception.

Are you saying that without human consciousness, Nature doesn’t exist?

2. "You were never born, and you will never die."

Seeing that Nature is uncaused [. . . something can't arise out of nothing . . .] - it makes sense that we are also uncaused: Which makes all our actions caused, as well as predetermined.

You've a couple of ideas which you've slammed together. Perhaps if you'll explain a couple of points, your ideas will become clearer. How is Nature “uncaused”? And how are we both uncaused and caused?

-
Sue

Sue, many here enjoy mushing all concepts into a monolithic nonsensical garble. They enjoy destroying their own ability to think critically. It's the incestuous tripartite deformed love child of buddhism, philosophy, and new age craptacularity.

Steven Coyle wrote:

bert wrote:

bert, can you translate your own language?

why do you think artist use art?
what are they expressing?
why are creative ideas ill-birthed?
why did the ancient egyptians use illustrations?
how precise can you speak of a concept that dwells in between?

what we make factual ceases to have abstract value and thereby becomes his exact opposite.

No, no . . .

I get where you're coming from (also an artist).

"Can you translate your abstractions into a more easily accessible form?"

Maybe by using illustrations, or mixing your visions with supporting statements, you'd be able to get your mind across more effectively.

I think you'd also find that by communicating with more effect, you'd sequentially access more knowledge -- seeing that all knowledge is self-endowed.

it took much effort to built up the essences into a practical whole.one can not just jump that easily out of a framework that is already extremely evolved and think that it could be expressed as easily and above all effectively as it was.I know perfectly what I mean with everything I say,that others can not relate to it does not matter to that what is said.

but I'll make an effort to express myself more effectively.

The empty nature of reality - and its reliance to our own perception.

Are you saying that without human consciousness, Nature doesn’t exist?

What you see above is an attempt at describing emptiness. "Reliance" was a poor word choice.

"You were never born, and you will never die."

Seeing that Nature is uncaused [. . . something can't arise out of nothing . . .] - it makes sense that we are also uncaused: Which makes all our actions caused, as well as predetermined.

You've a couple of ideas which you've slammed together. Perhaps if you'll explain a couple of points, your ideas will become clearer. 1. How is Nature “uncaused”? 2. And how are we both uncaused and caused?

1. Conceptually, Nature is uncaused, due to the logical impossiblity of something arising from nothing.

2. An unclear explaination of causality spanning back for countless eons.