I think this last post of yours provides a tiny bit more than the last one I remember:
- Bluerap wrote: "Is it not telling that at the end, in your massively in-depth analysis of the personalities, that you admit that you have no conclusive answer?"
You don't have the perspective to speak about what my position is, since you are quite new here and have not, I don't think, read my posts which go back 3 years or something.
This last post, the one you responded to, is filled with ideas that you or anyone can discuss. Take any one of them and do that (if it pleases you). If you were as capable of talking things through, thinking things through, you would already have done this. But when one looks at your posts, as I just did, one sees essentially...nothing. All you do is repeat and uphold a few QRS-tian ideas about an Omniverse or God-knows-what and some other mocked-up chitter-chatter. Seriously. Click on your profile button and then see the list of your posts.
You are just one of
DOZENS of limited 'thinkers' who come here to perfect some rap about emptiness, the Totality, and other such jive. It is bullshit and requires no response. Far more important is the issue of the way ideas are used to construct traps.
"Indeed you are very creative (and quite often perverted) in your analysis of the individuals."
Speak about that. Don't just refer to it, speak about it. You seem to want to engage in discussion, so here is your chance.
"You're quite convinced that you "have us all figured out," and therefore choose to not engage in unbiased discussion."
What I am quite convinced about, yes, is the terribly limited content of ideas that knock around in your head. And perhaps 'your heads'. If I have you 'figured out' it is only that I see (it is easy to see) that you operate from a limited mental palette. You are like a machine with three moving parts, no more. Again, click on your profile and examine your own posts. You might just as well never have posted if this is what you have to offer.
'Unbiased discussion'---here?!?---has got to be the biggest joke of the last week. There is no such thing as 'unbiased discussion'. Again, look at the limited group of ideas you work with and see the core tendentiousness in them. Then, tell me you are interested in 'unbiased discussion'. Who for Pete's sake wants unbiased discussion? Unbiased discussion, here, is one TB (true believer) reciting some pablum to another TB. Try to understand the way these things are rehearsed. Try to understand why I use the term 'rehearse'.
"This is your downfall, and is the definition of closed-mindedness."
It might be fair to say such a thing if, like you, I had just come on here. But I assure you this is not the case. Again, you would have to examine alot of writing and I don't think you have. If the discussion, in your eyes, has to do with 'open-mindedness', in what way do you contribute to opening of the mind? What are the limits for you? I will keep on assuming that my mind is quite a bit more 'open' than yours, if you please.
The nature of the way ideas are worked here, is to shrink them. The use of the term Omniverse and Totality functions as a brutal reduction. See this.
"The extent of your discussion of "ideas" is the functions they serve. 'Ideas have consequences' is about as deep as you get into it. You spend most of your time painting out these imagined 'consequences.' Interestingly, you never allow the debate to reach into and dismantle your own ideas."
Well, in some way you have arrived at an 'important core'. To whom shall you give the power to 'dismantle' your ideas? Just anyone? If ever you actually did this (you, Mr Bluerap), who would you allow to perform it? Your school psychologist? Your girlfriend? Or perhaps a marketing psychologist who wishes to know just how you tick? Or perhaps 'Osho' or any number of self-proclaimed gurus interested in building ashrams? Who is the one who shall dissect you, label the parts, categorize them, and then explain them? Do you think that David Quinn or Diebert or Kelly should be allowed this right? On what basis---
quo warranto---should they have this right? Shall you surrended yourself to them for this analysis?
It is not so much that saying 'ideas have consequences' that is particularly original (I believe I got it from Francis Schaeffer but have bent it for my own purposes), but to say them
HERE in this forum among
essential sycophants, is very much a radical act. Now, this 'dissection' that you speak of---mark this!---is a game that is played here, a game of
managing appearances. Only a fool would submit to such a procedure in an environment such as this.
And I absolutely do indeed critique 'the person' because that is the only 'thing' that has any ultimate relevance. This is not a 'debate' in a school gymnasium about the pros and cons of recycling.
"Deep and truthful observation destroys feelings and emotions, and leaves only bare, raw information (knowledge). Indeed, this must feel very "darkening" and "deadening" to you."
This is a content-lade
package, a swirl of stark presuppositions, and a vital reduction on your part. If your thinking has three moving parts, this must surely be the mainspring. What you are stating here, to all appearances, is a romantic projection, some wishful thinking, an attempt to reflect, mirror and rehearse some pseudo-Buddhist ideas you have picked up and
installed in your head.
Feelings and emotions must never be 'destroyed', not in the way you mean. So, yes, to
USE ideas as a tool to 'destroy' vital parts of your own self, that must be worked with for all the duration of your life, in your own self and in others who share the field with you, is a
death-idea. It is fake, insincere and has much to do with 'image-management'.
