GENIUS FORUMS

A person lives until he enters either into the Absolute or into Nothingness. In freedom he himself determines his future life; he chooses God or Nothingness. He annihilates himself or creates himself unto eternal life. For him a double progress is possible: one toward eternal life (to perfect wisdom and holiness, to a condition fully adequate to the idea of the True and the Good) and one toward eternal annihilation. However, he continually advances in one of these two directions; there is no third.

The above is an aphorism of Weininger's, pulled from David Quinn's site. From this aphorism, I present my analysis of the limitations of Weininger's thinking. For the reasons stated below, I say it is limited/false thinking to believe:

a) that man can know, therefore enter, annihilation
b) that a man can know, therefore enter, the absolute
c) that a man can know creation so that he can create himself into eternal life

It is my analysis that Weininger confused the absolute with the relative, trying to blend the two, when they cannot be blended, and that the reason he confused the two, is that he had not gone deep into the silence of himself to discover the indestructible, silent Life of himself. Instead, he remained within the walls of his intellect, erroneously assigning the conditioned qualities of the intellect to the unconditioned silence of the absolute. And by unconditioned silence, I am not suggesting nothingness, which is the concept Weininger uses, rather, I am suggesting something: something real, yet unknown by the senses. Only the ego of man's ignorance could suggest such a thing as annilhiation into nothingness is possible. I cannot know for certain why Weininger failed to go beyond his intellect, but given the fact that he was raised Jewish, and that he equated Jewishness with "womaness", perhaps he failed to transcend this conditioning, which would, of course, effect/affect his philosophy on the relationship of the absolute to the relative. Given that he died at the tender age of 23, it is highly unlikely that he had cut much away of his conditioning to his philosophy of the archetypal feminine Jew.

It is my analysis that Weininger was a genius of his time [he died in 1903], but not of this time. It is my belief that he successfully identified the falseness of human feeling, of sentimentality, of possessiveness and of neediness, which were common societal expectations/traits of the women of his time. However, he was not gifted of the genius that the God of the Absolute is no respecter of persons, no respecter of cause or causes, a critical unrealized piece of expanded wisdom that allows an individual to live in peace with his compassion-feeling body while he retains the wisdom of its impermanence.

"There are three possibilities for me - the gallows, suicide, or a future so brilliant that I don't dare to think of it." (Otto Weininger)

I've often felt this way about myself over the years. And I still do at times. Though now-a-days suicide and the gallows seem to be out of the picture.

Bob, it is interesting, is it not, that you believe you have found your divine nature, and yet, you admit to having "undivine" thoughts. I say this not to cast criticism, but in the spirit of being touched of the truth of the human condition. The truth that we are aware of being caught in the human condition of our dual thoughts, as are we aware that as long as we continue breathing, we are moved, by some unseen force, to transcend this duality. In contemplating his brilliant future, Weininger was demonstrating his awareness of transcendence, be it conscious or unconscious, was he not? I have to believe that it was unconscious, for had he not succumbed to this thoughts of suicide at the tender age of 23, he would have eventually come face to face with the realization that he was repeating the same imagined 'future' again and again and again. Perhaps had he come to this sense of futility of circular transcendence, he might have broken through that stubborn intellect of his that believed that it is possible to separate the dualities and know the absolute.

Whenever I hear words of praise of my supposed "brilliance", not future, but present, and find myself feeling the prick of pride, I am simultaneously aware of the prick upon my conscience that tells me, not by words, but by an invisible touch, a feeling, a spark, that I am full of shit. That I am full of shit because the truth of "It" is, that I know nothing. It is my belief that at the core of every "wise" man, of every "spiritual" man, is this awareness that no matter what he says that he believes is "brilliant", or original, that in the next moment, he is made aware that he is full of shit. If this were not so, then the "wise" man could rest on his opus, and be silent ever after. How many "wise" men do you know that are silent once they have revealed their "brilliance?" The turning law of relativity is unrelenting - brilliance is related to ignorance; experience the brilliance and the ignorance is not far behind. This is why I say it is delusional to believe one can know or enter the absolute.

To me, this is the greatest wisdom a man can possess, that his thoughts of his own brilliance and ignorance is a pile of dung. If this thought brings a man to contemplate or commit suicide, as I believe it did Weininger, then has he not exposed himself to his ego that believes it can know, absolutely, that such a thing as annihilation of consciousness exists?

I am moved to end this post with my discovery of what, for me, fills in that awareness that everything I say or do is but a pile of fertilizer for the next thing I say or do. And that is the thought "acceptance." Yes it is a metaphor, no it is not absolute, but it is a living metaphor, for that "touch" of life that is, regardless of my thoughts about it, is all I have in this realm of metaphors. I have accepted my not knowing, and live from this 'spot.' Sometimes this metaphor becomes "love" or "compassion" or "laughter", I don't quibble about the words any more. All I know is that these living metaphors hold me while I am aware that my spoken words are full of shit. :-)

And could it be, that this living metaphor of acceptance of the delusional/illusory grasp of the absolute is the "sensitivity" of "soul" which you seek?

movingalways wrote:Bob, it is interesting, is it not, that you believe you have found your divine nature, and yet, you admit to having "undivine" thoughts.

You'll have to fill me in on this one, m/t.

I say this not to cast criticism, but in the spirit of being touched of the truth of the human condition. The truth that we are aware of being caught in the human condition of our dual thoughts, as are we aware that as long as we continue breathing, we are moved, by some unseen force, to transcend this duality.

I suggest that we (a few of us) are or can be moved by our keen soul or organismal sensitivity to transcend duality and form a union with the Infinite.

In contemplating his brilliant future, Weininger was demonstrating his awareness of transcendence, be it conscious or unconscious, was he not?

I think Weininger saw himself as the guiding light for the transformation of the human species and being instrumental in bringing in a Golden Age.

I have to believe that it was unconscious, for had he not succumbed to this thoughts of suicide at the tender age of 23, he would have eventually come face to face with the realization that he was repeating the same imagined 'future' again and again and again. Perhaps had he come to this sense of futility of circular transcendence, he might have broken through that stubborn intellect of his that believed that it is possible to separate the dualities and know the absolute.

I think his suicide was the result of his eventual realization that it was not time for such an event to take place, nor was he going to play a hand in it, save for his writings. So rather than continuing to live on in the wall-to-wall human darkness and madness, which he clearly saw, he simply decided to leave the scene.

I've often thought along this very line myself, though obviously I still remain on the planet. Though the thoughts of why still occasionally creep in. History reveals that many men who rose above all of their self-delusion went insane, committed suicide (or entered into mahasamadhi), or slid back into some self-delusion and were able to find reasonable comfort in it. Some too became ambulatorily insane and fooled the hell out of a lot of people.

And could it be, that this living metaphor of acceptance of the delusional/illusory grasp of the absolute is the "sensitivity" of "soul" which you seek?

I'm one with that which I sought. At least much of the time. Though it surely isn't much fun being the only such one.

Note: I snipped and didn't reply to a portion of your post, m/a, as I felt it drifted too far away from the practical, down-to-earth aspect of things.

Weininger wrote:A person lives until he enters either into the Absolute or into Nothingness. In freedom he himself determines his future life; he chooses God or Nothingness. He annihilates himself or creates himself unto eternal life. For him a double progress is possible: one toward eternal life (to perfect wisdom and holiness, to a condition fully adequate to the idea of the True and the Good) and one toward eternal annihilation. However, he continually advances in one of these two directions; there is no third.

He is talking about nirvana and samsara. The enlightened person is conscious of the Absolute, or "God", and his place within it. The deluded person is headed towards unconsciousness, or "nothingness"(because nothing appears to a completely unconscious person.)

Weininger was all too aware of the fact that enlightenment is but a hairsbreadth away from ignorance, and yet there is an abyss of difference between the two. The pain that the knowledge of his own shortcomings caused him was too much for him to bear, and I believe that it was this that killed him.

It is my belief that he successfully identified the falseness of human feeling, of sentimentality, of possessiveness and of neediness, which were common societal expectations/traits of the women of his time.

These expectations exist even today, and to a much greater extent than a century or two ago. The feminine is everywhere held to be the pinnacle of virtue. However, precisely because people have become more feminine/unconscious, they think that they are freer than anyone has ever been before.

However, he was not gifted of the genius that the God of the Absolute is no respecter of persons, no respecter of cause or causes

It doesn't matter that God doesn't respect an individual. All that matters is that an individual should respect God, and therefore, himself.

He is talking about nirvana and samsara. The enlightened person is conscious of the Absolute, or "God", and his place within it. The deluded person is headed towards unconsciousness, or "nothingness"(because nothing appears to a completely unconscious person.

Obviously neither you nor I can say with certainty what Weininger was talking about, but thoughts are good launching points for discourse, regardless of who speaks them. What you have missed here, is that Weininger has it backwards: he states that a person lives until he enters the Absolute or Nothingness. What is the nature of this living of which he speaks until the entry into this or that? One either lives of their awareness of the Absolute, whatever that is to them, or one lives of their awareness of Nothingness, whatever that is to them. Weininger falsely separated living from the Absolute and Nothingess, which rendered both things into hollow concepts of projection.

These expectations exist even today, and to a much greater extent than a century or two ago. The feminine is everywhere held to be the pinnacle of virtue. However, precisely because people have become more feminine/unconscious, they think that they are freer than anyone has ever been before.

Out of ignorance, unenlightened men and women pursue the material form; to me, this is the key point. Once this point is made, all the hullabaloo related to the effects that are born of this ignorance become moot. I see the value in rejecting human love or human sex as a way to transcend one's attachment to material form, but this renunciation of human form is not the completeness of renunciation. Attachment to reason, "the male principle", also must be transcended.

It doesn't matter that God doesn't respect an individual. All that matters is that an individual should respect God, and therefore, himself.

It is it key to attaining wisdom that one realize that God doesn't respect an individual, for this realization gives the individual awareness that unlike man, God is eternally and infinitely balanced. And in knowing this, an individual receives the wisdom that all that is needed to be a perfect expression of this perfect balance is "to be still and know that I am God." My central point is that Weininger, and most philosophers of reason, fail to bring this wisdom of the unknown, invisible, perfectly balanced God to light, and in doing so, falsely believe, as Weininger and so many philosophers of reason falsely believed that in becoming wise, a man can "create himself into eternal life [Weininger's words]." Wise men speak of the non-dual God that already IS created, of which man is not separate, and then, in the next breath, speak of creating a separate world of human virtues and values based on dual thinking.

This belief is the respecting of a God of ego, of self, for it is, as I say, that God is already balanced, that God is already created, as is Its 'thought' 'man.' This is why it is critical that a man pursuing wisdom realize that all he needs to do to respect the God that already IS to move his ego out of the way. To be guided by his conscience of creation, which being always in balance, will bring a devoted, obedient man to balance in his day to day living.

If a man holds to the thought that reason is the way of God, rather than reason is the way to tame the mind so that a man can come to a perfectly balanced God who is beyond reason, then he remains stuck worshipping/honoring the human god of reason, rather than the God [the law of the Spirit of life, the Tao, Nibbana] of the wholeness and perfection of NOW.

Bob, it is the covering of the human ego that believes it can escape the world [of its thoughts] by way of suicide, for it is the human ego that cannot see that there is no escaping its world of thoughts. There is no annihilation of man, for man is a child, a thought, of Life. Man cannot escape his thought world, regardless the appearance of himself, to himself. "No thought returns void" is an eternal principle, so until the darkness of "dualism" is transcended [suicide is an ideal of dualism], it remains in man's consciousness, flesh body or not.

As for being practical, this is an example of a human virtue of the covering of ego. If one lets their conscience of wholeness and of perfection be their guide, there is no need to consider human virtues of the darkness of ego.

Bob, it is interesting, is it not, that you believe you have found your divine nature, and yet, you admit to having "undivine" thoughts.

You'll have to fill me in on this one, m/t.

First, I will need to give you my definition of "divine." Which is any thought or thoughts that reconciles the world of belief in dualism unto Its non-dual Source, the key world being "reconciles." Thoughts of suicide are not divine by my definition, for they are thoughts of belief in dualism, which means they are not of the activity of reconciliation, but of division.

What are "divine" thoughts of reconciliation? Living expressions of unconditional love/acceptance, compassion, unity, thoughts that I believe many here erroneously apply to the human concept of "feminine", and in doing so, thwart their own transformation from being of their human mentality of reason to being of their divine Presence of reconciling reason to Its non-dual Source. As long as there is an interpretation of the world that seeks to divide it into good and evil, which is the way of reason, divinity of thought is not consciously present.

Sorry m/t, but you're too abstract and theoretical here to suit me. Hence I have nothing further to add. Save that I sit content with my previous views on Wieninger.

The spiritual life (or the enlightened life) is not a theory nor an analytical or intellectual adventure - it has to be LIVED!

Bob Michael wrote:The spiritual life (or the enlightened life) is not a theory nor an analytical or intellectual adventure - it has to be LIVED!

My point precisely. However, one needs to know by what "I am" they are living their life. Am I living of the world, or in the world, is the enlightening question. If a man is living of his thoughts of suicide, he is living of the world, for God, who is all of Life, who is every thing of Life, cannot commit suicide. Is it conscious union with man's mind that you desire, or conscious union with God's? If it is the latter, then it is clear to me that thoughts of suicide, except for the intent of teaching of its illusory nature, need to be purged from your consciousness. How is this done? By realizing that you are omnipresent as God is omnipresent, but that your attachment to your humanism is preventing you from realizing this truth of your totality.

If you cannot see my vision of the two way of thinking of suicide, no problem. I am, however, by conscience, directed to share them with you. You stepped into my thread, which placed you in my field of awareness, into my conscience of Life. :-)

movingalways wrote:

Bob Michael wrote:The spiritual life (or the enlightened life) is not a theory nor an analytical or intellectual adventure - it has to be LIVED!

My point precisely. However, one needs to know by what "I am" they are living their life. Am I living of the world, or in the world, is the enlightening question. If a man is living of his thoughts of suicide, he is living of the world, for God, who is all of Life, who is every thing of Life, cannot commit suicide. Is it conscious union with man's mind that you desire, or conscious union with God's? If it is the latter, then it is clear to me that thoughts of suicide, except for the intent of teaching of its illusory nature, need to be purged from your consciousness. How is this done? By realizing that you are omnipresent as God is omnipresent, but that your attachment to your humanism is preventing you from realizing this truth of your totality.

If you cannot see my vision of the two way of thinking of suicide, no problem. I am, however, by conscience, directed to share them with you. You stepped into my thread, which placed you in my field of awareness, into my conscience of Life. :-)

And if one can't fully live it or he reaches a stuck point or his work is finished then dying remains a perfectly acceptable option.

"Many die too late, and some die too early. Yet strange sounds the precept: "Die at the right time!" Die at the right time: so teaches Zarathustra. To be sure, he who never lives at the right time, how could he ever die at the right time? Would that he might never be born! - Thus do I advise the superfluous. But even the superfluous make much ado about their death - even the hollow nut wants to be cracked. Everyone regards dying as a great matter: but as yet death is not a festival. Not yet have people learned to inaugurate the finest festivals. The consummating death I show to you, which becomes a spur and promise to the living. The man consummating his life dies triumphantly, surrounded by men full of hope and promise. Thus should one learn to die; and there should be no festival at which such a dying one does not consecrate the oaths of the living!" (Nietzsche)

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." (Christ)

movingalways wrote:First, I will need to give you my definition of "divine." Which is any thought or thoughts that reconciles the world of belief in dualism unto Its non-dual Source, the key world being "reconciles." Thoughts of suicide are not divine by my definition, for they are thoughts of belief in dualism, which means they are not of the activity of reconciliation, but of division.

What are "divine" thoughts of reconciliation? Living expressions of unconditional love/acceptance, compassion, unity, thoughts that I believe many here erroneously apply to the human concept of "feminine", and in doing so, thwart their own transformation from being of their human mentality of reason to being of their divine Presence of reconciling reason to Its non-dual Source. As long as there is an interpretation of the world that seeks to divide it into good and evil, which is the way of reason, divinity of thought is not consciously present.

The free-spirit is beyond good and evil and to get 'there' requires understanding both good and evil and the real culprits of the human darkness - self-centeredness and wickedness. Upon which time reason ends and there's divinity of thought, and, even more importantly, divinity of action.

Bob, what I have come to realize, is that I betrayed my own wisdom of individual, subject-object union of God's subject-object omnipresence, my own divinity of action, by starting this thread, projecting my opinions of Weininger's philosophy and actions for discussion, when my opinions of Weininger's philosophy and actions or anyone else's philosophy and actions, including yours, Dennis', David's, etc., is the very thing that hinders my being in subject-object union with God's subject-object omnipresence. I am That is the voice of the absolute, not I think that.

The absolute, as I see it, has nothing to do with opining logically or illogically about someone's thought world, this is to self righteously flagellate a subject-object moment that is dead and gone, rather, the absolute has to do with the manifestation of this very moment of living. I am hungry, I eat. I am thirsty, I drink. I am without shelter, I find shelter. This is to be alive to the conscience of the unconditioned and unconditional absolute, for none of these things are of the conditioned, self righteous ego of "I think, therefore I am."

Blessings on the moment by moment manifestation of your subject-object world, whatever it is to you. Blessing on mine as well. :-)

movingalways wrote:What is the nature of this living of which he speaks until the entry into this or that?

I think he means delusions, i.e, partial consciousness. A deluded person can become fully conscious, or fully unconscious.

Out of ignorance, unenlightened men and women pursue the material form; to me, this is the key point.

The "material form" is the femininity or "Woman" that Weininger talks about.

Attachment to reason, "the male principle", also must be transcended.

I don't think one can be "attached" to reason, as that would be logically impossible. However, one can give the name of "reason" to one's attachments. Most people think that doing what makes you feel happy is perfectly reasonable.

It is it key to attaining wisdom that one realize that God doesn't respect an individual

I find it useful to define "God" as "everything that exists." In the context of that definition, it doesn't mean anything to talk about respect. Except if you use it poetically to mean something in the lines of being humble and accepting the fact of your finite, transient nature.

a man can "create himself into eternal life [Weininger's words]."

Even though man is born, and dies, in time, he is eternal as a part of the All, because it can never be denied that he is part of the All. By "creating himself" Weininger probably refers to the process of becoming conscious of this fact.

If a man holds to the thought that reason is the way of God, rather than reason is the way to tame the mind so that a man can come to a perfectly balanced God who is beyond reason, then he remains stuck worshipping/honoring the human god of reason, rather than the God [the law of the Spirit of life, the Tao, Nibbana] of the wholeness and perfection of NOW.

God may be beyond reason, but the only way to understand God is through reason alone. That is what reason dictates, or, if you will, God dictates through reason.

jupiviv:

movingalways: It is it key to attaining wisdom that one realize that God doesn't respect an individual

I find it useful to define "God" as "everything that exists." In the context of that definition, it doesn't mean anything to talk about respect. Except if you use it poetically to mean something in the lines of being humble and accepting the fact of your finite, transient nature.

You are right, God has no need to respect anyone or anything, as God's nature is of omniety. My statement was a reference to a scripture, which I believe references the truth that no man who believes himself human can say he speaks for the God for every man. Humility, from this perspective, is the accepting that you have to put to rest every human concept of God.

Even though man is born, and dies, in time, he is eternal as a part of the All, because it can never be denied that he is part of the All. By "creating himself" Weininger probably refers to the process of becoming conscious of this fact.

As I said above, I was in error in even attempting to interpret Weininger's words, for I cannot know, nor can anyone know, WHAT he meant.

God may be beyond reason, but the only way to understand God is through reason alone. That is what reason dictates, or, if you will, God dictates through reason.

I agree that one must reason themselves to going beyond reason, and that God, of unseen and unknown principles of thought, is the initiator of this reasoning, but where I part way with most on this forum, is that once one has gone beyond reason to stand in their awareness of the equality of God, A = A, that the thinking world of this individual is no longer one of reason, that has been left behind, but one of righteous or right thinking. This may seem to be nit-picking on my part, as the infinite God does not think righteously any more than the infinite God reasons, but is not the awareness of the nature of A = A not a righteous awareness [right thinking of God] rather than a reasonable or reasoning nature?

I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. The Way is reasoning; the Truth is what reasoning reveals, A = A, God's omniety; the Life is righteous thinking born of this revelation.

movingalways wrote:I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. The Way is reasoning; the Truth is what reasoning reveals, A = A, God's omniety; the Life is righteous thinking born of this revelation.

And, What next?

You keep saying it, not walking the walk. When does the silence from MA start?

To whom are you communicating this?

Are you in infinity? If so, what difference does it make? If not, why do you keep hammering on the same thing, and why do you think that what you say has any merit whatsoever?

Why do you ask?

You express yourself in a way that indicates you have all the answers.

I'll put that down to a Fail on your part then.