On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

[Jason]

I've got a sneaking suspicion that Alex is scientifically "illiterate", possibly even fundamentally scientifically incapable/incompetent. If that's so, I wonder how much that fact plays into his dislike of scientific modernity. He's just not good at it(science) like he is at humanities/arts, so science-centric modernity doesn't suit him well - it disempowers him personally.

[Alex T. Jacob]

David wrote: "I simply reject what is either superfluous or a hindrance to the task of diving directly into truth. I can't help it if you have a dread of this diving and an attachment to whatever spares you from having to contemplate it."

No, you pretty much completely missed my point, as usual. I am obviously speaking to people with a monolithic mental structure (the TBs of GF) so this doesn't surprise me at all. The issue, as I see it, the problem, is exactly this monolithic structure. You have a grandiose sense of your own self and your accomplishment, and it seems that those attracted to you see themselves, or wish to see themselves in a similar light. What has come to me from 'diving directly into truth' is so different from what you have contrived. For people with a sort of disease of thinking---a polarized, reduced mind---this fact cannot be reconciled with a definition of Truth as 1) something one person possesses and 'doles out', and 2) a unitary and singular thing. To understand this conflict, one only needs to stand back and look at the type of mind that is forumlating these tendentious and personal 'absolutes'.

What I 'dread', and what we should all dread, is religious tendencies that become tied to absolutist psychological positions that reduce the scope and width of spiritual experience and understanding and, in most cases, rapidly convert themselves into a destructive, limiting and consuming processes. Within that, I'll bet, you will find a compulsive 'meme' that has the ability to reproduce itself.

"I beg to disagree. If I valued truth and reason back then to the same degree as I do now, then my approach and use of language would be exactly the same as it is today. The process of going beyond culture and diving directly into truth never changes. It is timeless."

No, it wouldn't be the same as it is today because our own selves and certainly our language are constantly shifting. You with your basic temperment would likely act and perhaps think similarly, but the conceptual tool at your disposal would be different. The process is 'timeless' as you say in the sense (I think) of the description of the spiritual initiation process, but not in specifics. It is not 'post-modernist' to think in these terms, it is more common sense. Also, it allows ones understanding of things greater range in understanding other people, other times and places. I suggest that, correctly handled, it leads to a more (er-hum) 'mature' position.

"If they were trying to justify their own cowardice with childish games and misleading people away from the direct path to truth, then yes, I would."

This is one of your standard armaments, within a boy's game of armaments. Obviously the jab is directed at me (or am I getting paranoid?). You think that I hold to these positions as against yours because of 'cowardice'. But it seems to me you use that 'argument' unfairly. You want to paint yourself as brave---a courageous explorer of the golden roads of truth---yet you yourself, with your reductions, your lack of willingness to see in wider terms, and your need to collect people together under the hen's breast of reductionist ideology and rhetoric, may actually have the coward's position. I would point out again that you refer to this grand and invisible 'direct truth' and yet you do not, can not and will not define it. We must rely on your personality and on the things you say to divine what this 'great truth' is. Apparently, it is not such a great truth. It looks like posturing and fakery and, as I have said, a structure of belief more suitable to a cult. It doesn't surprise me that your best disciples jump in to 'defend' you (with the weakest contributions, unfortunately). It is a serious game that is played here and much more hinges on it than one would think.

"Your use of the term "core presuppositions" is biased and crafty on your part, since it serves to level everyone on the same playing field (and forms part of the overall theme of turning everyone into ants). It seems that you are only really comfortable when everyone in the world is reduced to being ants stuck within a collective."

I think you misunderstand. It actually clarifies a great deal. To understand anyone's position and all their opining we need to try to discover, to extract, their core presuppositions. To get at them through what is often lots of fog. I suggest that you have and operate with and from a set of rigid 'presuppositions'. I also suggest that these presuppositions of yours are lopsided, 'tendentious' as I like to say, incomplete, and reductionist. But the walls you build for them are ones couched in such terms as 'absolute truths', the 'direct path to truth', etc. You set yourself up as the quintessential obscurantist priest---really, you have the whole trip going! You are making this into a sort of cult of your own personality. It will likely get worse before it gets better...

"If everyone simply operates out of different "core presuppositions" and if no mention is made of how true or false these presuppositions are, then everything becomes a matter of relativity and everyone becomes exactly the same. Like ants."

No. All presuppositions have to be examined carefully. Your and mine. The question of what is 'true and false' is an oh-so-subtle one especially when it comes to the grand, existential questions. How we determine what is true and false, in life, is different from the way we find true and false in a mathematical equation. Also, we have to remain open as 'truth' is something that constantly renews itself insofar as our perceptions grow and change. (You missed this utterly, but when I mentioned something 'whispering' the truth to me, I only meant that one receives or feels certain things as being 'true', not that I talk with a genie or something. The clue was the quotations around the word.)

"Or more deeply, you're trying to pretend that partying with spirits is on the same level as diving directly into God."

Here, I think, we get to some of your 'core presuppositions'. It both surprises me and doesn't. When I speak about 'ramps' and 'accesses' this is what I mean. Your core presupposition is that you indeed control and administer this direct access to God. Truthfully, such an assertion is astounding on your part. But I know from reading you and seeing what sort of 'fruit' is produced here, that you are essentially a religious fanatic. Again, 'take away a man's gods and they have a way of worming their way back in'. You begin to look and act like a Calvinist priest, and when pushed, and pushed more, you indeed reveal your 'presuppositions'.

I used the example of the 'shamanic model' as a way to structure perception. I didn't offer it as the ultimate 'map' but as a general outline. I spoke of shamans because all our religions and spirituality originate from this very ancient tendency and perhaps 'use of self'. I spoke of 'spirits' not because I invoke them or communicate with them, but because (perhaps psychologically) the notion of 'spirits' is a good way to think about such things. For example, I would say that here at GF there are some very 'possessive' spirits, some very 'reductionist' spirits. These tendencies, when they are not recognized, have a habit of getting a hold of people, and of 'possessing' them. It is just a way to talk. I am not offering some sort of spiritualism.

"But demons are also needed for more crafty purposes. Just as a clever spy goes out of his way to not look like a spy, a clever demon goes out of his way to not look like a demon. As such, his remit would include appearing like an angel, posing as a shaman, being charismatic, offering enigmatic riddles, speaking half-truths, writing bibles, bestowing heavenly visions, creating synchronicities, showering happiness, connecting with your soul, etc. The possibilities are endless. I'm sure they have a lot of fun with this sort of thing."

In a previous post I thought I noted an essential Manichean position! Here, I think we get a view into other 'presuppositions', and I would assume this is how you view 'reality'. The Manichean philosophy is pretty interesting and was pretty widespread. It is a way to look at things, a 'lens'. It also could incline toward paranoia, leading to isolation, solidifying reductions into 'absolute truths'.

Again, the value of these conversations is just getting some of this stuff out in the open. Taking a look at it.

Jason writes: "I've got a sneaking suspicion that Alex is scientifically "illiterate", possibly even fundamentally scientifically incapable/incompetent. If that's so, I wonder how much that fact plays into his dislike of scientific modernity. He's just not good at it(science) like he is at humanities/arts, so science-centric modernity doesn't suit him well - it disempowers him personally."

It's pretty clear that in many ways the polarity and conflict between me and some of you is 'classically' between the two minds: literary and mathematical. It is also true that I am not strong in science, but I do try to read what I can. I appreciate 'science' as a technique for investigating material reality. I don't think that the same technique or tool can function in the widest context of understanding Life or living life.

[Robert]

Alex, when reading your writings between David and yourself, I often have the mental image of both of you playing ball. David throws softballs towards you, you sling the bat with much force yet somehow never manage to hit them. It's like you're looking somewhere else or you're half blindfolded, not looking at the ball or unable to see it, not following its trajectory but diligently and frustratingly swinging away anyway, sure that sooner or later you'll knock one out of the park.

I know you could say the same but in reverse, from your perspective. I only offer this as a silly mental image I have, I don't intend any meanness by it. What's weird is that I've never played softball in my life.

[Alex T. Jacob]

No worries, Robert. I would wager that you are more of a participant in the general structure of view that David holds, am I right? So, you see him pitching with such earnest precision, and you understand 'the ball', it is one that makes sense to you. And you see me swinging, and flailing, and it would seem that this leads yo to feel that David will soon or has already 'struck me out' with his truth-pitches. All that is fair enough. It is a question of perceptions. 'Presuppositions'.

It is true that I tend to be ambitious in all my writing. It is both a strength and a weakness. In fiction I have a 'writing coach' who points this out to me. His view (in defense) is that by having ambitions you can always, at least, pull back from them. But if you have no ambitions or small ambitions you may never write anything very good.

Funny, I have played lots of baseball and lots of softball. I was known as a hitter who could hit the ball in any direction I wanted, either to right or left field or to center. It has to do with how one positions one's body in relation to the plate when the pitch is coming in.
_______________________________________________________

Manichaeism

[Robert]

No worries, Robert. I would wager that you are more of a participant in the general structure of view that David holds, am I right? So, you see him pitching with such earnest precision, and you understand 'the ball', it is one that makes sense to you. And you see me swinging, and flailing, and it would seem that this leads yo to feel that David will soon or has already 'struck me out' with his truth-pitches. All that is fair enough. It is a question of perceptions. 'Presuppositions'.

It was more simply just the image of being off target in your responses rather than some actual game of "presuppositions". But yes, if you like, to my mind what David is trying to target are the presuppositions in an attempt to dismantle and chip away at them for you (or anyone who is compelled to) see them for what they are. It just appears to me that you're more enjoying yourself pretending to play rather than actually take it seriously (this game analogy is petering out fast... ;).

[Alex T. Jacob]

Robert wrote: "But yes, if you like, to my mind what David is trying to target are the presuppositions in an attempt to dismantle and chip away at them for you (or anyone who is compelled to) see them for what they are. It just appears to me that you're more enjoying yourself pretending to play rather than actually take it seriously".

David defines his core role in life as being such a 'chipper away'. It would of course follow from his self-definition and from the group of constructs he operates with.

What exactly are my 'presuppositions'--the ones that govern this conversation and direct my responses---no one has yet attempted to define. Well, except David recently by linking me to a Satanic force, to a force or power, conscious or unconscious, that seeks to mire, confuse and hold back from (what he defines as) 'direct access to God'.

What I am doing, and what I have been doing here since late Summer of 2007 when I first arrived, is to take advantage of a situation, a place where a certain conversation takes place, attempting to maximize my benefit.

The part that most likely confuses you is that I no longer hold to the kind of spiritual ideas you (and others) seem to be attracted to. My own inner experiences, that have completely marked and molded my life, I have never and will never abandon. They are fundamental to me and to all that I think and write. But I am decidedly and adamantly opposed to Absolutism, and don't really care where it is pulled from; the Bible, Lao Tsu, Kierkegaard or a Cracker Jack box. I don't think any of you have followed---I honestly don't think you are capable of following I am sorry to say---but I feel that 'we' are perhaps on the threshold of some very new ways to understand 'spiritual life', and I think we are defining a New Mysticism. That's one part. The other part for me personally is my own interest in what I have termed Hispanicism. It is not the right word and yet it holds some clues to what I myself am interested in a life-philsophy. I find it expressed, in some ways, by the likes of Miguel de Unamuno (philosopher), JR Jimenez (poet), and other people who have come out of this school. It is unlike the North European thrust, is far more 'humanistic' it is true, defines a 'transcendence' in a unique and I think substantially different way. I guess it is really more Judeo-Christian than it is Eastern, but the Eastern influences are certainly present too. It will take me another year of reading to even begin to get a grasp on it.

Every time that I come in contact with the 'hard, closed' stubborn' spirits that seem to define David's views (and others here) I get an opportunity to express something that might operate against that (as 'cure'), and that might allow for a more open 'conceptual pathway' to understanding Truth and Life.

I'm batting close to 100 in my mirror... ;-)

What I'd like to hear is what you think about all these things. Or take just one and write about it. Same for Mr Melbourne and Jason. Don't snipe: make a substantial efforts at writing out your own thoughts. (Deibert too for that matter). I don't think you can do it because there is literally nothing there.

[Robert]

You're right Alex, there's nothing there, so why bother making any effort. This is not a snipe, just an honest response.

[Alex T. Jacob]

It's lovely, a kind of neo-Buddhist response, I take it? I'm empty...there is no more 'me' there, either to defend or to explain. Like vapor, or like snow on a pond...I reckon that is what you meant?

Games...

[David Quinn]

Robert wrote: "But yes, if you like, to my mind what David is trying to target are the presuppositions in an attempt to dismantle and chip away at them for you (or anyone who is compelled to) see them for what they are. It just appears to me that you're more enjoying yourself pretending to play rather than actually take it seriously".

David defines his core role in life as being such a 'chipper away'. It would of course follow from his self-definition and from the group of constructs he operates with.

What exactly are my 'presuppositions'--the ones that govern this conversation and direct my responses---no one has yet attempted to define. Well, except David recently by linking me to a Satanic force, to a force or power, conscious or unconscious, that seeks to mire, confuse and hold back from (what he defines as) 'direct access to God'.

That wasn't the point I was making at all. Your narcissism really snuffles you into complete idiocy at times, and this is one such time.


And yet ....

The part that most likely confuses you is that I no longer hold to the kind of spiritual ideas you (and others) seem to be attracted to. My own inner experiences, that have completely marked and molded my life, I have never and will never abandon.

...... your narcississm doesn't quite extend into questioning and challenging your deepest beliefs.


Nor does it .....

But I am decidedly and adamantly opposed to Absolutism, and don't really care where it is pulled from; the Bible, Lao Tsu, Kierkegaard or a Cracker Jack box.

.... thrust you into the awareness of the absolutism that currently has you spellbound.

[To Robert] It's lovely, a kind of neo-Buddhist response, I take it? I'm empty...there is no more 'me' there, either to defend or to explain. Like vapor, or like snow on a pond...I reckon that is what you meant?

I rather think he was referring to the paltriness of your narcissism.

-

[Jamesh]

Alex wrote:

In my own case the platform of my spiritual belief system, a main column of it, is synchronicity, or put another way the intervention from time to time, by a conscious being or perhaps conscious beings, in the determined events of my life.

As I do not see that we posses a spirit, I don't believe in any form of spirituality, and certainly not any form of intervention by other conscious beings (although I cannot discount that as a possibility, I do not see sufficient evidence). To me we are what we are, merely animals with emotions and intelligence. To me science has shown to an adequate degree that for us to exist now on this earth, every cause has been in place, and there has been no need for any otherworldly interference in our development.

I guess I was talking more about potential unknown causes, for some of the events you include under the domain of Jungian synchronicity.

The only form of synchronicity I believe in is that of both opposing and commensurate causes/forces, causing balance and order. A purely physical occurrence.

/ Still, I'm a little uneasy about ASSUMING that ALL these occurances, whether seeing small details of the past or the future, are purely coincidental, although I acknowledge the majority will be precisely that. I'm beginning to think that there is some form of alternate, non-sentient, originating cause for some of these unusual coincidences.

Look, perhaps this uneasiness is more due to factors such as:

• a) a lack of research
  b) and inadequate understanding and acknowledgement of the sheer power and complexity of the subconscious mind
  c) an inadequate acceptance of the power of the ego across the human race to produce and maintain falsity. The human disability to "lie" is extreme - it is everywhere.
  d) delusionary self-centeredness and self-importance within myself, wherein a mere coincidence is interpreted as being applicable to ME, which infers a some form of special predictive or mental skill I have over others.
  e) a lack of sufficient analytical intelligence to rationally assess the most probable causal chains, amongst the infinity of causal chains, that lead to these events/feelings
  f) My own love of entertainment and novelty

I have many of these traits, and I would suggest that you in having belief in Jungian synchronicity for some time, have them tenfold or more.

It is not surprising to me that our local geniuses, by and large, completely dismiss a whole range of possibilities since their understandings and conclusions, resulting from the reduced group of tools at their disposal, reduces the universe to a strict mechanism. As you know, I take issue with this for quite a few reasons and try to speak about that difference.

Much of the time, like now, I'm not so different. It is their outright dismissal that just sometimes there may be something real (as not an illusion of the ego) about these events, that I object to. I don’t however object to them dismissing a universal type consciousness, as I cannot fathom at all how such an entity could exist. I can however fathom that there might be remnants of human thoughts that do not fade completely away over limited periods of time, or some form of low level ESP tools in the brain.

Still, I'd suggest these types of possibilities are quite unlikely - it is much more probable that it is all delusion. When you think about how consciousness interacts with memory, you do need to remember that the subconscious will only bring into one's conscious presence those "incidents" where there is a match of some kind between what is occurring in the present and what is in one's memories, so therefore the brain will ignore the zillions of non-coincidental events, and only be caused to bring to one's attention the coincidental events. What one experiences in the frontal lobes then becomes a new memory, or enhances the importance of an existing memory, so every time you note a coincidence, but accept it as being something more, then you are reinforcing this effect and making it into something that it really is not.

The way to turn it on, of course, is disturbing to strict rationalistic thinkers, and sometimes for very good reasons. To turn it on one must release one's hold on any sense of definiteness about 'the nature of this reality'. Meaning, one has to open up to and to some degree 'surrender' oneself to the existential experience itself. Additionally, in order to have such an omen-life (take a deep breath boys!) you have to cultivate, allow for, use and handle, a sort of receptivity that (gasp!) could be described as feminine.

Practically everything we do is role playing. Once one takes on a certain role, be it work, marriage, belief systems, then it is natural for one to develop that role further. One wishes to become an "expert", so that one can enhance their value and position within the herd hierarchy, by leading others in the same direction. We all do this, the QRS included. That’s what this whole forum is about. The difference though is that some, but very few, people can recognise they are acting, and can see it fro what it is.

I’ll give you a recent personal example of this role playing

"It’s a slow boat to The Middle Land though, and the boat for my consciousness is a rickety thing, so I will suffer on the way. The herd winds that force herdliness can be very cold when there is little herdskin to deflect the winds bites, and emotional food may be scarce. The odds of reaching nirvana are not high, but like any adventurer, in this case the adventure of understanding reality, some of us are just driven by our self-history to do what we"

Here I was exaggerating the suffering, much of the pain will actually be due more to my own existing failings, not so much as sufferings that will now occur as a result of striving to understand reality and live courageously by promoting truth in all important situations. The poetic nature of those words was role playing, I was acting sage-like.

Now, often just acting a role is the best way to learn - Just Do It, as they say. Pretend to have sufficient confidence and understanding and eventually that will morph into true understanding that is not an act - but it is important to know when you are pretending and when you are not - one has to learn how the ego makes you play roles.

Paramahansa Yogananda, in his 'translation' of the Bhagavad Gita describes a yogic science in which the adept begins to put in reverse all the psycho-spiritual mechanisms and processes that landed the 'soul' or entity into this 'material world', what is referred to in Hindu metaphysical and comological terms as 'Divinity's exterior energy' (to differentiate, obviously, from Divinity's 'interior' energy).

I decided a year or so ago that to pay much CLOSE attention to written words that are over say 200 years old, is not something I should bother with. I don’t mind perusing the basics, getting the gist of their ideas, but intensely concentrating on their words to find hidden meaning sucks. I'd rather utilise time devising my own philosophical viewpoints, than relying on whatever they might have said. I feel I know enough not to need them.

I'll accept stuff like Nietzsche's writings to be worthy of being a tool to stimulate my brain so that I might improve my philosophical thinking, but those rather old or very culturally different dudes, I don’t really get into that these days. If I want the sort of unsatisfying vagueness they tend to preach about the deepest issues, about the letting go of the desire for satisfying explanation, then all I need to do is read David's posts :)

I honestly wish someone could offer me a description of 'nirvana'. The older I get, the more meaningless the term seems to get. But I am not unaware of what it's supposed to mean, in Zen, Yoga, etc.

Peacefulness of mind, achieved not femininely by giving in to the outside world, but by the masculine way of overcoming the burdens of the ego.

Unlike the QRS I think this can be achieved in two ways. There is their way, the IQ way, namely via rationally examining reality and becoming autistic from emotions, living a mental life, rather than a life as a "being". And then there is the EQ way, is which is learning how to make deep peace with the whole world. "Way" really refers to the outcome a person wishes to achieve.

The IQ way is tighter, once you really have it that's it, only mental decay can cause its loss. The EQ way is far more volatile and non-dependable. Due to the temptations via experiencing fleeting satisfactions, it can come and go, and will never work long term unless one first travels into the realms of the rational, and in this process one's ego must be examined objectively. Also, at all times rationality must be paramount, reasoning must have the superior power to place emotional affects in their right context. The EQ way is "circumstances dependant", the IQ apparently is not.

The likelihood that either way will be a better option, is partly genetic. Most of the herd is not even caused to analyse anything in a non-shallow philosophical manner, but of that minority that does, there will be some amongst them, whose brain configuration from birth was sufficiently different from the norm, in both intelligence and sensitivity, to cause them to seek and be able to OBTAIN long term nirvana, be it IQ or EQ outcome based. The IQ wishes to suppress the sensitivity, the EQ way wishes to overcome it's extremes, but still experience life as a current human being.

Both are quite rare. Many one thinks has achieved EQ nirvana, due to charisma, confidence, calmness, self discipline, and demonstrated intelligence and compassion, can fall at the drop of a hat if circumstances change dramatically. The real one's (if there are any) must suffer and strive along the way, they must evolve above these hurdles, without becoming negative and cynical and not too desensitised. One of the problems they face, is that as they develop they become attractive to others, and they fall under the spell of what is then offered to them, and are very likely to regress straight back into being controlled by their egos, never to return.

The IQ way is a straighter path and the direction to follow, if not the outcome is clearer. Firstly, it appears rather unappealing to one's ego, one has to be caused by herd-suffering to follow it. I've described the outcome as being like a form of death (or autism as I've used above). On the other hand, what one can achieve along the way is far more subtle. I'm speaking of an slowly growing vibe of "easiness" with a low key feeling of increasing knowingness. The problem is that is an underlying feeling, rather an easily identifiable emotion. Truth does hurt, so this feeling resides under often increasing emotional volatility, until one comes to terms with the truth. Once one truly comes to terms with All important truths, in doing so the mind becomes more of an "holisticised" entity, and the ego flounders, and with nothing to sate, it stops calling upon emotions to drive actions, it stops trying to get results it doesn’t actually need. It becomes less necessary to relieve boredom, as a result of one's constant state already being closer to the not-unpleasant awareness one feels when just doing physically or mentally doing some activity one has already become competent in, than action-inducing boredom.

Above, I speak from what I glean, not from what I really am, namely a 48 year old with low EQ, who desires a much higher EQ. Ie, I'm not enlightened, I've just learnt stuff here, and desire maturity (emotional control with a positive outlook). Here, I'm playing the sagelike role, to hopefully gradually subconsciously learn wisdom, and because writing stuff like this makes me smile.

I've probably said all I want to say about this, so if you do respond, while I’ll certainly read and maybe consider it, I am unlikely to respond. I'm disinclined to endless to-and-fro discussions (well except if I can't think of anything else to do).

I’d better now read what's been said since your response.

[Jamesh]

Alex does not underestimate what our consciousness is capable of, which is why I am one of his readers.

I sense wishful thinking in that regard, desires of the ego.

Although I mocked David in my post, I actually found his responses above were quite to the point.

[Jason]

Alex does not underestimate what our consciousness is capable of, which is why I am one of his readers.

He doesn't seem to have much faith in the ability of "our" consciousness to attain absolutes and certainties. Is that underestimation?

[Carl G]

Lol. Disagreement does not take balls. Even babies do it.

[Alex T. Jacob]

I think disagreement does take strength. And certainly to take a considered opinion against the contructs of David and I assume Dan and Kevin. As they say, do not come into this realm unless you want to get bloodied. And I think that I disagree because I am concerned with this question of what is 'gold' and what is, say, false-gold. Everything that you-plural write (everyone who responds, of course, having a different position and relationship to these questions and problems, 'you' are not a monolith) makes sense to me, I mean it is intelligible. It fits into a sort of system of view which has been built up, assembled, selected, contrived---whatever. It is not even that I don't 'understand' what David means. Everyone has to come to their own conclusions and take responsibility for what they choose.

"As I do not see that we posses a spirit, I don't believe in any form of spirituality, and certainly not any form of intervention by other conscious beings (although I cannot discount that as a possibility, I do not see sufficient evidence). To me we are what we are, merely animals with emotions and intelligence."

Well, 'spirituality' (and 'spirit') are certainly confusing terms, obviously because of their relationship to 'the graveyard of meaning' which we inherit through language. I think it is wise to reject the 'spirituality' that you refer to (spirits inside of organisms that are liberated at death, etc.) There is no way, scientifically and 'logically', to maintain that description. What we are is so intimately bound up with our biological being that we will need radically new ways to talk about it. The 'reality' of material description, the 'reality' that scientific outlook opens to us, is extremely potent. In a very real sense it 'consumes' all other descriptions and is indeed the cause of the many 'graveyards' of old conceptions that still linger in our conceptual realm. One of the 'facts' about the potency of the 'new order of view' is that, for man, it HAS resulted in nihilsim: a complete undermining of any comfort in being. Any sense that there is a support, a help, a home, and an order (in the old, classical sense, for example in the Medieval Order, the Catholic vision---for example that of Dante). All certainties have been ripped out from under him and he stares at a non-living universe the nature of which and the origin of which are incomprehensible. I have a sense that such a vision of things will suck the life out of man, that it will essentially kill him.

Honestly, I think this is the basic reality in which we all live---all those on this forum for example. I think we have to understand our platform and our position within a shifting order of perception. It is extremely radical. I also have the feeling (cannot speak precisely for anyone else, though I might take a stab at it from time to time), that we all develop strategies to deal with the utter strangeness of life, but also 'modern life'. These are either reactions or proactive decisions. But in my own case I have observed people, in a wide cultural sense, struggling with annihilating forces and attempting, consciously and unconsciously, to get a handle on things. Especially to get ahold of knowledge or information that can keep them afloat, so as not to be crushed.

So, I return to what you wrote above. It is logically sound, it is sensible. I understand (I think) why you think it, and I understand its 'necessity'---and everything in my own life and on my own path has pointed, still, in another direction. I know. It is weird. I do not profess to understand David's view (this QRS position). I do not see how essential atheists, non theists and perhaps non-deists, can use the sort of language he uses. God with a capital 'g'. Personally, I do not have the time or the desire to get to the bottom of it. I don't think that David and I have any way to reconcile the differences of viewpoint and understanding that separate us. In the end it resolves into name-calling, which of course is boring. And insofar as your (Jamesh) view is like his, I am (if you will) forced to differ. It is not that I am being difficult, it is that I am being true to my perception and to my experience. How would I explain that difference? I mean, how would I explain the belief that separates 'me' from 'you'? I believe that to 'see' 'spirit' you have to be 'spiritualized'. I beieve that there are, for want of a better way to describe what must only be a metaphor, orders of spiritual entities that preside over consciousness---in this case, man's consciousness. I believe that there are certain 'orders of knowledge' having to do with the 'true nature' of this platform of existence, this 'loka' or sphere of existence, that you can only know through Grace. And I don't mean that in a Christian sense. It used to be (with Theosophy and even certain descriptions of Yoga---with spiritual metaphysics) that they proposed 'subtle energy' that was simply beyond the reach of our instrumentation. If you wanted to understand the 'true' nature of things you could find it in descriptions of this 'subtle energy'. I think all that had to be adandoned. In my own case, what I have come to, is that the 'real nature' of the reality in which we find ourselves is simply beyond intelligent description. There is a sort of 'kingdom' of perception, being and understanding that we are, at least most of us, locked out of. We cannot get to it by our own striving. We cannot get to it through the exercise of our brain, our rational intelligence. So, obviously, what interests me and intrigues me is this odd 'gate' that is established that is impenetrable, mostly. Still, some do get access to 'knowledge' of the order I am talking about, and then they 'fall back'. The knowledge often becomes perverted and, as I see things, turns into man's rational use of intelligence in a process of enslaving (other human beings generally speaking).

This 'spiritual' then, exists, but it exists in terms that are not intelligible in 'normal terms'. One can only make an allusion to it, one can also certainly act from knowledge of it, but there is no way to impart it except through something that might be called 'hinting'. For example, 'the exploding metaphor'. At the same time---and I realize this is hard---all life and Life itself (existence)(at least from the perspective I am alluding to) is absolute and 100% consciousness. It is, itself, conscious being. Eternal. It is alive and, of course, conscious. What in each of us is similarly conscious, is that. Oddly enough, in some way, at least sometimes, I hear David saying something similar. He is like a theist in drag or something. Whatever. When you-all get to the bottom of his trip, reduce it to a paragraph and send it to me. ;-)

I understand 'spiritual path' (I think so anyway) in wider terms than David or Jamesh or Jason and Robert---at least from the look of it. Because I sense or I 'know' my own essential position (in this strange sort of metaphysical or ontological sense to which I allude), I find that I don't really have to worry so much. I mean about that old 'existential angst' that is so potent and debilitating. It would be a lie to say that I don't experience the trouble, fear and angst that comes from living life, or that I don't, in bad moments, have my doubts. But I have come to understand something about my basic position that, I think, is the 'peace' you speak about. It is there in any case like the basic vibration.

Life and one's duty---or as you say quite importantly--one's 'role' is another thing, at least as I see it. That is why I put a great deal of emphasis on 'defending' the substantial life of a person against the sacrifice of it to something insubstantial. Every person has to take their 'substantial life' seriously, as I see it. I suppose that we come here with some agreements as to what we will and perhaps won't do.

When it comes to 'omens' and 'synchronicities', I believe that what we are really referring to is knowledge and awareness of what we are (eternally) connected to, in what we originate, in what we participate, and even if we lose the understanding of it, into which we resolve back again. An omen, in differing degrees, is that awareness, either epiphany or vision, either temporal or constant. I have a strong feeling that this basic platfrom of grasping Life might separate 'me' from 'you'. And you could be right---it could perhaps be expressed with your EQ vs IQ. Still, for some of us, one is called to work with both.

As to the rest, due to my upbringing in California, due to the time I spent with my parents in India around some guru-figures, and much that came afterward, I feel I've heard just about every possible rap there is, and have seen just about every sort of 'spiritual type' there is. When you get to the point that you launch a website, when you define your doctrines, polish them, hone them, protect them and all that, you have stepped into a forever troubled territory. I have seen people get so up there into their own self-identification with their Spiritual Mission that they either don't or can't come down or they crash and burn.

This is somewhat incomplete, but...I am in the midst of a move. (To another city).

We've had, this time around, a good run here. I have successfully (!) taken time away from my own (far more difficult) fictional writing to write here for the last (gulp) month. Well, the truth is I've done both but expository writing is sort of a comforting habit. But, how much further could we go here? Where is the bridge to understanding?

[Kelly Jones]

The 'reality' of material description, the 'reality' that scientific outlook opens to us, is extremely potent. In a very real sense it 'consumes' all other descriptions and is indeed the cause of the many 'graveyards' of old conceptions that still linger in our conceptual realm.

then

One of the 'facts' about the potency of the 'new order of view' is that, for man, it HAS resulted in nihilsim: a complete undermining of any comfort in being. Any sense that there is a support, a help, a home, and an order (in the old, classical sense, for example in the Medieval Order, the Catholic vision---for example that of Dante). All certainties have been ripped out from under him and he stares at a non-living universe the nature of which and the origin of which are incomprehensible. I have a sense that such a vision of things will suck the life out of man, that it will essentially kill him.

and even

Honestly, I think this is the basic reality in which we all live ---all those on this forum for example. I think we have to understand our platform and our position within a shifting order of perception. It is extremely radical.

(Bolded and italicised to bring out the contradictions.)

It's not that I disagree with the basic idea, it's just your hypocrisy in saying that the non-absolutist uncertainty of scientific theories and the science-based perception isn't itself absolutist. All you need to do is recognise that you're using absolutist certainties about the nature of the science-based perception, and then you'll be apples.

[Jason]

In my own case, what I have come to, is that the 'real nature' of the reality in which we find ourselves is simply beyond intelligent description. There is a sort of 'kingdom' of perception, being and understanding that we are, at least most of us, locked out of. We cannot get to it by our own striving. We cannot get to it through the exercise of our brain, our rational intelligence.

Maybe the problem is that you've convinced yourself that something is missing, that you are fundamentally missing something.....

Isn't reality real enough for you? You want to find the reeeeeal nature of reality do you? Maybe even find the real real really reeeeeal nature of reality? Do you see the absurdity of this?

There is nothing that is not the real nature of reality. You can't be "locked out of" it. Reality and its real nature are right here right now, everywhere and everywhen, and you cannot escape it - what could possibly be missing? What would some explanation, answer, or description add to THIS[raising my arms out to my sides and looking all around me]?

Any answer, explanation or description would "simply" be another piece of the real nature of reality. Even the absurd search for the real nature of reality is, itself, another piece of the real nature of reality. Your experience of believing that you or others are locked out of real reality - that's also a piece of the real nature of reality.

Just step back, take your eyes off the little corner of reality that you've been obsessing over(and imagining it somehow does more justice to reality than reality does to itself), breathe deeply and look around you - it's all here, it's always been here.

Things are just exactly as they are. How could it be otherwise? What could be more true or certain, and beyond doubt, than simply exactly what is? It is right before you all the time, at every moment. Everything you see, everything that is. Dirt is dirt. Water is water. Sky is sky. Self is self. Sight is sight. Thought is thought. Suchness. Isness. Things just as they are.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Kelly wrote: "It's not that I disagree with the basic idea, it's just your hypocrisy in saying that the non-absolutist uncertainty of scientific theories and the science-based perception isn't itself absolutist. All you need to do is recognize that you're using absolutist certainties about the nature of the science-based perception, and then you'll be apples."

I am not completely sure what you are getting at, it may be that your phrasing is a little clunky. I'd like to get the point of your observation so please repeat it.

You seem to be saying (that I think) that:

1) Scientific theories are, according to science, non-absolutist.
2) Science-based perception is absolute.

Jason wrote: "Isn't reality real enough for you? You want to find the reeeeeal nature of reality do you? Maybe even find the real real really reeeeeal nature of reality? Do you see the absurdity of this?"

I don't know quite how to answer you, Jason. First, I do understand what you are getting at, no doubt about it. I think it is pretty likely that in the opposition that seems to exist between our stances (I understand completely what you are saying), the core presupposition for me is in my theism. It is an extreme theism. If everything that exists or can exists is 'God' and consciousness, this material manifestation is a degree along a long gradient. How is that known or 'proven'? The 'instrument' of perception is our consciousness itself, in a holistic sense.

The author of all life, and certainly conscious life, has created, for our 'enjoyment', infinite levels of worlds and not just of infinite size or measure of dimension (as in a forever expanding, infinite universe, as I think you-all conceive). I believe, but have no way to prove, that consciousness is infinite and eternal and capable of creating and maintaining any sort of world (sphere, 'loka') that it wants. Just as there are 'billions and billions' of universes, so there are billions and billions of dimensions ('lokas', spheres). We are in such a world and we are 'bound' to our belief in that world. (I think we predominantly come into this world through sexual attraction: in fact, sexual attraction for our own parents. Like moths to a flame. Ours is a 'sexual' world.)

This binding belief is our essential ontological experience, a kind of loop. We 'work out' our agreements all the time, that is to say we are in them, experiencing them, constructing them. It is pretty crazy (it is extreme theism!) but we are in this world and experience all aspects of this world because we agree, that is our consciousness is 'locked in' to this perception. The view that I offer does not negate your view (the one you wrote out). It is peculiar that I often defend one's 'tangible life' against your sacrifice to intangible absolutes (that seem empty to me), so we have a bit of a paradox there. I don't really understand what you yourself think or live in accord with, so I can't comment. I don't see my understanding of things as absolutely opposed to David's and my objections are pretty clear. Many of our 'presuppositions' seem to be quite different, but they are not (er-hum) absolutely opposed.

There are infinite levels of worlds in which we can participate. (I take this on faith, or I deduce it). Going from one level to another (this is of course true even within this specific world, as a closed system) depends on our conduct, here. The basis of this 'philosophy' is that life presents us in the course of our living with 'gates of experience', events if you will, sometimes very grand and sometimes very small. We either pass the 'gate' and move on to another level of experience, another gradient, or we don't. Most of our lives are spent spinning our wheels over one sort of 'gate'. Sometimes we 'get it' and pass through, sometimes we 'fail' and have to do it all over again. In that you have the basic human drama, a most incredible panorama of experience, all within an essential, unitary 'sphere'. It is quite strange, magnificent in an awesome or frightful way, and one of the purposes of 'all that' (the multivalent, variegated experience which is possible to us), is to bring us to a point where we 'get it'.

I would put this knowledge in the same category of knowledge, or on the gradient of knowledge, as I did in the 'shamanic outline'. I would put everyone who has burning existential questions and any form of spiritual life, even if it appears foolish or trite, within that gradient. We either go 'up', or 'down' or make no progress, but (also an aspect of this 'extreme theism') we are NEVER alone in our very personal and utterly subjective voyage through the many realms of life. The magnificence of 'God' is that 'it' is a living being, the depth, size and infiniteness of which is inconceivable. But 'it' isn't infinite, dead matter, not in the core. Though, we are in a 'story' of a seemingly dead universe. (I don't know how else to put it. The idea of story is a big one). Every person, it seems, is part of a group of souls and every one of us has a link to...a level of God's being which we perceive as a kind of 'person'. It is a presence in your own mind/self, and/or there are all sorts of different ways it is symbolized, through perception-process. We can 'turn to' that 'person' and get clues about the sort of 'agreements' we made in coming into this level of experience, and we can also begin to find what has been referred to as 'the beginning of the road home'. The beginning of the road home is always heralded by exquisite omens: exploding metaphors that emanate or rain down 'meaning'. And that is why the notion of 'omens', in my book, has such an important place.

All that happens through Grace, and not through striving. Passage is given, not taken.

I think you are wrong about 'being locked out of'. Brute, coarse consciousness cannot conceive so-called higher levels. In fact, brute awareness can hardly dominate language. We have to find out, it seems, what continues to make us 'brute' (the going down path) and what makes us go 'up'. We are in an in-between world in that sense. When they speak of the value and rareness of 'human birth', it seems this is what they are referring to. The keys to understanding these things are 'holy keys': they are part of the very best of the very best that you or I can find on this Earth (in this sphere or loka). Generally, I think it is true, we find it in various Scriptures. It is not a good idea to dismiss, without real understanding, what has been saved and stored up in the various Bibles of the world. That is not to say there is not also dross there. There is a phrase I wrote down:

"The confidence man is a savior who only seems dark because he must work in a fallen world". ---Lewis Hyde (writing about Melville's story 'The Confidence Man').

If one does find the 'keys', and if one recognizes what one has found, one is as they say 'thrice blessed'. If you find the keys but, through brutality or ignorance or simple mistake don't really 'get it', what happens is quite peculiar: you forget. It slips out of consciousness. You drop down into another level and can't even remember the 'other level'! It is a mystery of awareness. In the essence, the keys are extremely subtle. They are sort of quintessential essences or understandings.

A good question to ask is What causes us to 'go down'? (Fall, get lost, get mired, etc.) Here, we have to be very very very careful. We really have to find that thing referred to as 'humility' because it is the only thing that can serve us in the face of the Grand Being. There is no way to trick 'it' and any loss (any 'forgetting' and getting 'locked out') is always our own loss. What we do, how we act, the choices we make, are therefore very very important and shouldn't be taken lightly. What we are 'locked out' of are subtle levels of understanding. In the consciousness sphere, you could think of it as devolution.

Another thing is the idea or the fact of 'conceptual pathways leading to freedom'. If we tend to be 'rationalistic' type persons, we have to be very careful about the 'hardness' of our rationalist paradigms, because if we get involved in constructing or maintaining 'conceptual pathways that bind' and do not free, we get involved in some very serious karma. 'I built my prison stone by stone' turns into 'I built prisons for others'.

I take issue with some of the core presuppositions here because, I feel, another kind of description, another group of possibilities, needs to be kept open. All that I write (critically) is pretty much about this.

[pointexter]

...the breakthrough into enlightenment, in which a fundamental change occurs inwardly - the bottom falls out of the ego

Excepting gender identity narratives.

[pointexter]

Lets see just how, ahem, 'masculine-minded' is the one who would ban those who don't 'respect' (lol).

[David Quinn]

...the breakthrough into enlightenment, in which a fundamental change occurs inwardly - the bottom falls out of the ego

Excepting gender identity narratives.

Do you believe that an enlightened person automatically ceases to engage in narratives?

What is teaching but an exploitation of narratives, particularly those that run deep in the psyche?

-

[David Quinn]

Lets see just how, ahem, 'masculine-minded' is the one who would ban those who don't 'respect' (lol).

If dejavu's posts are more sincere and fleshed out like the one above to Alex, there'll be no problem.

(Edit: The majority of them at least. I'm not asking him to stifle his playfulness, but to raise it above the level of trolling and make it more intelligent and interesting, which I know he is capable of).

Unparalleled atheism.

Completely agree. Spirituality is atheism pushed to the extreme. So much so that it ceases to be atheism.

-

[pointexter]

Do you believe that an enlightened person automatically ceases to engage in narratives?

In your writing there appears to be an attachment to (gender-indentified) self-referential narrative. Which seems contrary to stated notion of no 'ego' (self-identity), an apparent condition of an enlightened person.

What is teaching but an exploitation of narratives

Agreed.

Is identification with 'teaching' reinforcing the identity of the teacher, by exploiting the student. Therefore keeping alive the self-referential narrative of Teacher?

particularly those that run deep in the psyche?

Not real fond of psychological narrative. Its the type of speculative theory that can be used to justify anything. Lacks logical rigour, too vague and sloppy. Its unfalsifiable. Its chicken/egg i.e. does thought motivate behaviour or vice-versa? Is there a link? Its assumed. Not far removed from the level of astrology and tarot card reading.

Psychology is a tool-box used to both analyse and design/define/build the structure of self. i.e. what psychoanalysis defines as ego, or general psychology as personal identity. What it attempts to point at can be called false-thinking. No extensive theoretical nor speculative narrative required. Thus, thinking passes the test of A=A or its false.

Personal analysis is narcissistic in nature, using the script to prove the script, which reinforces falsehood. Theories of psyche strengthen that false thinking (practice makes perfect). Whether its use is pointed 'inward' (self-analysis) or 'outward' (objectification through analysis of 'other' persona).

Such narrative is false and blocks the nature of reality, which requires little illumination, save for switching off false thinking and looking at whats already there.

After a few years of exploring this stuff (truth, reality, self), its starting to look like there is nothing there, there is nothing to sift, nothing to find. Its all bullshit. That the searching is the narrative is the obstacle.

The simple, direct recognition and rejection of the false is adequate (keep it out of the sieve). Whats left, by default, may be called truth, which can be used to point at reality.

[David Quinn]

Neither atheism, nor theism. The immersion into spontaneous reality beyond description.

-

[David Quinn]

Not real fond of psychological narrative. Its the type of speculative theory that can be used to justify anything. Lacks logical rigour, too vague and sloppy. Its unfalsifiable. Its chicken/egg i.e. does thought motivate behaviour or vice-versa? Is there a link? Its assumed. Not far removed from the level of astrology and tarot card reading.

Psychology is a tool-box used to both analyse and design/define/build the structure of self. i.e. what psychoanalysis defines as ego, or general psychology as personal identity. What it attempts to point at can be called false-thinking. No extensive theoretical nor speculative narrative required. Thus, thinking passes the test of A=A or its false.

Personal analysis is narcissistic in nature, using the script to prove the script, which reinforces falsehood. Theories of psyche strengthen that false thinking (practice makes perfect). Whether its use is pointed 'inward' (self-analysis) or 'outward' (objectification through analysis of 'other' persona).

Such narrative is false and blocks the nature of reality, which requires little illumination, save for switching off false thinking and looking at whats already there.

After a few years of exploring this stuff (truth, reality, self), its starting to look like there is nothing there, there is nothing to sift, nothing to find. Its all bullshit. That the searching is the narrative is the obstacle.

The simple, direct recognition and rejection of the false is adequate (keep it out of the sieve). Whats left, by default, may be called truth, which can be used to point at reality.

What if it was the case that the core reason why people cannot recognize and reject the false and immerse themselves in the truth is because their minds are too tangled up in various narratives?

You can't really divorce psychology from philosophy/spirituality because the process of realizing the truth necessarily involves burrowing into one's own mind and dismantling the various narratives which hold continue to hold one spellbound.

I like to attack and chip away at the various narratives which enthrall people, as well as encouraging them to attack the narratives themselves, because there is no other way that their minds can become free. It's like using a thorn to remove other thorns. One uses narratives to dismantle other narratives, until there are no narratives left.

The woman narrative is a big one, as it not only weaves its way into the deepest regions of the ego, but it also connects to a number of other powerful narratives as well, involving values, purpose, status, reputation, approval, emotional security, slavery, etc. If you can crack it open, then a lot of other narratives fall away as well. And so that is why I like to focus on it.

Do you believe that an enlightened person automatically ceases to engage in narratives?

In your writing there appears to be an attachment to (gender-indentified) self-referential narrative. Which seems contrary to stated notion of no 'ego' (self-identity), an apparent condition of an enlightened person.

When a defense system is as strong and all-pervasive as that which surrounds people's love of woman, then you have to go at it hard. You can't pussy-foot around in this particular area, as it is all too easy to become swallowed up by the feminine and spat out again with all your vitality gone. When that happens, all your thoughts become stripped of their truth and potency. They become harmless, or even worse, they becomes morsels which feed the great beast of femininity, making it even fatter than before.

The feminine is a lot like the Borg in Star Trek. It aimlessly absorbs all that comes its way, stripping its victims of their individuality and making them a part of itself. You really do have to be so repulsive to the feminine that it cannot, and will not, swallow you. Only in this way can you begin to chip away at it.

And so I tend to put a lot of force and personality into my treatment of the subject, much like how a general might send his most powerful regiments to deal with a particularly intractable military problem. It doesn't necessarily mean that I personally "identify" with this force or this tactic, or treat it in any other way than as a tactic.

What is teaching but an exploitation of narratives

Agreed. Is identification with 'teaching' reinforcing the identity of the teacher, by exploiting the student. Therefore keeping alive the self-referential narrative of Teacher?

What narrative? What teacher?

-

[Alex T. Jacob]

Deja-vu wrote: "My idea of us reaching eternity in ourselves is markedly different. Unparalleled atheism. Most importantly, it does not presuppose that the universe itself is conscious. That matter can become conscious of itself does not, for me, present an argument for God, but one against it. "God" presents a determinism to mind that is incompatible with conscious self-creation. To me, it is the fall from grace you speak of, a giving in and letting go, the description of a succumbing to fate that ultimately denies creative immediacy to consciousness. I think theism in your case is a kind of tenderness in language. A feeling that one must remain open to all expression if one is to take possession of the highest kind. In other words, I can appreciate what you are 'getting at', but in your having not being able to hold on to eternity ( if I manage it, and I'm fast running out of time to do so, we'll all know about it!) you have been forced to your own species of reductionism, a "dancing away from" the goal, in opposing 'striving' with 'grace', of passage being given, not taken."

It is not impossible for me to see the virtue in the atheistic position. On perhaps a lower lever, the French existentialist atheists arrive at very sensible standpoints and seem, at least in many ways, to empower the self, in any case to have the self take responsibility. A great deal seems to hinge on what theistic notions one subscribes to. The reaction of many existentialists seems to be against limited, local conceptions, and these are always 'managed' conceptions (tied to religious heirarchies, social control systems, symbols taken literally). It is easier and does 'clear the board' to do away with all the narratives as I think David is saying and work to get to the kernel.

It will sound perhaps philosophically simple (as a question or as a predicament), but it seems to me very hard to come up with a description or a reason for Existence unless one recurrs to a supreme being of some sort or other.

If 'God' presents a determinism to the mind, it has always seemed to me that---for example Q-R-S but also other atheists---have only determinism to rely on, and they do. In a pure material universe I don't see how it is not completely determined down to the last detail. It is pure mathematical relationship. It seems to me that ONLY when this mysterious 'thing'---the psyche---comes on the scene that you have an occurance in which 'free will' comes into existence. In this sense, and perhaps I have just dressed it up in my own way, I equate 'masculinity' (as opposed to a docile 'femininity') with that area or occurance that allows for this strange thing called 'free will'. Still, in my own way of seeing, the psyche of man as we see it function in the world is 'under the sway' of impulses of determination. We ourselves, and certainly many people we meet, who we think are free-agents, are actually driven by determination. I agree that we can look at the 'symptoms' of determination and they can be summed-up in the way that David has recently summed it up. This is to me one of the strengths of the Q-R-S position, the stance it takes against 'femininity'. Femininity, though it is a troubling, political word, is matter and psyche subject to deterministic impulses. In the Chinese philosophical system it is literally The Earth. It adapts itself to impulses. It receives impulses and brings into manifestation. (The classical conception of the 'yin'). So, to define a distinguishing masculinity seems to me extremely important, if it is done correctly.

I guess the interesting thing is to examine the 'productions of the psyche' (which is a bona fide 'psychology') and try to see and isolate what is the most quintessentially relevant, or the kernal of it, which in my system of organizing perception is, at the base, God. Back to the author of reality 'fact' or 'story'. I see this masculinity of psyche as operating in a gradient within human consciousness and to a far lesser degree in the animal world (but it is still there, in embryo). Our ability and tendency to construct and oppose nature seems to me 'masculine' but it is often only mechanical still. The question seems to be to ask and find what is 'true masculinity'. I do not, myself, see my theism as opposing such a thing. And also---just an interesting fact---these classical oppositions of theism vs atheism, dual vs non-dual, determinism vs non-determinism have all been spelled out before ad infinitum. I think the place where one can most clearly see it is in Hindu-Vedic philosophy.

"I think theism in your case is a kind of tenderness in language. A feeling that one must remain open to all expression if one is to take possession of the highest kind."

You could write 'tenderness of language' in a slightly different way: sentimentality, and come up with a more sharpened critique of my positions. Every position has to be ruthlessly examined, and should be. Attitudes in this sense (whetehr one is harsh and cutting or 'tender' and inclusive) are tools, and each has their place and time, their use. If you note a 'tenderness' in the sense of tolerance of people, their struggle, the processes of consciousness, I consider that a positive use of self. But it should not be confused (or it doesn't have to be) with either sentimentality or lack of will: determining strength. The only way I know to 'answer' you is to say that (of course in my 'extreme theism') we are utterly and completely held and contained by a greater consciousness. We are utterly tolerated (if you will). Similarly, we 'have to' also be tolerant of others and their processes, their level of development, etc.

I am not sure I know what 'holding onto eternity is'.

David wrote: "I like to attack and chip away at the various narratives which enthrall people, as well as encouraging them to attack the narratives themselves, because there is no other way that their minds can become free. It's like using a thorn to remove other thorns. One uses narratives to dismantle other narratives, until there are no narratives left. / The woman narrative is a big one, as it not only weaves its way into the deepest regions of the ego, but it also connects to a number of other powerful narratives as well, involving values, purpose, status, reputation, approval, emotional security, slavery, etc. If you can crack it open, then a lot of other narratives fall away as well. And so that is why I like to focus on it."

All very well and good, as far as it goes. It is also I think one of the great strengths and values of the Q-R-S project. Still, it is a kind of acid or hammer that can disfigure. In the hands of the wrong person, or perhaps a person unprepared, such a hammering away, such an application of acid, can turn into a destructive and not a creative project. It can also lead to many misunderstanding.

To me, the thing about 'no narratives left' is what I don't believe. There is always a narrative, there is always a guiding story, there is always a 'drama' in which one participates. Otherwise one is dead. One can quite easily note all this 'drama' in the players in the Q-R-S gallaxy. It is still there, bright as any sun. So, the issue seems to be to find and use and 'play' the right narratives, the ones most in accord with you. Pretty much I am absolutely adamant in this. As long as we are 'incarnate', as long as we were 'born of a mother', we are part and parcel of life and the world. I think this is the center, the core, of my criticism of your-plural positions. You seem ignorant (willfully in denial?) of your own 'narrative' and your own 'role' within this world.

The thorn used to remove another thorn is, of course, a story. It is a doing and expresses a will. All part of narrative. It is true that men and women weave so much into the male/female dynamic and, especially for men, to look into that is vitally relevant. But not to destroy it or wipe it out of existence: but to elevate it, to give it new meaning.

The 'story' you are attracted to, the one that makes your blood rush, is a sort of Nietzschean superman destroyer-of-ego Enlightenment-in-a-Flash narrative. It has you walking among the multitudes calling out: Let he who has ears listen!