Impossible to know with accuracy

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Imploding? That depends on ones perspective. Over the hill perhaps? The big dilemma of this age seems to be the question of identity, of human nature, caused by all the interactions in terms of neurology, robotics, communication, mass data and so on. It's possible the big "shift" will be a radical new definition of humanit, even its complete "disappearence" as we knew it. But again, while I'm interested in the subject, it's to me only marginally philosophical or existential in terms of the modern individual.

Your recent interpositioning will eventually result in destructive activity. I assume that you and Russell are planning it out, even if it is not being planned. I have posted what is the very core of Russell's intellectual process and capabilities with the quote about 'demons requiring exorcism' and there is little else to say about it. The fact that you ally yourself with that astounds me. But it no longer surprises me. Still, you have asked for some attention to your problem, the problem of the dead-end you find yourself in, and I will speak to that a little.

If the disappearance of humanity is a reality, and if the 'big dilemna of our age' is the question of identity, then it appears quite solid that that must be the subject of philosophy. To then say that you are 'marginally interested' in what you have defined as the core dilemna of the age that may result in a new definition of man, is one of your more bizarre statements. By your own definition you have located what could only be seen as the most compelling area. It seems to me that if 'the human' is on a road to soon 'disappear' that philosophy, and existential religion, and simply ideation and concern, might have a thing or two to say about it.

Gustav Quote: "The 'hero' of course, in my mind, is one who chooses the counter-current!"

Diebert wrote: "To me that's always the path of the genius. In modern times though, every gesture would become drowned in all the current currents: "anxious, forceful, overhasty: like a river, that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect" (Nietzsche). The proper counter-current is to appreciate the ending, like there were so many endings before and witness perhaps even encourage any potency of the new. Silence is the new loud..."

Interesting. Being silent says something then? You are the most un-silent silent genius I know of! ;-)

Declarative statements offered but without rational back-up mean very little. And personal statements are merely personal statements. But declarative statements as "To me that's always the path of the genius" when seen in the context of other broad statements such as "I've no doubt you have a righteous cause and good intent, but delusion itself is evil, and so inasmuch that you are delusional, you have demons that should be expelled" need to be taken apart - deconstructed as it were - to locate their moving parts. So, if the 'path of genius' is to locate and brand 'evil' which is so loosely defined as with Russell, and if a demonological nomenclature is brought out, I think it safe to say that we have located an operative core. 'The core predicates that determine how the system-of-view functions'.

Now, I am 99.99% sure that the two of you are entirely caught up in this sort of structure of view. It no lomger has to be debated or proven. In conversation of philosophy you have both shown yourselves as totally unreliable. There is hardly any good reason to carry on conversation, and conversation is made impossible when one is dealing with this level of obscurantism. So, what to Diebert is or has been 'the path of the genius' is simply of no concern at all. To discover 'genius' then - this I propose - means to forge out into different directions. To cover new ground which may also be going back over old ground. In the spirit of 'rational discourse' I want to lay out on the table in exact terms that this is the base of my oppositional stance, and this is what I have opposed: religious zealotry.

To borrow so obviously from Nietzsche and to interpose it in this way is a suspect route. Nietzsche's words are poetical-philosophical and have power and also beauty and yet they do not decide this issue or any issue. I would focus on the way they are used. They are part of 'absolute conclusive statements' on your part Diebert which dovetail with your very personal take on things, and it seems also on things related to your own soul and spirit. I see you, as you know, as caught in a sort of trap. It is a magnificent and rather large trap, impressive at times, but a trap nonetheless. Yet it follows from your own declaration: Issues about 'identity', about how mechanics (neurobiology, robotics, mass data, etc.) have so overpowered the Individual that he has become lost to himself? But what most interests me is the statement about 'disappearance'. Loss of self, lack of capacity to locate it, no sense of what it is or should be, rejection of all that is mutable in our shifting realm as 'delusion', 'ego', and demon-possession, and a very powerful, yet violent, and willful little 'silent sage' who is anything but silent.

What does all of this mean as we turn the lens of examination around and examine the examiners, the deciders, the zealots and their mission, their discourse?

To notice these things, to identify them as topics, and to insist that they be talked about as the main topic of religious-philosophical discourse and with 'illumination' and 'enlightenment' as backdrops?

Well, I assume that you understand what I am saying. (Insofar as you are not possessed by a demon!)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Your recent interpositioning will eventually result in destructive activity ...

But that's what you say about nearly everything these days, no matter if it's forum, modernity, society, postmodernity and so on. Even if it's not being said.

To then say that you are 'marginally interested' in what you have defined as the core dilemna of the age

Hohoho, I wrote the topic to me was "marginally philosophical or existential in terms of the modern individual". And since this forum is, for me, about a focus on the existential, on experience and ultimate reality, the particular "age" or identity issues are really marginal in comparison.

Of course, because you don't accept any "timeless" form of wisdom, everything must always relate and become discussed. That's why you don't get anything philosophical done here. Just some light-weight pseudo-academic musings on social theory, pop-psychology and some structuralism, some endless theorizing. It's all very interesting, if it was happening on any other forum dedicated to those topics.

By your own definition you have located what could only be seen as the most compelling area. It seems to me that if 'the human' is on a road to soon 'disappear' that philosophy, and existential religion, and simply ideation and concern, might have a thing or two to say about it.

Why? Only to those who are reasoning in terms of the subject. Who do not understand emptiness and the illusion of self.

Interesting. Being silent says something then? You are the most un-silent silent genius I know of! ;-)

But there's so much I'm not saying, I get tired of unrepeating it!

Now, I am 99.99% sure that the two of you are entirely caught up in this sort of structure of view. It no lomger has to be debated or proven.

"Declarative statements offered but without rational back-up mean very little"

Who said that a paragraph ago? This is what I meant with that you're arguing with your own words and not with the forum. Your whole campaign against some "dominant" Genius forum is imaginary, it always was. You're struggling with your own invocations and shadows, windmills. At the core, there's nothing "here" at this forum. That's its very purpose, if purpose is what needs to be given.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Uh-huh.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Exactement! What would one expect on a forum dedicated to discuss philosophical directions like:

• Reality cannot be straightjacketed in any way. Any attempt to straightjacket it, in whatever conceptual framework, religious or otherwise, indicates a gross misunderstanding of its nature. Reality is not a spiritual, physical, or mentalistic entity. It is beyond all these things. It has no nature.
  -- Quinn on emptiness

Then Alex Jones comes along and demands the orientation to be different. That there's certainly a nature which we should discuss. While all the discussions here, the better ones, are just attempting to challenge people to see that there's none. It's not that easy to arrive there. It all goes "against the grain".

[Beingof1]

Diebert,
You may not realize it but you are being highly emotional in your decisions.

You are not being objective at all. You are applying a double standard meaning; it is OK for you and those you 'approve' to speak of whatever they want.

Those that you deem not OK - you censor.

Its more bullshit coming from you - non stop bullshit.

[Russell Parr]

Speaking of "highly emotional", it's been interesting to see our 'Gustav' run with a recent line of mine, about "demons of delusion needing expelling". It seems he can't help but take such a line in total seriousness, as if there are literal demons out there possessing people. Or when I said that "God reveals himself to the individual alone." How utterly offended he was that I would use such wording with an interpretation differing from the western theistic thought system. It gives an interested look into what motivates him, what he aims to protect.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, You may not realize it but you are being highly emotional in your decisions.

Uh-huh...

Those that you deem not OK - you censor. [

Lying is all you can do. Where did I censor you or anyone, especially on anything philosophical or contradicting opinion?

Its more bullshit coming from you - non stop bullshit.

You both have this splendid ability to paint others with your own sins, expell and call it liberation. So you're saying indeed "the same thing'.

Oops now I do start to repeat myself!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Speaking of "highly emotional", it's been interesting to see our 'Gustav' run with a recent line of mine, about "demons of delusion needing expelling". It seems he can't help but take such a line in total seriousness, as if there are literal demons out there possessing people. Or when I said that "God reveals himself to the individual alone." How utterly offended he was that I would use such wording with an interpretation differing from the western theistic thought system. It gives an interested look into what motivates him, what he aims to protect.

In the name of Christ I command you demons of hell: leave this forum and never come back! Halleluja Aptelian Sjada Ho'ala Te Eken Barada! Barada! :)

In the most strict sense Gustav as some version of "Legion" is channelling Satan himself: God's cosmic opposition to himself. Fallen, vain, proud, ugly and full of revenge. Attack or challenge is his only way to be, to remain unchanged in memory. Without challenging he cannot define himself, his culture, his background. He needs this forum as hard as Satan needs God, since even he cannot help but reflecting His light, the Luciferian flame of foolish wisdom, moving in the eternal draft of life. Halleluja Aesf'ren Shia Coala Sheeressio Eken Ak Barada! Barada!

[Beingof1]

Speaking of "highly emotional", it's been interesting to see our 'Gustav' run with a recent line of mine, about "demons of delusion needing expelling". It seems he can't help but take such a line in total seriousness, as if there are literal demons out there possessing people. Or when I said that "God reveals himself to the individual alone." How utterly offended he was that I would use such wording with an interpretation differing from the western theistic thought system. It gives an interested look into what motivates him, what he aims to protect.

It does not matter if Gustav is angry, completely wrong, emotional or 'way out there'.

The difference, in case you weren't paying attention - Gustav did not threaten Diebert with moving his conversations - like a punishment - to the backwaters of the forum.

The hypocritical nature of the "guardian of the wise ones' - is just stupid childhood memories being replayed.


One has to ask themselves - who is being the bully here? Same mentality that burns books, threatens with punishment, lies to cover it up, and taking sides. Us against them childhood stupidity.

But that wont stop this moronic attempt at appearing 'wise and objectivity'.

Like I said - its all bullshit and its schoolyard bully tactics. Would the moderators please grow up and stop sucking your thumb.

[Beingof1]

Speaking of "highly emotional", it's been interesting to see our 'Gustav' run with a recent line of mine, about "demons of delusion needing expelling". It seems he can't help but take such a line in total seriousness, as if there are literal demons out there possessing people. Or when I said that "God reveals himself to the individual alone." How utterly offended he was that I would use such wording with an interpretation differing from the western theistic thought system. It gives an interested look into what motivates him, what he aims to protect.

In the name of Christ I command you demons of hell: leave this forum and never come back! Halleluja Aptelian Sjada Ho'ala Te Eken Barada! Barada! :)

In the most strict sense Gustav as some version of "Legion" is channelling Satan himself: God's cosmic opposition to himself. Fallen, vain, proud, ugly and full of revenge. Attack or challenge is his only way to be, to remain unchanged in memory. Without challenging he cannot define himself, his culture, his background. He needs this forum as hard as Satan needs God, since even he cannot help but reflecting His light, the Luciferian flame of foolish wisdom, moving in the eternal draft of life. Halleluja Aesf'ren Shia Coala Sheeressio Eken Ak Barada! Barada!

And this is coming from someone who is wise enough to decide whose post needs to stay or go?

Oh sure - this is objective clarity if I have ever seen it.

I do not know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And this is coming from someone who is wise enough to decide whose post needs to stay or go?

A bit of humour comes a long way in this line or work. But which posts were removed? Any examples you know of? You lie, parrot and accuser. Satan!

[Beingof1]

And this is coming from someone who is wise enough to decide whose post needs to stay or go?

A bit of humour comes a long way in this line or work. But which posts were removed? Any examples you know of? You lie, parrot and accuser. Satan!

More spin, lies, changing the venue, twisty turner of the reality of what actually happened?

You just cannot stop yourself can you?

Now - try to pay attention - if you can manage to stop lying to yourself for a single post - one can only hope.

Are you paying attention?

Are you sure?

Try not to twist, morph, change the subject, lie, deceive, manipulate, connive or control.

Are you sure you can do that for a single solitary post?


Here it is - pay close attention:
You do not actually have to move the conversation to censor it -a threat is all that is needed to censor - I sincerely hope that penetrated your defense mechanism of being bullied as a child.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You do not actually have to move the conversation to censor it -a threat is all that is needed to censor

Aha, of course, you change the meaning of "censor" to mean "suggesting the idea things might move to another pile" since you were caught again with the pants down. If you had a more positive attitude you might have read that it was simply being suggested here that certain conversations might be better fitting for a separate "Worldy/Wordy Matters" forum as it was in the past. No specific targets were announced. And I've moved at times my own threads down too, like the one on scientific news. Other examples would be a discourse on history, politics, conspiracy or mathematics. This has happened since the beginning of this board by the various admins.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Reality cannot be straightjacketed in any way. Any attempt to straightjacket it, in whatever conceptual framework, religious or otherwise, indicates a gross misunderstanding of its nature. Reality is not a spiritual, physical, or mentalistic entity. It is beyond all these things. It has no nature.

In some sense then, too, the statement David makes here could amount to a 'straightjacket', and based on what I have noticed about the ways his ideas function in people, I'd suggest very strongly that they tend to get straightjacketed. The reason why this happens can, I sincerely believe, be isolated and described. I would further suggest that we have among us now a dedicated disciple in the form of Russell. There are few who seem to have better taken on the philosophy presented by Quinn & Co. and so to understand what happens and what will happen to someone who so internalizes this system, one need only interrogate Russell and notice his rather outrageous 'straightjacket'.

Sure, 'reality' and things existing is beyond our means to conceive. And it is wise to meditate on this from time to time (or even every morning). And it might also be true that such a mediation loosens the mind or invigorates the spirit somehow. But the basic issue as I understand it is two-fold: 1) We inherit biolgically the qualities of those who have gone before us. This means many different things which must be paid attention to, not denied (by referring to material processes as 'delusions' etc.) And 2) is that we receive cultural products as direct inheritance from our fathers and from culture. Language, attitude, science and really all that we can name.

Now, when 'enlightenment' is spoken of, and it is presented by persons who are disestablishing appropriate realtionship with their own biological self as well as their cultural self, and favoring an abstract state as is 'enlightenment', there is no way that it should not raise eyebrows. What precisely is being spoken of? What precisely is being represented and suggested as a value? And when you ask them and they have no answer, what shall one conclude? And then when one notes that they establish and 'sell' destructive attitudes toward both biological inheritence and cultural inheritance and call that 'progress', it is not hard to see that something suspect is going on.

The difference, in case you weren't paying attention - Gustav did not threaten Diebert with moving his conversations - like a punishment - to the backwaters of the forum.

Though Diebert has not, now, done such a thing, the actual question of importance is more profound: What are we going to call 'worldly'? I make the case that there are inane things but that there is here, on this confused-philosophy forum, a grave misunderstanding of what has value and what should be preserved and named a value. Diebert's implication, stated more or less openly, was that the recent trend in conversation was 'worldly' and not (I suppose) sufficiently 'spiritual'. But there lies the core dispute. And I make my case quite clearly.

In the most strict sense Gustav as some version of "Legion" is channelling Satan himself: God's cosmic opposition to himself. Fallen, vain, proud, ugly and full of revenge. Attack or challenge is his only way to be, to remain unchanged in memory. Without challenging he cannot define himself, his culture, his background. He needs this forum as hard as Satan needs God, since even he cannot help but reflecting His light, the Luciferian flame of foolish wisdom, moving in the eternal draft of life. Halleluja Aesf'ren Shia Coala Sheeressio Eken Ak Barada! Barada!

As much as I take this as a joke-of-sorts, it is also (as was Russell's recent demon-identification) not at all a joke. There is indeed a stated demonology in Quinn's thinking, and Russell expresses it as 'ego' 'delusion' and 'ignorance'. Similarly, there is an assertion of a godliness (to push the metaphor) which one locates in, I assume, Russell's own 'samadhi'-states.

Essentially, what I say is that awareness, creativity, will and motive energy need to be channeled into the proper areas, and not diluted with vain pursuit of (what looks to be) a narcissistic sort.

It is really a pretty simple statement.

So, it is not a surprise that Diebert in his Spider-Incarnation and self-chosen vigilante role (spider senses all a-tingle) notes with a certain alarm that I am making inroads as-against the folly of this 'enlightenment' proposal in clear, rational terms.

But note that I wish to modify 'enlightenment' in the direction of 'illumination' which is in that sense a desire to salvage something from the madness of the wreckage: bringing light into consciousness, into what we have and what we are.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Now, when 'enlightenment' is spoken of, and it is presented by persons who are disestablishing appropriate realtionship with their own biological self as well as their cultural self, and favoring an abstract state as is 'enlightenment'

In what way did you conclude such "disetablishment" or how would you describe this "abstract state"? You seem to just "invoke" but never substantiate (much like "self" indeed). And how to even address all that comes after? It's all build on these declarations, these beliefs.

As much as I take this as a joke-of-sorts, it is also (as was Russell's recent demon-identification) not at all a joke. There is indeed a stated demonology in Quinn's thinking, and Russell expresses it as 'ego' 'delusion' and 'ignorance'.

Well, technically, if one speaks of "no-self", any thought of an actual "self" in terms of biological or cultural entity as being, as fixed or absolute even inherently so, would be very much like a ghost or demon. Which needs chants and holy "objects" arranged in certain ways to appear to materialize but it never really does. So yes, you're finally "getting" some of the metaphors perhaps.

But note that I wish to modify 'enlightenment' in the direction of 'illumination' which is in that sense a desire to salvage something from the madness of the wreckage: bringing light into consciousness, into what we have and what we are.

Everyone has definitely his own will when it comes to what he thinks needs to be illuminated. But in your case the salvaging sounds a lot like attachment, seeking for something for your self to hold on to. That makes your journey so very personal and explains the collision course with forum members who often snub your efforts, even ridicule it at times. And yet it's understood, it's our predicament as imaginary ghost dwelling the crypt. We're all ghosts and doubly so on some online forum. But the image of an image of a ghost can reveal something too.

[Beingof1]

Gustav:

Beingof1 wrote:
The difference, in case you weren't paying attention - Gustav did not threaten Diebert with moving his conversations - like a punishment - to the backwaters of the forum.

Guatav:
Though Diebert has not, now, done such a thing,

This is true, he did not do this. I was being his mirror. I built a case out of thin air and he even asked if you would agree.

I used spin, jargon and framing to let him know what it is like to talk to him at times.

What I did to him - he has done to me, you and anyone else that he deems is 'not wise and deluded'. I come here and try to have conversations and I end up talking about 9/11 in post after post - it was and is ridiculous.

One little snippet:

Gustav:
'The experiment', that is if I understand you aright, is likely to be an attempt to control. Neither more nor less. Control of this sort should be relinquished. If that happens, more interesting things tend to occur. When the control-freaks (with specific agendas) are given power, they always fuck it up.

Diebert when I agreed:
Of course, you both have this splendid ability to paint others with your own sins and call it liberation. So you're saying indeed "the same thing'.

And you still have little knowledge of the bible, despite your pretence. Still a child playing with baby milk and motherly breasts. Ah well.

He brings up my views on scripture - as if that has anything at all to do with what you are talking about. I was only his mirror - that anyone - can be framed by spin doctoring - the politicians do it all day long.

I did see however you being 'cautioned' for not being 'wise enough' in your subject matter from he and Russell.

[Beingof1]

You do not actually have to move the conversation to censor it -a threat is all that is needed to censor

Aha, of course, you change the meaning of "censor" to mean "suggesting the idea things might move to another pile" since you were caught again with the pants down. If you had a more positive attitude you might have read that it was simply being suggested here that certain conversations might be better fitting for a separate "Worldy/Wordy Matters" forum as it was in the past. No specific targets were announced. And I've moved at times my own threads down too, like the one on scientific news. Other examples would be a discourse on history, politics, conspiracy or mathematics. This has happened since the beginning of this board by the various admins.

Its true - you only suggested it. You went so far as to see if Gustav would be OK with moving the thread.

How does it feel to be framed?

Can we stop talking past each other? Can we finally go back to philosophy?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I used spin, jargon and framing to let him know what it is like to talk to him at times.

So when are you're going to stop? It's obvious you're trying to reframe your honest mistake, misreading or whatever as some intentional device. My question is not if you were doing that but how aware you are that you're still doing it right now.

What I did to him - he has done to me, you and anyone else that he deems is 'not wise and deluded'. I come here and try to have conversations and I end up talking about 9/11 in post after post - it was and is ridiculous.

Because you denied that there was a conversation based on a video you posted. Which I just described as (one) part of how I remembered you. We could discuss you terrible it is that I don't remember you as insightful in terms of Zen, Buddhish or Christian theology. But I just told you what I remembered. And you still cannot accept that I'd have such a memory. And went you of your way to disprove my memory.

You attempted to "undo" the other, to make it look completely untrue or made up. Don't you think that is controlling or attempted censorship? How wonderful these mirrors work. And I'll keep supplying them, truth is nothing but: imperfect but effective mirrors.

How does it feel to be framed?

Just like I felt during all the conversations I ever had with you. Don't you get why I'm challenging you with such charged language like "liar" or "into conspiracy"? Because I believe you are, not because of 9/11 or chem-trails but because how you seem to have this theory on consciousness and God where a whole identity of some kind seems to be wrapped up in. And "casting demons" out is just that: challenging the falsehood which is our belief in self, world, material, spiritual, heavenly, earthly things, entities, truths and being. These "ghosts", false ideations, are as real as anything else in the so-called "spiritual world". It's a "realm" I take way more serious than you can imagine. And I do think I understand more of it than most.

And perhaps all I do is casting out my own falsehoods in the process. It's really up to you how you want to interpret all this. But game playing and name calling is not the way. Mind you, if I call you liar, or fraud, it's because I believe you're not speaking the truth or are offering theories which can be proven wrong and you don't seem to be willing to look at the supplied reasoning. But I'll use a more gentle language since you only think less when reading my supercharged terms, not more. Which is a lesson learned.

[Beingof1]

I used spin, jargon and framing to let him know what it is like to talk to him at times.

So when are you're going to stop? It's obvious you're trying to reframe your honest mistake, misreading or whatever as some intentional device. My question is not if you were doing that but how aware you are that you're still doing it right now.

Blah - blah blah blah blah - like always - the point wizzed right over your head. It has to be me making a mistake - you are unbelievably dense beyond imagination and I do give up trying to reach you. You started all of this - don't you realize that? Don't you realize you just go on harping and harping and harping? Nope - you will go into more denial.


You are dense because unless someone believes in Darwinian evolution, your particular concept of the universe (of which you have none), your own personal view on the Buddha's teaching, your world view, your concept of philosophy, religion etc.etc.etc you undermine and nit pick over incidental points and never engage in solid philosophy that you can sink your teeth into - you make sure and skip the real important issues and focus on the ancillary.

The real problem here - you do not have a position - on anything - ever. The only opinion you have is you disagree with everyone except your favorite people and as long as an adherent raises their hand and pledges allegiance - not to the right concept because you do not have any - but the right people, you nit pick and drone on and on and on and on and on.

I once had an entire conversation going about philosophy and you picked out one sentence out of literally hundreds and droned and droned and droned and droned on that single sentence.

You deemed the conversation in this thread not in keeping with the forum goals. I used that to catapult you and your droning on and on and on and on about someone's belief. You talk about trivial nonsensical little bitty issues - that is not philosophy.

Like whether I believe in 9/11 conspiracy - as if that defines who I am - but you disagree - not based on facts, evidence or logic because you rarely engage in that but merely by the fact I disagree - you call that delusion. Its stupid, moronic and adolescent and because of that - I do not recognize you as my moderator on this forum.

You have no authority over what I post, my opinions, and where or to whom I write. you are to caught up on 'getting me' and that - is delusion.

I have found that you are to dense to release the genius within you because you are to afraid to actually think for yourself so in order to feel better - you pick out targets and drone on and on and on about insignificant pitter patter that means nothing.

This is what you do and I now realize your mind has crystalized.

Good journey

[Beingof1]

Others who are reading this may feel I am overreacting - I have had his leaping into conversations only to turn it into - my delusion for a decade just about every single time and the issues are left on the back burner.

This will never happen again

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The real problem here - you do not have a position - on anything - ever.

Correct, there's only one absolute. It's not a problem though unless you want to make one. As one of the more verbose and opinionated people on this forum, I'd be surprised if realy a case could be made that I don't have any position whatsoever. Funny idea though. Perhaps ultimately, indeed, how could I have positions?

The only opinion you have is you disagree with everyone except your favorite people

Correct, although my favorite people do not come with "positions" as such. They appear to be engaged in the same activity at this forum as myself.

d you picked out one sentence out of literally hundreds and droned and droned and droned and droned on that single sentence.

Correct, but I found that sentence expressing the core of my disagreement. So instead of addressing hundreds of lesser points, I focused on that one.

You deemed the conversation in this thread not in keeping with the forum goals.

No, it was first Gustav making the statement on it having "no topic at all, there is nowhere it can't go and no going off-topic". Then I mentioned there was this idea (Russell's actually) to create a forum for topics with little aim or relevance to the main forum's stated goal, no matter how wide these could be interpreted. In the end, at the big majority of active boards on this planet the administrators move topics around all the time as they seem fit. Only for a few children here that is too much. That's what makes this so hilarious, so illustrative of imagined self-importance and hate towards anyone authoritative or challenging.

You talk about trivial nonsensical little bitty issues - that is not philosophy

Indeed it was about your stream of trivial white lies, brown lies and black lies. For you not a big deal, it never was! Are you perhaps, in fact, a fraud in your daily life? Hard to imagine you're still a minister of an actual congregation. Then again, perhaps truth is not a requirement there, just clever use of emotional appeal and here and there a twist of words?

Its stupid, moronic and adolescent and because of that - I do not recognize you as my moderator on this forum.

Feel free to leave such a horrible place with horrible people! But like old Gustav, you'll probably just hang on. But if you'll write the same about Russell as moderator at some point as you do now about my role, you'll probably not be recognized anymore as member of this forum. You are, after all, just a guest.

You have no authority over what I post, my opinions, and where or to whom I write. you are to caught up on 'getting me' and that - is delusion.

Did I delete anything of you ever or threaten to? Or asked anyone else to? You're just lying and slandering again. Feel free if you have that need. Fact is that I do have authority as moderator and you will not be able to dictate the shape or form of the moderation. Suggestions are always welcome.

This is what you do and I now realize your mind has crystallized.

It's called thought. But for thought to happen, some of your emotion and lying will have to cease. You're unable to, though, it's become "you"?

Good journey

Enjoy it while we think we last :) No seriously, my differences with you are on the surface, the top current, the surf of things. We are both part of the same move, ultimately. There's no hate, anger or sadness here. You do what you are being caused to be. As do I, of course, at this forum.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

In what way did you conclude such "disestablishment" or how would you describe this "abstract state"? You seem to just "invoke" but never substantiate (much like "self" indeed). And how to even address all that comes after? It's all build on these declarations, these beliefs.

Very very simple. I start with this statement: We are composed by and through what we have been bequeathed and inherited through a biological and genetic dispensation. That is, our biological being. To speak of the human is to be required to speak of man at this level. Second, that the second level of inheritance is the cultural inheritance. This is: language, all cultural accomplishment, all the carvings out of the chaos; the struggle for knowledge and power in this realm. These are two solid pillars.

I define 'disestablishment' as a doctrine, a view, the articulation of premises which cause a man to devalue these two specific pillars, and to propose as a substitute an abstraction: 'enlightenment' as 'the most valuable thing in the universe'. This abstract man uses this To denigrate both the manifest, biological person (what has made him himself), as well as intellectual and cultural accomplishment by proposing that to recognize and value these things is 'clinging' and 'ego-attachment' and 'delusion'. It is a wicked rhetorical trick but very mistaken, and easy to refute. I suggest that quite the opposite is true. I further suggest that he who proposes this, at least to my ears, is proposing 'delusion' out of 'ignorance'. And thus I propose a corrective to ignorance and to nescience. My position is clear as day.

The reason that you cannot wrap your mind around this is because, at the very core Diebert, you have internalized these mistaken beliefs! Yet you present a facade which tricks your reader into thinking you are structured differently. At the end of the day you are a classical postmodernist (IMV) and your Sage-Teacher is Baudrillard. I am not merely joking. I repeat what Beingof1 has recently said: you have no philosophy, you really have nothing to say, and for this reason you are a compliment to Russell in ideology.

I wrote: As much as I take this as a joke-of-sorts, it is also (as was Russell's recent demon-identification) not at all a joke. There is indeed a stated demonology in Quinn's thinking, and Russell expresses it as 'ego' 'delusion' and 'ignorance'.

Diebert responded: Well, technically, if one speaks of "no-self", any thought of an actual "self" in terms of biological or cultural entity as being, as fixed or absolute even inherently so, would be very much like a ghost or demon. Which needs chants and holy "objects" arranged in certain ways to appear to materialize but it never really does. So yes, you're finally "getting" some of the metaphors perhaps.

Here you pour-forth a postmodern rhetorical slop. Semi-intellectual. Designed to impress the superficial. Yes, Diebert, I do capture that. I see how you begin your convolution-discourse. It is like throwing up a smoke screen to confuse issues. And you can confuse things mightily! Your philosophese has this function, you see: not to clarify but to obfuscate. And thus again (IMV) you are a compliment to Russell who has absorbed a religious position at its most crude and obvious. Not philosophical and certainly not rational. Peculiarly, you both (and others too) hole-up in a pseudo-philosophical front but the conversation is not and has never been philosophical. Once one gets this things get much more clear. (And this does not mean that I hold out against a religious position, but that is another topic).

Everyone has definitely his own will when it comes to what he thinks needs to be illuminated. But in your case the salvaging sounds a lot like attachment, seeking for something for your self to hold on to. That makes your journey so very personal and explains the collision course with forum members who often snub your efforts, even ridicule it at times. And yet it's understood, it's our predicament as imaginary ghost dwelling the crypt. We're all ghosts and doubly so on some online forum. But the image of an image of a ghost can reveal something too.

'Sounds a lot like attachment' is the same angle that Russell takes (and Quinn and Co. as well): to focus on 'attachment'. But again: We inhabit these bodies and in this sense our existence is defined through our attachment, that we 'occur' within this biological structure. To imply 'non-attachment' to the structure of the body, in which we reside, is to imply death. Therefor, this notion of non-attachment can be seen as being ill-conceived and structurally and rationally unsound.

The whole definition of 'non-attachment' is a ridiculous, foreign intrusion (IMV). One can speak of sacrifice-of-self but it has to be to something or toward a greater value, and the only (real) values that can be defined are threefold: 1) our biological self and inheritance, 2) our cultural inheritance, and also, and this is very important, 3) our conception of higher value which is, as I define it, our metaphysics. I leave open the question of metaphysics because I have a neoplatonic perspective. But I will say (IMO) that 1 and 2 must be established as primary, and that 3 is in this sense a 'control' of sorts. Or 3 is where 1 and 2 are tested. Three is not independent of 1 and 2 and when we detach them, I suggest, that is where 'unhealthy abstraction' enters in.

There is much that can and should be said about this three-tiered relationship. (And one would have to broach the topic of god-divinity and of Revelation and the manifestation of divinity into this realm. As a neo-platonist-of-sorts and one who recurs to this metaphysics-physics I have a way of understanding these relationships. I don't say an Absolute Docrine but rather a way to speak about them, including the Christian revelation).

Quite clearly, any attentive reader can grasp with no difficulty at all where and why I am opposing this ridiculous and convoluted 'enlightenment' charade. The argument is made and presented in a certain simplicity, and you cannot oppose it. You have no means to oppose it. So you will convolute the entire conversation and see if you can derail it.

Beingof1 put it like this:

The real problem here - you do not have a position - on anything - ever. The only opinion you have is you disagree with everyone except your favorite people and as long as an adherent raises their hand and pledges allegiance - not to the right concept because you do not have any - but the right people, you nit pick and drone on and on and on and on and on.

[Pam Seeback]

Alex: I leave open the question of metaphysics because I have a neoplatonic perspective.

Perhaps I have not been paying attention, but given your history with me, I am very surprised that you define yourself as having a neoplatonic perspective. Just to confirm what my memory was telling me about Neoplatonism, I called up the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism and there it was, in black and white:

It is also a cornerstone of Neoplatonism to teach that all people return to the Source. The Source, Absolute, or One is what all things spring from and, as a superconsciousness (nous), is where all things return. It can be said that all consciousness is wiped clean and is returned to a blank slate when returning to the Source. All things have force or potential (dynamis) as their essence. This dynamis begets energy (energeia).

The Neoplatonists believed in the pre-existence, and immortality of the soul. The human soul consists of a lower irrational soul and a higher rational soul (mind), both of which can be regarded as different powers of the one soul. It was widely held that the soul possesses a "vehicle", accounting for the human soul's immortality and allowing for its return to the One after death. After bodily death, the soul takes up a level in the afterlife corresponding with the level at which it lived during its earthly life.

I realize the above is a sound byte from the page (of course there is more detail provided if one cares to read), but given the ultimate goal of the metaphysics of Neoplatonism, I am perplexed as to why you come with acid to throw on those who present world-transcendent views.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

To say 'neoplatonism' is to make a reference to a way of seeing, a way of organizing perspective. It allows me to hold both the Idea that *you* favor and to understand its function, as well as that of say the Christian metaphysics or the Hindu metaphysics.

What you fail I think to grasp - though it is not complex - is that I propose a sort of rewrite of the Absolutist Doctrines (as expressed here). I very clearly spell this out.

I use the term 'acid' only to describe an activity, an attitude - I have clearly expressed this and given examples - which allows for a disapppreciation of our biological self and this inheritance as well as a shunning of cultural inheritance: language, scientia, modes of knowing, intellect, and a great deal else.

You are a monk, Pam, and you are operating within one aspect or at one extreme of a continuum that is cultural (human) life itself. I have said it now 3-4 times: I do not argue against this as a choice. I argue against a totalizing platform which leads to stark disappreciation of what has made us us.

I spell it out in clear prose.

You define your project as 'world-transcendent'? At the very least you are taking a clear stand. I would suggest that this stance, insofar as I understand it and you in it, needs to be modified. I can explain what I mean. I have been explaining what I mean.

[guest_of_logic]

The whole definition of 'non-attachment' is a ridiculous, foreign intrusion (IMV). One can speak of sacrifice-of-self but it has to be to something or toward a greater value, and the only (real) values that can be defined are threefold: 1) our biological self and inheritance, 2) our cultural inheritance, and also, and this is very important, 3) our conception of higher value which is, as I define it, our metaphysics. I leave open the question of metaphysics because I have a neoplatonic perspective. But I will say (IMO) that 1 and 2 must be established as primary, and that 3 is in this sense a 'control' of sorts. Or 3 is where 1 and 2 are tested. Three is not independent of 1 and 2 and when we detach them, I suggest, that is where 'unhealthy abstraction' enters in.

A good and interesting post, the part to which I wish to launch a response I have quoted. I think I can express why QRStians do not share your values #1, #2, and, to a large extent, #3. No doubt, you already understand all this, but expressing it in this way helped to clarify it in my own mind, so maybe you'll appreciate it.

You have been talking a lot about how nobody can define and specify what QRS "enlightenment" actually is - how it is empty and meaningless. I think it can be defined though: I think it is essentially a belief structure or lens through which one views the world, and which guides one in one's life (and especially ethical) choices. The very core of this belief structure is hard determinism: the view that we live in a clockwork universe in which all things and all changes are necessitated. Now, there is an inherent problem with this view, because the QRS belief system has no cogent answer to the question "Necessitated by what?", but let's skip past that for the moment.

If all is necessitated, then there is no room for genuine volition: no free will, no personal choice. And if, too, the universe is essentially a singular playing out of clockwork interactions, then there is indeed no true *personhood*, there are only cogs in a Machine. But even this is not going far enough: one must go as deep as one can into the *singularity* of the Machine. There are, indeed, not even any "cogs": whilst the Machine is differentiated, it does not contain any true parts, it is in fact an holistic continuum. Thus, from "Machine" to "Totality". Hence, "Totalitarianism", the term I coined in my first post to GF, a term to which David objected most vigorously, but which I think is, in the end, apt: on this view, we are under "total" control, so much control that we do not even exist as discrete individuals!

QRS enlightenment is, essentially, the acceptance of this core belief, this belief in the hard determinism of Totalitarianism, followed by an ethical commitment: to live one's life *as though* it were true. Why do I describe this as an ethical commitment? Because it can be framed as a prescription: neither machines nor their parts have emotions, and, since "I" am merely an arbitrarily-bounded cog in the Machine, then nor *SHOULD* I have emotions. The only feelings valid under Totalitarianism proper are those based upon reverence for the Machine and one's place in it: feelings of one's smallness and inevitability in the Machine, feelings of "non-attachment", feelings of dispassionate awareness of the turning of cogs, including one's own turning cog, in the Machine.

When Totalitarians define "enlightenment" as "an absence of delusion", what they really mean is "an absence of any belief in conflict with hard determinism, and an absence of any ethical commitment which conflicts with that which Totalitarians view as following from hard determinism".

So, what else *does* follow from hard determinism in this belief structure? Here is where we get to your values #1 and #2. Since neither volition nor even *personhood* exist on this view, anything predicated on these must be discarded (as "delusional") (hence your "acid"). And your #1 and #2 *are* predicated on personhood: under Totalitarianism, there is no value to biology; biology is merely an arbitrary differentiation within the Totality, no more nor less significant than any other differentiation, and thus no more nor less valuable. To value culture would be to presuppose that the arbitrary expressions of differentiation (cultural norms) attributable to certain other arbitrary differentiations in the Totality (people acting in groups) were more significant than any other arbitrary expressions of differentiation attributable to any other arbitrary differentiations, which of course (on this view) they are not.

As for your #3, "higher values", the only "higher" values on Totalitarianism are those of recognition for its core belief and for living as though it were true: as though one did not truly exist but were merely an arbitrarily-bounded, and arbitrary, differentiation in a Totality-Machine, which Itself implies no values or meaning. This is the valuing of "wisdom". It is, of course, a self-contradiction: if there truly is no objective or absolute value or meaning in or to the Totality, then the valuing of this "wisdom" is as unjustified as any other valuation, but of course this contradiction is rationalised away, as being attributable to that momentum built up by following the path required to attain enlightenment.

In a way, this belief structure is liberating, which, of course, is its appeal: accepting Totalitarianism, we no longer need to feel responsible in an ethical sense other than for promulgating its core tenets: indeed, how could we be responsible when we neither truly exist nor are capable of genuine volition? It is "the easy way out".

In a very much more serious and real sense, it is constricting and restrictive: a denial of that which makes us human in the first place; a denial of our essential personhood, of our discreteness, volition and sentiment, and of the many creative and affirmative ways in which we can use our volition as discrete personal beings to interact with other discrete personal beings based on sentiment, and, when our volition and sentiment are shared, to create wonder (including culture).

Of course, even the most committed of Totalitarians do not - cannot - *truly* act in accordance with Totalitarianism. Even Kevin is a fan of culture: he loves his Flamenco dancing, for example, and has favourite musical choices, and even enjoys the odd round of golf. Technically, according to his philosophy, all of this is meaningless, and should interest him solely for the sake of dispassionate awareness of the turning of the cogs of the Machine, but in reality, it interests him *personally*, as a *discrete* human of *sentiment*.

And this, aside from its philosophical failings (we do not live in a deterministic universe where consciousness is an epiphenomenal tack-on; we live in a universe where volitional consciousness is primary), is the crucial failing of Totalitarianism: because it is fundamentally *false*, it is impossible to live in accordance with; its most ardent adherents are doomed to hypocrisy. It also requires a never-ending process of rationalisation: if I *ought* not to feel emotions, having had the realisation of Totality-Machine, then why *do* I? Oh, that must be the "false self". But why does this "false self" still exist when I have intellectually realised the nature of reality? Well, intellectual realisation is not enough: one also needs to practice enlightened living (read: to brainwash and delude oneself). Etc etc.

And so it goes. You know the story, and have done for some time. The "acidification" is an outcome of denying one's personhood and volition. It all stems from that. This is the essential difference between you and I, and the Totalitarians. They are philosophically precluded from valuing so much that we value because they have accepted a false philosophy of depersonalisation. And it really is important to point out and highlight this. Of course, I have not even attempted in this post to justify my claim that it is a false philosophy: to many, that it is false is obvious, to some, caught in the trap, it is not. But all of that's for another post, if at all...

In any case, I will leave it there, trusting that this post is of some assistance in your own critique of Totalitarianism.

Fruitfully,
Laird