I have transfered elements from another thread here. I wish to confine myself to one thread where my basic intentions have been defined. A careful---even thoughtful!---virus I am.
Dan wrote:Haven't you seen my Youtube video on this subject? I seem to recall you saying you had. Enlightenment is simply the absence of all delusion regarding the nature of ultimately reality, of self/other. The meat of that is more complex to talk about because it involves uncovering the various ways in which we are in fact delusional. We have, of course, been doing that for 15 years, in case you hadn't noticed.
I am with you 100% on the importance of uncovering the ways which 'we' (humans) are 'delusional'. I support you-plural in this important endeavor. And if you have not noticed I have, for the last 6-7 years or so, dedicated a certain amount of my time and effort in pointing in the direction of a delusional understanding of 'enlightenment' on the part of the Founders of Genius Forum. It is really as simple, and as complex (as you say), as that.
So, I have here, now, clearly defined my project. David, Kevin and you have
deluded concepts that function right at the very core of your definition of 'enlightenment' but which, being so very close and cherished, are invisible to you. They are part of the group of predicates about the 'nature of reality' which have not been universally agreed upon and are open for conversation. These predicates determine your actions from the small scale to the large and, from what I have been able to tell, originate in Kevin Solway's philosophical organization of ideas.
I have asserted---alluded is a word I am also fine with---that the erroneousness of the predicates produced, right at the very beginning,
a dysfunctional outlook and relationship to life---to being alive. The first discordant note is one of
hubris: a particularly virulent species of 'arrogance' that displays, in certain ways and at certain moment, attitudes which contain or express something that might be called 'delusions of grandeur'. I refer to the scholarly definition of hubris, and also to the undertones that underlie the sense of the word (a distortion of eroticism? a 'loss of contact with reality? But I think we must note the idea at least of 'infliction of punishment' at the very least, a kind of 'sadism')
At this level, and looked at in this way, the issue becomes one of a very strange form of 'spiritual ailment'. But we now make a full circle to the notion of 'delusion' and, if you wish, of 'samsara' or, as I would rather say, 'perdition'. (But not strictly in a Christian sense since, in truth, it is almost impossible to understand or to state what Christians mean by 'perdition'. However, 'perdition' functions as a term of discourse far better than 'samsara' which, as we all know or should know, is nearly completely wedded to a convoluted Eastern, Hinduesque metaphysic).
But I am with you Dan, 100%, that delusion in spiritual life should be examined and exposed. That in a nutshell is what I have been about and, as long as you don't hit the 'ban' button, will continue to elucidate.
;-)
Now, I am asked to present my case 'rationally' and in the above I have outlined, rationally and carefully and clearly, exactly what my proposition is.
Diebert wrote:In that sense the "meat" is the forum itself in its multiplicity, elaboration, opposition and certainly confusion. But the purpose of the forum is to discuss its nature. In that light, anyone asking "what does E mean to you" or "please define it" must be really retarded. How could there be a simple definition if the reason of the gathering is stated on top of the page: "discussing its nature". What's there to discuss if there would be an accepted, generic description of enlightenment's nature in place for all to use? And why even start it as a topic when each thread implicitly has this topic already?
More evidence some people just want conversation as a goal in itself here. Perhaps to labor a point creating boring social interaction just to have this labor, to feel busy, to extract meaning not from the topic but from the engagement itself, justified and overvalued by the pretentious sounding topic as garment to cover the shame?
You also wrote the following as a down and dirty definition of 'what enlightenment means to you':
A light burning so bright that others start to see more clearly when they're around.
Now, I have no problem whatever with this definition, in part because it has no relationship with the Eastern notion of 'enlightenment' and would function very nicely within a Hellenistic philosophical focus. I do not see it as being
necessarily connected with the group of predicates that inform Kevin Solway and his construction of a definition of 'enlightenment'. It is typical, and predictable, on Diebert's part to fail to see what in truth is being critiqued because, in my understanding, he defends his personal notion of enlightenment as a sort of intellectual clarity. And Diebert 'interposes' himself, with his own concept, in between a critique of another, quite different and determinant group of concepts
within which he does not base his own notion of 'enlightenment' (which he does not ever speak about). The term 'enlightenment' is not one that is used by him and, also, he rejects the notion of 'sage', et cetera:
There are no people with "clear energies", as these supposed people are always embedded as personalities in the whole circumstance, entourage and particular history which is just as part of the clarity which is taking place in that context. The ones still looking for sages or speculating about them are still nothing but rebels without a clue.
But for a second I wish to point something out for all to look at. If you attempt to locate the 'first level of ad hominem attack' (on other's view and ideas) I submit that you will locate it it, essentially and perhaps originally, in the discourse of the Founders. They come forward with an 'attack' and an 'assault' on persons who are described as deficient in intellectual capabilities, in the ability to 'reason', are called stupid, herd-animals,
hysteriques, fems, and a litany of other terms. I suggest that this animus should be noted.
Be that as it may, Diebert seems to indicate that no definition of 'enlightenment' is required nor should it be asked for. I find this, in a philosophical context, literally astounding as well as thoroughly untenable. But remember: this peculiar and idiosyncratic notion of 'enlightenment' offered by the Founders is an outcome of a group of other predicates, and it is those predicates that,
sequitur, must be the area of focus. But the point here is to note the animus: 'retarded'. It is exactly this highfalutin, hubristic standing over conversations, standing over people and their views, and the tendency, often displayed overtly and with tangible violence, of coming down on someone with both feet, that is in my view an extending element of the dysfunction that has been established at a core level in the forum through the philosophical tenets.
As I have said at least 100 times, it is this tendency, this almost
erotic-sadistic pleasure that seems to attract a certain sort of person to these doctrines. It is at this point that, to examine those doctrines, requires an almost Freudian scalpel. To get to the bottom (heh heh, speaking of the Good Doktor things often get slippery!) of things here requires a whole plethora of tools.
Trippy, ain't it?
Diebert wrote:More evidence some people just want conversation as a goal in itself here. Perhaps to labor a point creating boring social interaction just to have this labor, to feel busy, to extract meaning not from the topic but from the engagement itself, justified and overvalued by the pretentious sounding topic as garment to cover the shame?
Related in kind to this one:
Such a sad waste of genuine effort. A neurosis of the Pincho variety! Pseudo-academic pedantry just to make himself feel like someone doing something. And needs this place like hell too. Fascination with ones own death? Pumping around of empty criticism just to have it increase value by itself? Self-referential resuscitation?
More spurious, insolent, contemptuous, self-selected 'evidence' and grandstanding and little more. Just
a smidgen of the dreaded (but fun!)
ad hominem. I won't speak for others who make their own declarations as to why they write here, but I write here and I involve myself in fairly serious study in my daily life, to be able to get to a genuine understanding of what philosophical living means and how it can and should function in a person's life. I also am involved in a project of attempting to organize ideas about how such formulations (as these of GF and QRS) can come into existence and why. As y'all know I take a critical stand as against this 'Zen' as a manifestation of a 'vertical invasion of the barbarian', which means as a trend that seems to have ambiguous results that can be looked at. I think it wise to point out that in respect to 'to extract meaning not from the topic but from the engagement itself, justified and overvalued by the pretentious sounding topic as garment to cover the shame?' is an unfair assault on clearly defined, if not widely accepted, intentions.
PS:
Here is Dan's Enlightenment video.