the unending pursuit

[Tomas]

We all have our pet 'world' of interpretation in which we live. We turn the locks ourselves.
'We've seen the enemy and the enemy is us'.

The world already ended, but the philosophers hushed it up.

[guest_of_logic]

TA, Gurrb can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood him to be replying once again, but this time in more fleshed out way, to David's post, and not to yours. For example, he writes of "the purposes you claim this forum encompasses", and of "your enlightenment", which seem far more apt when applied to David than to you, and of course the "suppressed anger", "negativity" and "hatefulness", as you rightly question, are again more applicable to David.

[Talking Ass]

Oh. Whew! I'm off the hook. Too many mirrors on my walls I guess...

[Gurrb]

ya, sorry about that talking ass, my message was directed toward david.

[Cathy Preston]

My mother was a hypochondriac, she died of liver failure as a result of prescription drugs, I wish the Doctors would of been a little more hateful, maybe she'd be alive today.

[Jamesh]

the "suppressed anger", "negativity" and "hatefulness", as you rightly question, are again more applicable to David.

Not that I've seen. In the context of much lighter versions of those emotions, Dan maybe a little bit in the tone he uses, but even that sort of compliments David's patience in any case. I've never spoken to them though, which can make a difference, though I doubt it would in this case.

There does seem to be frustration at times, but then only robots wouldn't be. No one likes to waste time pointlessly. Some degree of returned negativity can induce people to reflect, to requestion where they may otherwise not have done so.

I get pissed off with them, intermittently, during which times those emotions apply to me - never hatefulness though, I reserve that for Republicans, and their Oz equivalent :). Overall though I view them as "good guys". I do think they are sages, always calm, always consistent, always reasonable, and straight to the point (or more accurately, pointers). At the same time there are many end viewpoints they have that I doubt I will ever have. While my ego says that what they say is far from complete, I don't think what they do say is incorrect. My time theory clearly shows I have a strong belief in objective reality - I think one can have it both ways.

The important thing is that I have nothing to learn from them anymore - philosophical growth will either come from within or not at all. They and this forum and its associated self-learning experiences, have led me to know what is rationally correct and what is not, within the limitations of my intelligence and motivation.

[Talking Ass]

Yes and this is where the 'mythology of rebirth' (psychological, emotional, spiritual, intellectual) has relevance. Also, where the 'deliberate misreadings' and the 'violent self-appropriations of doctrines' kicks in. In this sense, boys and girls, GF is like an institution that must grow, continue in 'transformation'. Normally, the authorities resist change tooth and hoof, because growing is scary and also painful.

Anger? Hatred? Not quite, no. And they are.decent people. But contempt? 'Improper' prejudice? Yes indeedy.

The analogy of sickess/cure and painting the cure as 'hatred' is a problematic one. Thus: 'poison for the heart'. Cures are painful, often, and going against 'disease" is similar to 'hatred' but far enough away that the analogy does not function. Or rather it becomes a mask---a lie if you will.

Pay attention to the notion of allopathic and homeopathic cures. There is a very important element here.

To 'cure' men and to bring them to a state of health is in truth an endeavor of which Q and R and S are mere children. Loud-mouthed, snide and insolent children who require many, many spankings! Those spankings must be carries out not with hatred but with tolerant discipline. Then, they must confess their misdeeds openly and resolve to improve.

Otherwise, I fear for their 'livers'.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: the "suppressed anger", "negativity" and "hatefulness", as you rightly question, are again more applicable to David.

Jamesh: Not that I've seen.

I'm not sure whether you're bearing in mind that I was using those description in a relative sense i.e. as compared to TA. I wouldn't apply them entirely to David in an absolute sense; I think TA puts it very well with this:

Anger? Hatred? Not quite, no. And they are.decent people. But contempt? 'Improper' prejudice? Yes indeedy.

[Talking Ass]

Somehow, I always come up smelling like a rose, and though it may only be my aftershave, I am open to a session of hellfire critique of my devilish ways. Since I misuneestood Guurb that indicates some paranoia, or is it guilt? ;-) Though fully entranced.by my general wonderfulosity, I have to admit I have made, well, ages and ages ago, a few mistakes. But, I submitted myself to an almost Maoist 'deep critical self-analysis' and fixed that all up.

The Talking Ass™®© is fully prepared for the 21st century and to be among tne Vangard that brings humankind into the New Dispensation.

[Cathy Preston]

The analogy of sickess/cure and painting the cure as 'hatred' is a problematic one. Thus: 'poison for the heart'. Cures are painful, often, and going against 'disease" is similar to 'hatred' but far enough away that the analogy does not function. Or rather it becomes a mask---a lie if you will.

Are you calling me a liar? and isn't discipline such as spanking, hateful in the eye of the receiver, regardless?
#

[Talking Ass]

I am suggesting something far more general and far more troubling: the ubiquity of our tendency to deceive ourselves. Especially when we are dealing on these grand questions about what people need and require to be well. While I.agree that David and Gang desire to see themselves as part of a 'cure' for every aspect of the human problem (this is not an exaggeration), I feel quite certain that one can consider and.reconsider this claim. And since.the claim seems flawed,.and all.kinds of countervaling assertions can be brought to bear againat this claim, that yes, it is a.kind of mask and a.sort of lie.

As.to my spankings, and while I do insist on spanking the bare bottom, I also have high ethical standards and always spray on a little Bactine™ and if there.is sufficinet begging for mercy and saying "Oh please Reverend Ass! OH PLEASE!" I will sometimes. (especially in the case of more tender girls) rub on some Healing Salve and allow for a yummy snack of some chocolate cake. Then, tears turn to joys!

[Cathy Preston]

Why is this troubling, you have the option of taking the medicine or not, and why worry about someone else's tendency to deceive themselves when you still have a have huge stick in your own eye? Or are you telling me you know exactly what people need and require to be well?

Why are you so excitable? Spankings, conversions and big words, seem to overly excite what otherwise pretends to be a humble ass.

[Talking Ass]

Or are you telling me you know exactly what people need and require to be well?

Is this the question for you, Cathy? Is this how you would phrase it? If not, what IS the central question, for you?

The very questions you ask, dear one, is one of the reasons why 'spankings' are required: instead of doing your research carefully, and really thinking things through, you launch into your pet 'cures', as if you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about. You take broad, almost astonishing guesses and then try to defend your position.

If you cannot distinguish why it is that these issues are of supreme importance, and if you do not have a 'genuine seriousness' in approaching them, then your rhetoric turns into fanfare for a private little club: just some folks who assemble to 'share their agreements' and to attack and knock down all comers who offer challenges.

If you genuinely assert that I, the Talking Ass®, The Alexians©, or any number of my army of sock-puppets have splinters in their [many] eyes, you will have to actually engage in the serious work of describing and demonstrating why this is so. To participate in this will mean that you will have to engage in the study of these questions and not just spout off some [absurd] neo-Christian semi-Buddhist gunk that you have concocted in your isolation, as have the Q the R and the S. This is not a joke, Cathy. What you seem better suited to, and what you seem to enjoy, are endless and inane arguments about abstract definitions, as for example in your 'conversations' with movingalways.

[Cathy Preston]

Or are you telling me you know exactly what people need and require to be well?

Is this the question for you, Cathy? Is this how you would phrase it? If not, what IS the central question, for you?

It was a serious question for you.

The very questions you ask, dear one, is one of the reasons why 'spankings' are required: instead of doing your research carefully, and really thinking things through, you launch into your pet 'cures', as if you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about. You take broad, almost astonishing guesses and then try to defend your position.

Now you're just being hateful!

If you cannot distinguish why it is that these issues are of supreme importance, and if you do not have a 'genuine seriousness' in approaching them, then your rhetoric turns into fanfare for a private little club: just some folks who assemble to 'share their agreements' and to attack and knock down all comers who offer challenges.

Why is it of supreme importance that this website specifically be held to a higher standard than any other?

If you genuinely assert that I, the Talking Ass®, The Alexians©, or any number of my army of sock-puppets have splinters in their [many] eyes, you will have to actually engage in the serious work of describing and demonstrating why this is so. To participate in this will mean that you will have to engage in the study of these questions and not just spout off some [absurd] neo-Christian semi-Buddhist gunk that you have concocted in your isolation, as have the Q the R and the S. This is not a joke Cathy. What you seem better suited to, and what you seem to enjoy, are endless and inane arguments about abstract definitions, as for example in your 'conversations' with movingalways.

Since you didn't answer my initial question honestly, I can only assume you have a splinter.

[Talking Ass]

What do you think I am, Cathy, your fucking marionette? You ask questions and I answer? I have been 'answering' [that is to say attempting to talk about and define] the 'serious question' in all my posts for quite a few years now.

Do you have the dexterity to 'operate' a Dancing Donkey?

"Genius is a discussion forum that is passionately dedicated to the nature of Genius, Wisdom and Ultimate Reality and to the total annihilation of false values. It is an unconventional discussion forum suitable only for the brave hearted. It is for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous. That is to say, it is a forum intended solely for men - of either sex. It is sometimes said that genius is 'the infinite capacity for giving pain.' This is very apt. If one is not deliberately causing pain to the ego, both in oneself and in others, then what is the good of one's life? One might as well not exist at all. It is by challenging and overturning our cosy assumptions, habitual thought-processes, psychological refuges and mental blocks that our minds can be opened up that little bit more to the wisdom of the Infinite.

"We hope you find this forum stimulating and challenging."

I like this! It invites a person to avoid bullshit and say what they think!

Talking Ass hath written: "The very questions you ask, dear one, is one of the reasons why 'spankings' are required: instead of doing your research carefully, and really thinking things through, you launch into your pet 'cures', as if you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about. You take broad, almost astonishing guesses and then try to defend your position."

There is not even the slightest drop of 'hatred' in this or anything else I write. What I write is directly relational to the stated object and stated value of the forum itself!

Why is it of supreme importance that this website specifically be held to a higher standard than any other?

Do you require a baby-sitter/tutor? This forum holds itself to the highest standard possible of human concern. There can be no higher discussion or more important one than one that defines itself in these terms. Your question, therefore, is a brainless question for a person who DOES NOT REALLY EVEN CARE ABOUT THESE THINGS!

The cure: a 'spanking'. Now, get to work, Cathy!

[Talking Ass]

Tomas wrote: "The world already ended, but the philosophers hushed it up."

Successful sweatlodge and medicine session, I take it? ;-)

[Cathy Preston]

I like this! It invites a person to avoid bullshit and say what they think!

So what exactly is the problem?
@

[Talking Ass]

"Only by repetition does the pupil make the material his own".
__________________________________________________

"Because they have no-where else to turn". (That is, within the limits that have been imposed on them and/or the limits they impose on themselves).

But it is always possible to break the cycle. How do we do this? By widening the circle of our consideration. By opening up the conversation. By widening our reading, our focus, our area of study.

Yet 'arrogance' keeps us confined. We turn the lock ourselves. If we start with too narrow assumptions, the result of our focus will generally produce narrow conclusions. What keeps us locked into narrow assumptions? Lack of familiarity with a wider platform of ideas.

"You can't get through to such a one because he is like a religious fanatic!"

He holds to his self-imposed limits. If one assumes, a priori, that one knows the answers, one will only be able to attempt enforcement of ones [pet] conclusions. One turns one's pet conclusions into a 'religious platform' that with every step ossifies. It resists enlargement, growth, opening to new and different considerations. It refrains from being dynamic and turns into a closed-loop.

Is this not the core of a vast array of our problems? Is this not what we often do when we won't take the time to 'study', to think, to converse genuinely with others.

"The hypocricy baffles!"

"I have seen the enemy and he is us!" (Pogo, comic strip).

Need I say more, Cathy-kins? ;-)

[Tomas]

Tomas wrote: "The world already ended, but the philosophers hushed it up."

Successful sweatlodge and medicine session, I take it? ;-)

Yup ;-)

[Cathy Preston]

And who is the bigger fool, one who doesn't realize he has the master key, or one who does but refuses to use it.

A closed loop is easy to maintain when any feedback that you don't like, can be written off as hateful.

How do we converse genuinely with others if we resort to calling each other hateful whenever we feel slighted. You basically tell me I'm an fucking idiot, and according to you that is well within the bounds of this forum yet what someone else thinks is contemptuous, improper and prejudice.

[Talking Ass]

Cathy wrote: "And who is the bigger fool, one who doesn't realize he has the master key, or one who does but refuses to use it."

This is a beautiful rhetorical question that requires---nay, begs!---your thorough, well-though out, eloquent answer. Take a minute, a day or a year to flesh it out. Talk about this 'master key', not in absurd 'code' but in structured prose. And if you can't do it in structured prose, do it in really well-crafted free verse, or in a poem. But don't allude to something off in some nebulous cloud.

Cathy wrote: "A closed loop is easy to maintain when any feedback that you don't like, can be written off as hateful."

The context of that word 'hateful' was not mine. I don't use that term. Certainly no-one has called you hateful. I am supposing, assuming good faith, that Guurp had his reasons for putting it as he did. I don't think it is quite 'hatred' (too vague) but I do think it is other things, which I wrote.

Cathy wrote: "How do we converse genuinely with others if we resort to calling each other hateful whenever we feel slighted. You basically tell me I'm an fucking idiot, and according to you that is well within the bounds of this forum yet what someone else thinks is contemptuous, improper and prejudice."

One thing is to consider a year's supply of The Talking Ass's 'Fuck-Off-And-Die-You-Asshole!™' Protecto-Shield with anti-Viper properties. It is a simple spray cannister from which you spray a fine mist in the general direction of the [%@#$*(&!!] who has tossed out the naughty name. It shrouds the offender in a cloak of silence in which all his ranting is muffled. Then, you can hop around and say "I can't HEAR you! I can't HEAR you!"

I said what I said, Cathy. Now the option is yours: deal with it, tell me what you think, and why, or I suppose the other option is to get hurt and mope around. If you think, sincerely, that I am contemptuous, improper or prejudiced, can you speak about it?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The context of that word 'hateful' was not mine. I don't use that term.

Hmm, I cannot resist. Talking Ass/ Alex Jacob might actually the nr. 1 user of terms like hate, hatred and hating in relation to other forum members. Gee, I wonder what kind of insighful lesson is lurking here. Now for some random illustrations, I only got a few minutes to pick a few examples:

• To embrace the QRS philosophy you have to become a sort of hateful, opinionated, adolescent squeaker.
  all in the name of 'hating your life', and hating yourself, and your friends, your children, your mother and father.
  if you examine this notion of 'hate' in relation to your very self, body, life, feelings, existence, anyone can plainly see that this hatred is suicidal, violent, demented
  There HAS to be a tragical element in 'woman hating' and there HAS to be a wound, a psychological fissure
  David and Kelly disparage everything 'human' and their hatred of the 'human' is tangible.
  There is no conversation possible with y'all. You either agree and jump on the woman-hatred bandwagon
  your hatred or contempt of mankind
  I know you sort of hate me and everything
  the poetry y'all hate and deride

[Talking Ass]

I knew that you would respond here while you would skip entirely my other, far more interesting (and relevant) post to you. It is typical of you. I even asked you a while back to spell out what it is that bothers you so much about my stance. You chose silence. So, I'll ask again...

What bothers you so much about my position?

Still, to NOTICE hatred is a very different thing than to express it. But thanks for posting that tid-bit! Right on the fucking money, eh? Honestly, I stand behind everyone of those statements. Still, the most I think 'sharp' group of statements made to the TBs (True Believers) of GF was to Sue Hindenmarsh. There, I crossed a wee bit my own limits and yet I also still stand behind them, generally.

It is possibly a good thing to think and talk about this 'self-hatred' which is obviously so integral to the QRS position.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I knew that you would respond here while you would skip entirely my other, far more interesting (and relevant) post to you.

You just created your own reality there perhaps :) There was not much to respond to. Your posts seemed not written in relation to mine at all.

It is typical of you. I even asked you a while back to spell out what it is that bothers you so much about my stance. You chose silence. So, I'll ask again...

It's spelled out in many quite verbose exchanges over the years. Why would you want to go back to it again? Your position is staked out, mine is getting obliterated.

Still, to NOTICE hatred is a very different thing than to express it.

Is it really? Is it so different from love: expressing it equals seeing it everywhere after all.

[Talking Ass]

You are a master, in your own studied and perfected way, of bringing your insults to bear, old chum. Among so many good qualities, this is the quality that sticks out when I think about you. [That 'by the way'.] You will avoid everything [relevant] to then harp on something else, some detail. I want you to know Diebert---just so you don't think it gets by me---that I know you well enough to know your tactics.

What are you doing here, right now, Diebert? What is your purpose? Even if there 'wasn't much to respond to' (and there certainly was, if you wanted to act like a mench), what is here for you to respond to? Why here now?

Me: "Still, to NOTICE hatred is a very different thing than to express it."

You: "Is it really? Is it so different from love: expressing it equals seeing it everywhere after all."

Yes, Diebert, it really is. And it is especially important, if it happens, and if one is so lucky, to have 'hatred' that is dressed up as something different from hatred, to witness it being exposed, disassembled, opened up to view. Actually, doing this---being able to do this---is part of the process of attaining to 'love': to unravel what produces hate.

But you don't see it that way, do you Diebert? You're here, you have stepped in here (when as I said there is a far more expansive area where you might have engaged creatively and constructively) but instead---you are here. It isn't that I have a problem with that, but I must tell you what I often tell you: you seem discomfitingly insincere.

And anyway, what possible relevance does 'love' have for you Diebert? What does this 'love' you have brought up mean for you? We don't speak of 'love' on GF forum, you know. You gettin' soft?

"It's spelled out in many quite verbose exchanges over the years."

You write some good stuff, Diebert, now doubt. But I must tell you that from my perspective I find you essentially insincere. You actually seem to avoid expressing yourself directly, and in a certain way (in the most important senses, at least according to me) you avoid taking a stand. You are wishy-washy. What characterizes you, or begins to, is a weakness and apparent lack of foundation in your ethical persona. And yet at other times, when you seem to be sincere, an 'ethical person' comes out quite strongly.

Anyway, that is what I see.

"...mine is getting obliterated."

What the fuck does that mean?

I say that there are whole currents of 'stuff' within the GF program that 'begins to look like a form of hatred'. You brought up a group of my statements about that. Now what, Diebert? What more do you wish to say here? Where do you wish to take this?