the unending pursuit

[ForbidenRea]

TA

=)

"If the world were 'red' you'd be yellow..."

[Dennis Mahar]

Cathy,
Alex has carved out some kind of Heroic Mythology for himself,
as 'the ass who protects the invisible lurkers'.

Think:
spartacus in high heels, cheap gin, a few wiki quotes and a repetitive strain finger injury from typing.

the sitcom becomes:

protecting the invisible lurkers from the ass who protects the invisible lurkers.

pure gold.

[Talking Ass]

From a poem by Matthew Arnold, 'Dover Beach', 1867.

"Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
to lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain;
Swept with confused alarm of struggle and fight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

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. What does this 'love' you have brought up mean for you?

I'm always interested in oppositions as contrast bringers. Contrast equals light ("enabler to distinguish"). Some say the real opposite of love is not hate but disinterest, including lack of seriousness I'd say. Lovelessness, a common state, has often to be laced in endless humor and joking. The cold clown clones. There's playfulness in love but in real life it tends to be deep down rather serious in the play. Something is at stake. Love can turn to hate, just another face but ridicule is far more destructive and violent than hate. Without seriousness, what can ever be achieved? What are the stakes?

"Your position is staked out, mine is getting obliterated.

What the fuck does that mean?

It's poetry, unlike the recycled crap you think is poetry. In high end cuisine it would be a "taste explosion" once bitten in the tiny plain harmless looking bit.

It's not like I "avoid taking a stand", it's just that there's no stand at all, at least where you are looking for it - it's all "sandy land". Your frustration is wonderfully understandable. But I cannot help being were I am. It has been so slowly developed as if each and every moment in my life was conspiring to go there. If there was a position I'd stay it's staked through the heart.

I say that there are whole currents of 'stuff' within the GF program that 'begins to look like a form of hatred'.

Love for one can present itself necessarily as hate for all "other". Love is connection but to connect here means always a disconnect there. How lovely the switchboard of logic is!

Naturally the ultimate goes beyond this.

[Talking Ass]

That was just a vain wank, Diebert. You succeed in developing your tricks to smother the possibility of genuineness but tart it up with a pseudo-intellectual filler. I suppose this comes about because you too, in your way, cannot find your way to an authenticity in your own spiritual life. What is left? Apparently, a sort of corrosive use of your mind, and with the above, an expression of essential indifference. Why bother to tart it up? is the question I ask. The more that I read you, the more void of content you seem to be. Ah, yes! The 'Ultimate' beckons! And translated that means: an acid that eats away at your own self.

Pretty high attainments...

It is continually interesting to me (but I am not unaware that to many others this is terribly tedious): a philosophy for people who cannot find relevance and value in 'the tangible things of themselves' but who, as a kind of consolation prize, toss up this non-thing thing of great value, so worthy of attainment: an Ultimate, and cast 'value' into it..

Cathy wrote: "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."

From the strict 'House Philosophy' perspective, the life and death of your mother means absolutely nothing. As a person she had no value. There is nothing there, intrinsically, to wish to see continuance in life. This is not a dig on our Noble Philosophers. It is an outcome of the views that are held, honed and perfected.

But the next question, following the analogy you presented of 'hateful medicines' (or hateful truths) is What is the value of the corresponding life that she might have attained had she taken right medicine? If a medicine would help you or anyone to 'live', what even do you mean by life? It is in no sense clear. You seem to have no way to even talk about it. This is what fascinates me, and I notice this strain operating in Deibert too. You seem to desire to cure people of delusions, but you also seem to have no way of defining any part of what it might mean to 'live', to be alive, to like and value life. You might just as well define a path to death. A willed suicide. What possible difference could it make?

Diebert writes: "It's not like I "avoid taking a stand", it's just that there's no stand at all, at least where you are looking for it - it's all "sandy land". Your frustration is wonderfully understandable. But I cannot help being were I am. It has been so slowly developed as if each and every moment in my life was conspiring to go there. If there was a position I'd stay it's staked through the heart."

Ah yes. What this sounds like to me is: 'My position is so special, and it is so evolved, and I am so far ahead, that it is 'wonderfully understandable' you don't grasp it.' You know, Diebert, that it is exactly this sort of arrogance and even hubris that defines a basic attitude one discerns in much of the house philosophy. Curiously, that may be your essential draw to it. You know, one sees that in life: people who make a home in some little mental game that allows them to feel superior when, in fact, maybe they are not. Maybe they are 'failures'.

So what if it is not really an 'advanced' position but a retrograde one? What if it comes about now from strength or integrity, but from weakness, or a failing? This is the part that has most interested me as I have 'stood in your-plural presence'. Weakness. Lack of creativity. Lack of 'juice'. But y'all got lots of acid...

The really curious thing, for me anyway, is that if you are indeed so 'wonderfully advanced', why make these regressive little trips back to mire yourself in my follies? There is something that doesn't fit right and I am 'wonderfully perplexed'. ;-)

[Cathy Preston]

Cathy wrote: "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."

From the strict 'House Philosophy' perspective, the life and death of your mother means absolutely nothing. As a person she had no value. There is nothing there, intrinsically, to wish to see continuance in life. This is not a dig on our Noble Philosophers. It is an outcome of the views that are held, honed and perfected.

Yes her life and death meant absolutely nothing. As a person she had value in that she taught the people around her to question many things. I didn't wish she lived longer, we made peace with each other and with her death when it happened. If she had lived longer she may have come closer to her own realization. This being the only reason to work toward the continuance of life, so that those that need it have the opportunity to have their own moment of realization.

It's not a dig, in this philosophy, as you call it, there is deep abiding peace, and incomprehensible compassion.

But the next question, following the analogy you presented of 'hateful medicines' (or hateful truths) is What is the value of the life that she might have attained had she taken right medicine?

She needed no medicine, the Doctors simply had to say no, rather than appease her with drugs. They wanted to make her feel better even if it killed her.

If a medicine would help you or anyone to 'live', what even do you mean by life? It is in no sense clear. You seem to have no way to even talk about it. This is what fascinates me, and I notice this strain operating in Deibert too. You seem to desire to cure people of delusions, but you also seem to have no way of defining any part of what it might mean to 'live', to be alive, to like and value life. You might just as well define a path to death. A willed suicide. What possible difference could it make?

Life is the belief in a self which is born and thus dies. I'd like to cure people of this false belief. It is a death, death of an imagined self who lives and dies and suffers in between. It makes all the difference in the world. In life we struggle to be free, with this understanding comes the realization that we were never bound. The wonder of it ALL is exquisite.
#

[Dan Rowden]

From the strict 'House Philosophy' perspective, the life and death of your mother means absolutely nothing. As a person she had no value. There is nothing there, intrinsically, to wish to see continuance in life. This is not a dig on our Noble Philosophers. It is an outcome of the views that are held, honed and perfected.

You really should cease pretending you understand the first thing about the so-called "house philosophy". Your "take" on it is actually less than remedial.

[jupiviv]

From the strict 'House Philosophy' perspective, the life and death of your mother means absolutely nothing. As a person she had no value. There is nothing there, intrinsically, to wish to see continuance in life. This is not a dig on our Noble Philosophers. It is an outcome of the views that are held, honed and perfected.

You really should cease pretending you understand the first thing about the so-called "house philosophy". Your "take" on it is actually less than remedial.

I love how Alex persists in lumping into the category of house/QRS philosophy everyone who shows the minutest similarity to the writings of David Quinn in their posts. I say David Quinn because he is the most prolific poster out of the three and therefore more likely to be read by Alex. I doubt he's even read poison for the heart.

Also, when two or more members from the QRS cult "fight", Alex promptly explains it away with a post about the cultists comparing penis sizes.

[jupiviv]

It is continually interesting to me (but I am not unaware that to many others this is terribly tedious): a philosophy for people who cannot find relevance and value in 'the tangible things of themselves' but who, as a kind of consolation prize, toss up this non-thing thing of great value, so worthy of attainment: an Ultimate, and cast 'value' into it..

Think about this - we interest you for being a group of people who adhere to a philosophy that justifies our disengagement from the real world, and you interest me for imagining this entire group of people and their philosophy to justify your disengagement from reality.

"Oh the gift that God would give us, to see ourselves as others see us…" - Robbie Burns

[ForbidenRea]

LOL

~Jim Morrison

[ForbidenRea]

TA,

The first sentence introduced was," Am I my brother's keeper.?"

In the Great Tribulation a world of numbers will be introduced. A=A

[ForbidenRea]

I would like to concur; I believe "1 + 1 =2" set the path for human's progression alongside with modern technology and science.


Lol..

And, the age of sciences. Duganheist.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

cannot find your way to an authenticity in your own spiritual life

True enough, I've kind of abandoned notions of "spiritual life" and "authenticity". It's not something to find somewhere although looking for it is a good sign overall.

Apparently, a sort of corrosive use of your mind .....void of content you seem to be.....an acid that eats away at your own self.

Is there any other usage? Isn't emptiness the truth and doesn't the self need eating away when it's over the hill? High attainments indeed.

as a kind of consolation prize, toss up this non-thing thing of great value, so worthy of attainment: an Ultimate, and cast 'value' into it..

It can be described as the greatest prize by definition. But since there would be nothing to desire or anything pleasing our neurological reward center, it can hardly become any consolation. Many would be tempted to turn it into one though. That's why the questioning is good.

people who make a home in some little mental game that allows them to feel superior when, in fact, maybe they are not. Maybe they are 'failures'.

If it's true they're master in their little secluded kingdom then in that context there would at least be superiority in comparison to the ones struggling as slave to other kingdoms come. The remaining question is why one would try to "assail" these vanity castles.

Weakness. Lack of creativity. Lack of 'juice'. But y'all got lots of acid...

Don't forget lack of verbosity! Did yo notice how short the replies often are? As if they don't know what to say.

Lots of acid like in phrases like: "corrosive use of your mind", "void of content you seem to be" and "an acid that eats away at your own self"? The one throwing the acid will spill often something on himself too. And then dare to wonder where it came from? Like the fool spitting in the wind and feeling insulted afterwards!

There's an interesting pattern in your criticism toward perceived "authority" or "nihilism" in spiritual movements and clubs. It seems to be dated quite far back to childhood years since it's so insistent, obsessive and present in nearly all your writings here. Some utter disappointment, some revenge on untrustworthy ones? You display the typical therapeutic but also nearly aggressive need of "healing the core wound" in others and themselves. So much energy, so much verbosity generated by this hurt. Isn't all suffering spurring us along to do something? So much human ventures based on running with the hurt, away from it and towards it again. In that sense one can wonder if healing anything would be so "good" at all for the current human society based around suffering like dancers around a golden calve.

The really curious thing, for me anyway, is that if you are indeed so 'wonderfully advanced', why make these regressive little trips back to mire yourself in my follies? There is something that doesn't fit right and I am 'wonderfully perplexed'. ;-)

Well I said earlier here that I'm "interested in oppositions as contrast bringers". Your particular blend of oppositions brings opportunities which seem in that light very useful for me to expand on or counter. To quote your own recent words "polemic is a great way to learn about oneself, to be forced to define one's values". So thank you! Now tell me about your need for all these regressive trips. Perhaps you're just the same after all.

[Talking Ass]

The psychological angle is perhaps too easy, if also tempting. What I do in my thinking and writing is an extension of 'personalism' as a social and 'spiritual' (but also political) trend. I think it is peculiarly American and extends from people like Whitman. On the American scene, like it or not, it is connected to a Christian sensibility, and in that sense it is foundational. Although not a Christian myself, that.is by birth or family, I think we of the West have a 'Christian self' and that makes us all 'personalists'. As to zeal or intensity (acid in my case doesn't quite fit), there is no doubt and it is not denied that I am struggling to define ideas that I can use, or ideas with which I can build. This has been a very good place for me to go back over all ideas and possibilities that have come my way. If I resist 'you' it is because I know 'you'.

"The apparent individual conflict of the patient reveals itself as a universal conflict of his environment and epoch. Neurosis is nothing else but the individual effort, in some sense failed, to resolve a universal conflict'. ---CG Jung

You often make the cowardly mistake in my view of equating your own 'way of being' with that of QRS and many people who show up here. You react as if I am attacking you, or rather you come to defend what is not you. You more.or less.constantly interpose yourself and force the conversation to be between you and me.

[Talking Ass]

And the question or comment about 'great disappointments' is a good one (that which motivates an oppositional stance), but I have expressed it so many times. If your question is legitimate, and it probably isn't, there are many forces driving people apart, atomizing them, dividing them. I sometimes believe that there is one central 'acid' that is the cause of this, and I also feel that there is one central 'alkaline' that can neutralize it. This is likely where you and I differ because you have no interest in unifying ideas or, say, social possibilities. Seemingly by your own definitions you are beyond the human world and in some abstract space where you look back on everything cynically. And too we live in very different worlds: I am faced with a fractured world (Colombia) uncertain or ignorant of how to bring itself together and yet I see and know people who still live in a rather 'whole human world' which in some sense represents a past (our past). I find that I look for and desire a unifying social philosophy rather than one that is non-human and 'acidic' and poisonous as is the 'house philosophy'. And as you know I see the QRS position as being a reaction-to rather more than a well thought-out and realistic alternative to the mechanical or brainless present that they too oppose.

[Talking Ass]

Notice that I am answering you as if you are sincere but I really do feel that you aren't. You know how to and are.quite accomplished in throwing up blocking posts. It is pretty much what you do, certainly in relation to me. If there were a genuine interest in exploring both the pros and the cons of the stated QRS stance, and if you were capable of critiquing it instead of brown-nosing 'them' (while in so much you are.not on tbe same page), this conversation might open up in unforeseen ways. You are actually an obstacle in this. It is not that 'they' have no response, it is that they can't bring themselves to be honest when genuine critiques are offered. And too they have almost no preparation or background except in their very limited conversation. But that is not true in your case. It would be so much more interesting and fruitful if you'd take another tack.

I do see.the ridiculousness of continuing participation in an environment that is antithetical to my entire focus. You may wonder why. The answer is quite simple: I needed an environment (and may still need) where I am given reasons to develop oppositional stances. It combines with my reading life and my writing life. But it is very true that there is essentially, at this point, no-one to talk to. And that is fine: everyone has to be where they are. But still, at.least here, what I needed.to do I have done. Can't go on much longer as far as I.can see.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What I do in my thinking and writing is an extension of 'personalism' as a social and 'spiritual' (but also political) trend. I think it is peculiarly American and extends from people like Whitman. On the American scene, like it or not, it is connected to a Christian sensibility, and in that sense it is foundational. Although not a Christian myself, that.is by birth or family, I think we of the West have a 'Christian self' and that makes us all 'personalists'.

I just call it hyper-reality nowadays . A particular illusion grown as seed and cumulated in modernity, the "end of history" or the age of self-recycling. The current age of self as the late summer flower, a prolonged stretched out sunset age of a long string of civilizational rebirths. And because I do not recognize this "self" as cause or even necessary element of this particular linear part of history but as by-product, I can envision the possibility of doing without this particular ignorance - even while its development might have been inevitable. It's like suggesting fire without a thick cloud of smoke attached to it. But I'm not concerned too much about futuristic visions - it seems like a typical "personalist" activity.

You more.or less.constantly interpose yourself and force the conversation to be between you and me.

Only because I sometimes think the conversation might become more interesting that way. Because I know you better! Which forces you to come up with all kinds of sad explanations about "defending" or "interposing". But I can understand why that must appear that way to you. Actually I had hoped you had grown out of that particular knee-jerk thing by now.

you have no interest in unifying ideas or, say, social possibilities. Seemingly by your own definitions you are beyond the human world and in some abstract space where you look back on everything cynically.

The reason for my "disinterest" is the discovery that ideas are never actually unifying. One can argue about synthesis growing out of contrasting theses but this new idea will only be a greater splitter than its parents. As for being in or of the human world or abstract space: by my definitions humans and most of their concerns appear to exist in an abstract. Object space has shrunk for people into a replacement "real world" and truth has been turned into distant "abstracts". No wonder one would become cynical!

I do see.the ridiculousness of continuing participation in an environment that is antithetical to my entire focus. You may wonder why. The answer is quite simple: I needed an environment (and may still need) where I am given reasons to develop oppositional stances. It combines with my reading life and my writing life. But it is very true that there is essentially, at this point, no-one to talk to. And that is fine: everyone has to be where they are. But still, at.least here, what I needed.to do I have done. Can't go on much longer as far as I.can see.

At this point of our discussion I always start doubting your sincerity. You have been around here just too long, coming and going several times, and written too much in relative isolation for such argument to still appear somewhat reasonable. I believe you are here for other reasons but it's entirely possible you do not know. But I also realize at the same time that it's better that way. Some things are just too simple, too close by to see. One rather adds to it with endless polemic and spiritual ideas as to create a viable justification of simpler drifts. And that is fine.

[Talking Ass]

I think it is time, Diebert, no matter what, to agree to bring whatever it is the happens between you and I---conversation, argument, blocking, defense---to a close. Based on what you wrote in the first paragraph I don't see why really you'd involve yourself in any conversation. Let's settle it that our differences are there and they are irreconcilable. I think I can understand why you need an 'ultimate': you have no more present.

As.to paragraph 2, it really doesn't become more interestimg. Generally, I write something and you then glom on to it, just like here, and bring it to a place where further discussion is impossible. You do it so often that it has become predictable. I can nearly always anticipate when you'll jump in and often what you'll say. With you, conversation ENDS, and this must be what you want. After all, what more can I say?

It may be that in some situations one doea't know fully consciously why one participates in a discussing forum or any exchange-platform that is similar. That is why I think the quote from Jung has meaning. But since at a fundamental level you, Diebert, do not believe that I have enough self-consciousness to confide (permit me the term derived from 'confidence') the reason why I participate here, it indicates a fundamental lack of trust and faith. Why continually engage with someone or anyone that you fundamentally distrust? This is the part, again, that makes no sense.

You are like the Founders of the forum in the sense that everything and all things except some abstract Ultimate have no meaning, no value. This is what I have learned here, I mean principally. It has been crucial and even vital to discover reasons and 'proofs' why this is not so but it is a Sisyphian task: you-plural have it in your power to defeat all comers. And the reason why the Jung quote has relevance is because this is what is happening on a grend scale, and so the sickness is universal and perhaps it is as you say: hyperreal. If attempting even to say this to you is.met with cynicism and disbelief, what more can be said? You will.do us both a favor and even me especially by bringing the conversation to an end.

[Tomas]

You will do us both a favor and even me especially by bringing the conversation to an end.

Well then, Alex, you may leave this forum?

Or are you placing Diebert on Ignore?

You want certain people to stop replying to your posts..?

PS - I have 37 members on Ignore which include three of your sockpuppet accounts. Be real, Alex.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The conversation ended a long time ago, Alex. If there needed to be a reason to involve myself it was to help you put yourself and the conversation to rest. Lets say I tried to learn it to die which is way more difficult than you can imagine right now (a modern and personal problem). But lets try to kill it with honor: not rushed on a cell phone with those awful clumsy dots and loads of spelling errors. One almost would think you're upset about something.

[Talking Ass]

Okay, you did good. It took some work but you achieved the goal you had in mind. And now let us agree to leave it at that. Is there anything more you'd like to say nefore we hang it up, so to speak?

Mad? Why should I be mad? If I'm mad at anything it is the shitty Droid keyboard. ;-)

[Talking Ass]

Cathy writes: "Life is the belief in a self which is born and thus dies. I'd like to cure people of this false belief. It is a death, death of an imagined self who lives and dies and suffers in between. It makes all the difference in the world. In life we struggle to be free, with this understanding comes the realization that we were never bound. The wonder of it."

If it is a false belief, how is it false? So, in your view, the object is to die...and with this death one lives? From the way you talk about this I get the impression you are not dealing in metaphors. The experience you have is the experience you have lived?

[ForbidenRea]

Great Balls of Fire!!!

David Quinn

[ForbidenRea]

Cathy writes: "Life is the belief in a self which is born and thus dies. I'd like to cure people of this false belief. It is a death, death of an imagined self who lives and dies and suffers in between. It makes all the difference in the world. In life we struggle to be free, with this understanding comes the realization that we were never bound. The wonder of it."

If it is a false belief, how is it false? So, in your view, the object is to die...and with this death one lives? From the way you talk about this I get the impression you are not dealing in metaphors. The experience you have is the experience you have lived?

Jeeze...He's fucking wit' you."

[ForbidenRea]

Chaos theory.