Arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy

[Tomas]

Whether you realize it or not, you're asking for a cause. That's what explanations are, they are a causal account for a phenomena, but the totality doesn't have a cause, so the explanation you seek isn't there, by definition. Are you accepting the definition or not? I thought you said you held the same definition as me, but it appears you have no faith in it.

Just because I accept a definition for working purposes, doesn't mean I have faith that that definition reflects reality. For example, I can accept the definition of "the Furblegoobie" as "the pink leprechaun at the centre of the sun whose laughter powers that star's nuclear fusion reactions", but in that case it seems likely that that which I've defined as "the Furblegoobie" has no referent in reality.

Very weak analogy. I wonder if you are high when you post? Or drunk?

He's admitted to being on psychiatric drugs. Class and/or strength unknown.

Has admitted to bouts of drinking. Unknown as to whether a classic alcoholic-in-denial.

[jufa]

Dennis,
I have no problem with what you have stated except for there is a natural state. A natural state has no beginning nor end, but individual and collective human mentality does because each and every individual cannot continue in a natural state because of death. Thus a natural state of singularity or duality are fragmented. Fragmentation in the world of flesh and conceptual structure and real as long as one indulge therein. But ones indulgence in a natural state is reality because it is the indivudual whose states reality according to their interpretation of thoughts which do not belong to them, never has, and never will because thoughts, thinking, and interpretation is based in man's vanity of believing they control, and have the power to change, and give or take life at the capriciousness of a physical act.

But a physical act is a finality for the thinker who believes not this is a Spirit universe, governed by Spirit law which is a continuum of Life that is the Father/Mother of his existence.

The reality of Life is Life does not move. The reality of man is, neither does man move,

tho we should soar into the heavens,
tho we should sink into the abyss
we never go out of ourselves,
It is always our own thoughts that we
preceive

he only adapt to be what he has been taught, believe, build, and accept not according to the Spirit Principle of that which created creation and is the blueprint issued forth of that which is unknown, but which also patterned the structure of forms which must abide by that which is of its kind.

Thus, there are parallel influences which place man between two world of thought. When man venture to favor one, the other tags him with fear, and conceptualizations and makes him aware that he cannot live covered by one power of domination of thinking when there are two thought patterns of domination he must live by which places him beteen two world of reality. But he true reality IS always the objectified man who is the thinker and the one who accepts concepts of unproved worth to him, and thus who subjects himself to believe this or that according to his human indoctrination regardless of what it may be.

So the human intellectual man is never dealing with a full, whole, complete, perfect and pure plate of awareness, only fragments of relativity because the fragmented thinking of man cannot form, nor objectify a natural state when dealing with a subjecctive mentality which cast shadows that cannot be casted because they are not real.

"A shadow does not exist where it does not fall. A shadow also does not exist where it falls."

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[guest_of_logic]

Dennis, I'll start with my most agreeable comments first.

"The problem is the subject/object split and the false sense of I." --Dennis

"At the same time Kevin invites Woman and Man to enrol in the possibility of 'knowing' the cultural trap and shedding that false I as object. Shedding it like a snake sheds a skin." --Dennis

Given that you and I don't take the same perspective on the non-separation versus agency issue (granting though that I can see some value in your perspective), I can't relate fully to these quotes, but I can relate to the problem of falsely identifying yourself with that with which you have been merely imbued by virtue of your culture, and so being ignorant of your more authentic nature. I know about the quandary that results from self-contemplation and the realisation of not knowing or being able to identify exactly who or what you "really" are amongst the confusing array of beliefs, self-conceptions, attitudes, idiosyncrasies, preferences and values that you - in many cases seemingly inexplicably - find yourself apparently comprised of.

Having said that: I repeat my point, which movingalways said likewise in his/her own words, that all of this could be conveyed without reference to gender, and that the QRS pronouncements on women go far beyond the philosophical and into empirical misrepresentation, which, as movingalways noted, seems to have an emotional component - I get the sense that a lot of these pronouncements are made with relish. In failing to acknowledge the true nature of the quotes that I presented in my previous post, and instead choosing to defend the house philosophy, you set yourself up (as you did right from your very first entry into this forum) as an apologist for that philosophy, and for the sexism that it promotes.

"When Kevin is describing Woman he is referencing 'existential Woman'." --Dennis

Not really, Dennis. There might be some references made to modern men being in the main feminine, but the target of these quotes is most certainly women: reread them if you have to. Kevin is talking deliberately and specifically about women of the literal gender, not of some abstracted "existential" concept divorced from that actual gender. I know Kevin personally, and from frequent in-person conversations I know that this is his approach. Notice also the clarifying comment that he added to one of his essays on women in Poison for the Heart: "Since writing this essay back in 1987 my views have changes somewhat. I am no longer of the opinion that woman's lack of consciousness is due overwhelmingly to her upbringing, but now consider her genetic inheritence to play a much larger part." Will you now argue that 'existential Woman' has a genetic structure?

Here's a paragraph describing women as synthesised from the quotes in my last post:

Women are utterly superficial, empty fools and intellectual insects whose thinking is so severely restricted that they cannot appreciate irony, contradictions, paradoxes and the dialectic, who cannot be expected to be rational, consistent and just, who see no need to conform their actions to ethical principles, who like being exploited by men, who do not deserve love, from amongst whom the best is immeasurably inferior to the worst amongst men, who are so low as to not be capable of being put down any further, and who are barely human.

Dennis, this is a direct question: do you agree with that description of women?

[guest_of_logic]

A is a property. There are an infinite number of A's.
B is a label to point to all A's.
B is not an A.
The concept of B is an A.

I don't have the patience to explain how confused those five sentences are.

[guest_of_logic]

Very weak analogy.

It wasn't an analogy, Cory, it was an example, and I chose an extreme one so as to most effectively make my point. It's not my claim that the definition of the Totality is as divorced from reality as the one that I advanced.

In the example of the totality however, you are accepting the definition, you aren't doubting it. You already told me you hold the exact same definition of totality as me. You aren't trying to redefine the totality, nor even reject it, you aren't making the slightest of effort in that direction.

I accept it for working purposes whilst discussing reality on this forum, to see where it gets us, which is not the same as saying that I accept it unconditionally. It's liking accepting the axioms of a geometrical system to see where they get you. If you find a contradiction in that system, then you start wondering about how to better construct those axioms.

I've chosen that path so as to work in the terms of the house philosophy as much as possible. If I were to choose instead to challenge the definition of the Totality, then one way to do it - and I'm sure that there are other ways to do this - would be to argue something along these lines: this definition of the Totality assumes determinism, whereas reality might be non-deterministic. In other words, including the future as part of the Totality is problematic under a non-deterministic reality because in that case the future is not fixed.

Modeling is an empirical endeavor, so it becomes reasonable to ask questions such as, "what if this plum pudding model is wrong? What if atoms are different than our current model? What if they actually have a nucleus?, etc, etc." Casting doubt on models in such a matter is perfectly appropriate.

So, Laird, is it in this spirit that you ask if the totality could be different?

No. If after all of the careful elaborations that I've included in my posts to you so far in this thread you're capable of asking a question like that then it's just not worth repeating myself, and besides, I've repeated myself enough in this thread already.

I do question, though, the utility of the definition of the Totality in talking truthfully about reality, so in that sense you could say that along with the question that you've failed to comprehend, I also question whether/how the Totality could be better defined.

Laird: Likewise I question whether the definitional framework that the house philosophy works with accurately reflects reality, or whether it's overly simplistic and not nearly nuanced enough to answer the biggest mysteries of reality.

Cory: The totality, as a concept, does not reflect reality in the same way an idea mirrors sensory perception. It does the opposite, it strips you of all empirical knowledge. Rather than having a revelation where everything makes sense, the totality does the opposite, it strips you of your knowledge and leaves you in total ignorance. You don't know anything. You aren't reflecting reality, because reality cannot be contained in the mirror of knowledge. The mirror has to be thrown away.

Nicely written; unfortunately it's unresponsive to what I wrote. Firstly, I wasn't talking about the Totality as an isolated definition, but in context with the rest of the house philosophy's related definitions ("thing", "exists", "infinite", etc). Secondly, you say that the Totality does not reflect reality in a certain way, but that simply diverts attention from the fact that it reflects reality in some way (else it would be a pointless concept), which was the basis of my point.

Laird: The "truth" that "the Totality is the way it is because it is the way that it is", is tautologically true only, and not a meaningful explanation.

Cory: A meaningful explanation depends on causality, and causality cannot apply to the totality, so you are demanding an impossibility.

Here's the situation: a meaningful explanation is simultaneously required and denied as impossible by your definitional system. This is a contradiction, indicating that your system of definitions is broken.

Like I said, you are just dunking your head in the toilet and blowing bubbles, it's beyond childish what you are doing.

Get with the programme, Cory. I'm pointing out legitimate problems with your philosophy.

Laird: If scientists and philosophers settled solely for tautological truth, we would learn, and would have learnt, nothing. Admit it, Cory: a tautology is no meaningful answer to this question.

Cory: I'm not asking you to settle solely for tautological truth.

Oh come on, of course you are. You're asserting that the answer to my question is the tautology, "reality is the way that it is because it is the way that it is".

Laird: Absent experience, there would be no reason to believe that the Totality would be any particular way at all, let alone the way that it actually is.

Cory: I don't have to see the totality empirically in order to know it is.

Laird: But you have to see it empirically to know in which particular way it is, which is my point. If you hadn't seen it empirically, you would have no a priori means of knowing how it is, would you?

Cory: This is the crux of your confusion. You assume I care to know exactly "how" the totality is.

No, I don't assume that you care to know: I refer to "how" the Totality is simply to make my point that you can't answer the question of why it is that way.

The tautologies clearly can't be escaped since your very question is embedded with tautologies the whole way through.

Why = Why
Is = Is
This = This
Cup = Cup
made = made
plastic = plastic

Don't be ridiculous: you inserted those tautologies! They weren't present in the original.

They were indeed present, but their presence was beyond your awareness, and this will likely continue. To even apply causation to help explain ordinary things we first must accept things as they are, tautologically. A thing must first be accepted as it appears before we begin to derive less fundamental truths, such as noticing the factors which cause the thing to be as it is.

You've really bought into this A=A thing, haven't you? That's pretty lame. Here's the low-down: accepting a thing as it is requires nothing more than the acceptance of its identity, and does not require the acceptance of the tautology of it being identical to itself. Tautologies can be inserted, of course, but they are meaningless, and their inserted "presence" contributes nothing to meaningful truth.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...the same emotional, non-philosophic tone of which they accuse the female gender of demonstrating. Perhaps, rather than focusing on the humanism of gender when considering the state of mind that is needed to use logic and reason, the QRS could use more philosophic terminology, such as objectivity/subjectivity, stillness/movement, disciplined/undisciplined, or righteous/self-righteous.

The problem is as follows: it's perfectly possible for people to endlessly converse with philosophic terms, such as objectivity/subjectivity, stillness/movement, disciplined/undisciplined, or righteous/self-righteous, while still having barely scratched the surface. All the while the illusion is there of understanding these matters philosophically, to have obtained any true depth, which would be actually very rare.

A term like feminine mind points effectively to the problem of having no understanding whatsoever of ones nature, even while "nature" might have been understood in terms of feeling, emotion, sentence structures, etc. It perfectly illustrates "being lost in form", having misidentified form and sense for what it's not. The metaphor is very powerful and contemporary, and surprisingly accurate and ironic in its obvious stereotyping.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi Jufa,When you were a little kid you experienced 'natural state'. You engaged your environment spontaneously. You didn't have conceptual structures. The natural state I Am was in its proper place.

The child is hardly consciously experiencing at all. Memories are fuzzy. There really was no I, no Am, no "proper place". It's all retrospectively made-belief to put it this way. Children do not possess the clarity of mind to do anything but absorbing with great flexibility and non-conceptual responses during their growth spurt.

The wise do have spontaneity, to "correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition" (Nietzsche), but I think it couldn't be further removed from the emulation and parroting young children are mostly engaged in.

Ignorance is very much like being the little kid who never outgrows the basic emotional framework. Nature does not request that from him - only philosophy might. And then all states will be fully known.

[Kunga]

The wise do have spontaneity, to "correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition" (Nietzsche), but I think it couldn't be further removed from the emulation and parroting young children are mostly engaged in.

Wasn't this sentence parroting Nietzsche ? Also theres no time to "correspond creatively" when there is spontaneity...when spontaneity occurs there's no thinking involved (i would think)....correct me if i'm wrong. (just a spontaneous observation) _/\_

[Dan Rowden]

The wise do have spontaneity, to "correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition" (Nietzsche), but I think it couldn't be further removed from the emulation and parroting young children are mostly engaged in.

Wasn't this sentence parroting Nietzsche ? Also theres no time to "correspond creatively" when there is spontaneity...when spontaneity occurs there's no thinking involved (i would think)....correct me if i'm wrong. (just a spontaneous observation) _/\_

That was utterly hilarious.

[Kunga]

LOL

[Dennis Mahar]

Deibert:

The child is hardly consciously experiencing at all. Memories are fuzzy. There really was no I, no Am, no "proper place". It's all retrospectively made-belief to put it this way. Children do not possess the clarity of mind to do anything but absorbing with great flexibility and non-conceptual responses during their growth spurt.

The wise do have spontaneity, to "correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition" (Nietzsche), but I think it couldn't be further removed from the emulation and parroting young children are mostly engaged in.

Ignorance is very much like being the little kid who never outgrows the basic emotional framework. Nature does not request that from him - only philosophy might. And then all states will be fully known.

you are quite correct in positioning Nietzsche's understanding into this enquiry at this point Diebert. Thankyou.
The little kid has no Wisdom and his/her natural state is overwhelmed by the Culture and the little kid is driven into inauthenticity like a sheep dog drives sheep into a pen.
What the QRS conversation is about is enrolling women and men into the possibility of the restoration of the natural state and having it enshrined in Wisdom.

The first part is to identify 'what happened'.

Are we getting some kind of clarity here about what happened?

Are we seeing some footprints from which to make logical deductions?

Are we going down a false trail?

The mind is a pattern seeker and a pattern maker and often grabs patterns that wind up as bullshit.

Is the pattern emerging here reflecting the reality of what happened?

[Dennis Mahar]

Diebert, you wrote:

There really was no I, no Am, no "proper place". It's all retrospectively made-belief to put it this way.

I Am means the sense I exist. You can't say I don't exist because by saying that you have to exist in the first place.

I Am can exist without a conceptual framework to explain itself. That's what is meant by in its proper place.

I Am in the World experiences Self and Other. Subject/Object.

The Culture gives you an explanation of you to you..a story about you..an objectification of you.
I Am then shifts to 'I Am what the Culture tells me I Am'...Now I Am is not in the proper place.

Footprints.

Fair enough?

[Blair]

That was utterly hilarious.

Yes, it's quite the work of art, but was it intentional? Some small part of me wants to believe it was..

[Dan Rowden]

Hard to say if it was intentional or not. I sort of hope not, because that makes it even funnier, but it also sort of makes me an arsehole :)

[Anders Schlander]

Imagine that somebody believes the Tao is beyond reason to grasp or talk about. He can't reasonably say this, because if he did, he'd be reasoning about the Tao's "beyond-reason-abilities", so clearly the Tao can't be beyond reason to grasp or talk about, that would be impossible.
However, most men do not reason about the Tao, and so, the Tao is beyond men's reason, not reason.

[Dan Rowden]

Exactly.

[jufa]

Hi Jufa,When you were a little kid you experienced 'natural state'. You engaged your environment spontaneously. You didn't have conceptual structures. The natural state I Am was in its proper place.

The child is hardly consciously experiencing at all. Memories are fuzzy. There really was no I, no Am, no "proper place". It's all retrospectively made-belief to put it this way. Children do not possess the clarity of mind to do anything but absorbing with great flexibility and non-conceptual responses during their growth spurt. I agree with this profile but add the child is not innocent because just the fact the child can absorp and regain conscious awareness point to the child being a Conscious entity before conception made the child able to grasp its physicality of a dual thought body of will.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Blair]

Rwoaaawar! says the red text

Rwoaaawar, Rwoaaawar Rwoaaawar!

[Pam Seeback]

The I Am of sense interpreted awareness is conditioned awareness, period. Whether it is of a simple pattern that one might call 'natural', such as "the tree is green" or "I am happy" or a complicated pattern of layered identification with gender, race, or belief system, when the senses are being interpreted, the interpretation is always 'handed down' knowledge, conditioned knowledge. An individual can manipulate this knowledge into infinite patterns he can call 'creative' or 'logical', but this does not change the fact that every word/image of these patterns is a word or image given him by another person.

What this means is that the only I Am that is unconditioned is the I Am of oneself that is not the interpreter of sense awareness, but of pure awareness. The question then becomes, how does one become liberated of one's conditioned sense interpretations of I Am so as to be aware only of one's unconditioned sense-free interpretations of I Am?

[Kunga]

That was utterly hilarious.

Yes, it's quite the work of art, but was it intentional? Some small part of me wants to believe it was..

i don't know what it was...i say things off the top of my head a lot and i wind up contradicting myself...kinda like the Totality with it's mind-boggling emptiness shit that we are/not.

[Blair]

Yeah the Totality is a bitch.

It wants to punch you out, erase you.

Huh, as if

[Dennis Mahar]

movingalways:

The question then becomes, how does one become liberated of one's conditioned sense interpretations of I Am so as to be aware only of one's unconditioned sense-free interpretations of I Am?

Just as a gag has to be set up in a certain way before the punchline delivers.
Wouldn't the How be by way of enquiry?

[Blair]

A is a property. There are an infinite number of A's.
B is a label to point to all A's.
B is not an A.
The concept of B is an A.

I don't have the patience to explain how confused those five sentences are.

Laird, it was lovely of you to respond at all, thankyou so much. If you have time, could I kindly request as to how I am in err?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The Culture gives you an explanation of you to you..a story about you..an objectification of you.
I Am then shifts to 'I Am what the Culture tells me I Am'...Now I Am is not in the proper place.

Dennis, I agree about our senses being wrapped up in all the stories and identities arising out of our participations and reflections in the world around.

But I doubt any implied more pure or 'proper place' to nest any sense of identity, apart from a possible teaching device. "The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head".

[Dennis Mahar]

Diebert:

Dennis, I agree about our senses being wrapped up in all the stories and identities arising out of our participations and reflections in the world around.

It looks like you, me and movingalways are in accord, have matching cognitions.

But I doubt any implied more pure or 'proper place' to nest any sense of identity, apart from a possible teaching device. "The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head".

My cognition matches 'The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head'.
I say ultimately there is no ground, that its groundless and we give it ground by imagination or pattern making.

When I say 'I Am what the Culture says I Am' is not the proper place, I'm taking the ground from under that. It's a false sense of I.
So that disappears as something reliable to attach to for the possibility of enlightenment.

Now we've got the sense of I Am without attached predicates.

I've used the terms proper and not proper to distinguish I Am without predicates and I Am with predicates.
Now we can abandon proper and not proper.

We've got I Am.

How do you pull the ground from I Am to realise groundlessness?