GENIUS FORUMS

It comes down to thinking about thinking.
How a thought tends to locate an identity in time and space.
How a thought is meant to represent what's there.
In this way we can get rid of Descartes subject/object split that postulates me here and a world there.
It's not really that way, truly we are with things, amongst things.
Arising together in an unbroken wholeness, seamless...as community so to speak..
Gadamer points out people gather identities from stories they tell about themselves and the world based on stories a community tells them about themselves and the world

A way we can get at this is by replacing intentional verbs with the copulative verbs.

that would make the statement:
m4tt 666 believes we are, by way of human nature infinitely flawed and whilst maintaining such form, the only truths we can realize are also by nature, flawed.

into:

m4tt 666 IS THAT we are, by way of human nature etc.. ..in that way m4tt666 owns the identification and discloses where it is...m4tt 666 stands in that...

and because m4tt666 exists in the 'global brain' so to speak where exposure to messages flying about will have him shift from identification to identification..
then any identification is only for the time being...

An identification gives a way of being..for the most part limited that binds and can simply become automatic and can take massive struggle to shake off...

for instance,
people WERE THAT the world was flat.
people WERE THAT the earth was the centre of the universe.

the possibility of freedom opens up in avoiding attachment.

( sorry m4tt666 if you feel offended but your statement is what I used to look at, is it OK to have your name)

i agree with the fact we do identify ourselves by past events that has happened to us and the geographical surroundings also have an impact on individual identity. it's actually in this way our personalities are somewhat preset before we were even born.

i was just stating the fact that through the nature of evolution every creature of the physical will always see 'flaws' in anything strictly to attain a higher means of survival in response to pointexter.

There's no flaws..there's what is.

If you believe something. You 'stand' in it. Take a 'stand' in that identification.
If you believe there is no absolute like some, then you can only take a 'stand' in that.
Using the copulative verb, what is showing up thence is.
'I am that there is no absolute'. Identification.
In that way we see how it really is.
For human beings there are myriad possibilities to stand in, as identification, stands like political systems, ethics systems, religions, scientific theories, aesthetic styles...
They are only 'stands' that give a Life to live into...with a ready made script to gush out of.
a place to stand in..
a shoring up against the perplexity of groundlessness..
a 'making it up' as you go along


This is fact.
I KNOW that I exist. I do not KNOW that you exist. This basic ‘truth’ is the same for everyone – but I cannot prove it. You can prove it for yourself. You do not believe that you exist – You KNOW that you exist. And in that ‘small fact’ there is everything you need to know.

We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.

Robert Frost

There is certainty of only ‘your’ own experience. Everybody else’s ‘experience’, is a subset of your own. It will be only an assumption, to assume that ‘everybody’ else is also experiencing in the same way. You can never know ‘others’ experience, only your own experience. Then you must ask how many ‘I Am’s', are there? And how many Awareness’ are there? If you are honest, you will verify or rather self-verify that there is only one. Your own.
Give this careful consideration! As the implications are staggering……

sorry, *fact as i see it.

you cannot seriously dispute the fact that yourself has not witnessed error within anything in your life and expect me to believe that?

error is permitted due to the fact we have a memory and can retain such information and project reality at any given moment.

to refuse flaw is to refuse life.

There could only be error if I identified that there was something at stake.
If I took the stand to live a Life from:
I am that there's something at stake.

Only I Am is certain.

m4tt_666 wrote:to refuse flaw is to refuse life.

You said humans are "infinitely flawed".

to refuse the 'concept' of flaw.

we ourselves are not flawed, it is in the way we perceive by way of senses that is the real fallibility. it is within everyone of our natural senses to pick and choose error according to our individual moral foundation.

You seem very certain about all this.

So what the fuck do you know that I don't, punk?

nobody holds advantage over another in respect to knowledge.

every idea, no matter how abstract or simple it may seem has been in existence before us. the key is in the frame of time and how one uses any idea he wishes. another variable lies within the probability one will conceive such an idea to manipulate in the first place.

prince wrote:You seem very certain about all this.

So what the fuck do you know that I don't, punk?

Well prince, you went from calling people "fuckweasel" to "shitweasel" and now have downgraded it to "punk". I guess that's progress. ;)

Ya gotta love a bit'o princey...

Carmel wrote:People who think they can know the absolute truth about "reality" with the mere apparatus of an semi evolved monkey brain are deluding themselves. It's somewhat interesting to watch this mentality from a psychological perspective though. This strange and pathetic need the ego has for assurance and false security. kinda cute.

I wonder why you have taken that path. You seemed to understand the reasoning David presented about the insanity of grasping onto what is essentially without handles (and without hands), in favour of the old "human consciousness is limited" trope. The latter isn't the reason no particular truth can encapsulate the boundless; since human consciousness is necessarily part of that boundlessness, and is capable of recognising its relationship through logic to that boundlessness, its sensory limitations aren't relevant. Consciousnesses everywhere are bounded by what they are not, yet ---- remember that seamlessness of Reality? Well, consciousness is smack bang in the flux and flow of that seamlessness.

Truth is essentially just harking back to what's right there in front of your face.

.

I wonder why you have taken that path. You seemed to understand the reasoning David presented about the insanity of grasping onto what is essentially without handles (and without hands), in favour of the old "human consciousness is limited" trope. The latter isn't the reason no particular truth can encapsulate the boundless; since human consciousness is necessarily part of that boundlessness, and is capable of recognising its relationship through logic to that boundlessness, its sensory limitations aren't relevant.

Carmel:
Our sensory and mental perceptions are most definitely relevant.
We can only experience what is within our own consciousness. No amount of religious blathering will change that. I do appreciate David and Diebert's thoughts on the matter, but I have no intention of worshipping "Ultimate Reality" like a god. In fact, that was, in part, the point of notion of neither affirming nor rejecting any concept. I would liken a mental state that is conducive to "experiencing" "Ultimate Reality" metaphorically to holding sand in one's hand. If one grasps too tightly, the sand falls away, but if the palm is relaxed, neither grasping nor letting go completely, the sand remains.
--
(all quotation marks intentional)

Carmel wrote: I would liken a mental state that is conducive to "experiencing" "Ultimate Reality" metaphorically to holding sand in one's hand. If one grasps too tightly, the sand falls away, but if the palm is relaxed, neither grasping nor letting go completely, the sand remains.

Hi Carmel
My own view is that "Ultimate Reality" is like a pair of Chinese handcuffs. If you try to escape it, it clamps down all the more tightly and will not let go, eventually becoming painful and cutting off your circulation.

And you know, I don't think our views are mutually exclusive.

every idea, no matter how abstract or simple it may seem has been in existence before us. the key is in the frame of time and how one uses any idea he wishes. another variable lies within the probability one will conceive such an idea to manipulate in the first place.

That's more supposing.
It's a homelessness that postulates a ground to stand in as a possibility of being there finally at home... the chance of a direction to pursue as a way to get there...like in catching a concept as you would catch a bus to get home but has you actually going further away...
What you are looking for is You.

David would say:

You moved!

Sure it's fun trekking about the foothills, using concepts like stepping stones as excitement machines...
just set some trail markers to get back OK.

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Sure it's fun trekking about the foothills, using concepts like stepping stones as excitement machines...
just set some trail markers to get back OK.

i like how you put that, and i do heed your advice.

Dennis Mahar wrote:This is fact.
I KNOW that I exist. I do not KNOW that you exist. This basic ‘truth’ is the same for everyone – but I cannot prove it. You can prove it for yourself. You do not believe that you exist – You KNOW that you exist. And in that ‘small fact’ there is everything you need to know.

The same way that I know that I can move my body, and I can't fly, and I can think and talk. And knowing that the cause of this is my 'existence'. By knowing that you move and can't fly I know that you are caused by an existence like mine. Just not so like if you are a bot.


Edit:


Actually it seems that YOU ARE a bot o_O:

http://tinyurl.com/2et2o75

Jan Madsen says:
December 2, 2010 at 4:51 am

We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.

Robert Frost

suki says:
December 2, 2010 at 11:06 am

There is certainty of only ‘your’ own experience. Everybody else’s ‘experience’, is a subset of your own. It will be only an assumption, to assume that ‘everybody’ else is also experiencing in the same way. You can never know ‘others’ experience, only your own experience. Then you must ask how many ‘I Am’s', are there? And how many Awareness’ are there? If you are honest, you will verify or rather self-verify that there is only one. Your own.
Give this careful consideration! As the implications are staggering.....

To Bobo,

Why do you make it mean bot?
If I take an expression from here or there that shows up as a perfect expression in the context of a project I'm undertaking...

Is it shameful?
Is it a crime?

After all, those people are 'lit up' as derivative of Nisargardata...

Are you being a smartarse?

Carmel wrote:Our sensory and mental perceptions are most definitely relevant.
We can only experience what is within our own consciousness.

Yes, but the method for understanding how things truly exist is not by looking for evidence through the senses, nor by religious instinct, but through logical thought.

I have no intention of worshipping "Ultimate Reality" like a god.

Why do you consider that statement relevant, given that you know the religious mindset is sans logical thought?

In fact, that was, in part, the point of notion of neither affirming nor rejecting any concept.

Well, this is fine so long as you accept that this cannot occur in practice without having driving with uncompromising rectitude against unreason. Only with that exacting, single-pointed will to truth (the bias against untruth, the affirmation of truth alone), can there be real understanding. Enlightenment is not about simply floating passively with a random acceptance or tolerance of any thoughts, like allowing the absurd or total nonsense to directly steer one's progress.

I would liken a mental state that is conducive to "experiencing" "Ultimate Reality" metaphorically to holding sand in one's hand. If one grasps too tightly, the sand falls away, but if the palm is relaxed, neither grasping nor letting go completely, the sand remains.

The thing is, there is nothing to grasp. The very act of grasping means one hasn't yet cottoned on. ;-)

Equanimity, too, is a subtle delusion, for the same reason. One is trying to still, or clean, or control.


.

You don't get it, you're stuck Kelly. Enlightenment to you is a superficial, logical academic exercise, you grasp too hard, at everything...words, cold logic.

no resonance.

consciousness is undoubtedly something to grasp and to be used accordingly.

we have infinity to grasp nothing upon death, let's not rush things.

Carmel wrote:You don't get it, you're stuck Kelly. Enlightenment to you is a superficial, logical academic exercise, you grasp too hard, at everything...words, cold logic.

no resonance.

Hi Carmel

I take it you have seen this. I find it is very helpful to have the proper approach to misogyny. By watching this video, you, too, can be sure you have the proper approach.

whoa! Was that a parody of a misogynist?

cuz, may I call you cuz? You're a bit of a troublemaker, aren't you? ;)

Carmel wrote:whoa! Was that a parody of a misogynist?

cuz, may I call you cuz? You're a bit of a troublemaker, aren't you? ;)

Well, that video may be a bit dated, but I just wanted you to know what our Kelly has been up to.

It's no use expecting Carmel to understand wise misogyny, cousinbasil. At this stage, she lacks courage to stop being a side-line spectator, so she can't see the connection between feminine-mindedness and irrationality. Maybe some day she will take the bull by the horns.....

Incidentally, since you've raised the topic, I'll be uploading the fifth in my misogynistic literature series soon. Featuring: Esther Vilar. She's not as profound as Celia Green, but she's definitely a strong, clear thinker about how the feminine person manipulates others (albeit unconsciously) - and far harsher and more forthright in her attacks on women than I've ever been. I've never been as lacking in the openness to exceptions, as she is. That is, I tend always to keep in mind the very rare female who is technically a man - even though I have never met any good, solid examples. Even Green has decayed. Perhaps Vilar's definitive stance is owing to anger (which is unsurprising: the energy needed to denounce something that is still a strong part of oneself usually generates anger). Interestingly, I noticed some similarities with her views and Sue Hindmarsh's.


.