The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

[Dennis Mahar]

I'm trying to figure out his reasoning Trevor, can you help?

Is it:

There is no absolute
GF is absolutist
GF is wrong

'there is no absolute' effectively serves as an absolute so it all looks crazy.

If you challenge him there's no grace under pressure.
there's a fall into inauthenticity comprising running away, table thumping, flaming, ignoring..

[Alexis Jacobi]

That is such an interesting phrase: to be trapped in ideas. Trapped in idea-structures. I was going to say that I don't feel particularly trapped by anything, and at the very least I am not 'trapped' by Freud's ideas, they are just way of looking at things. But then I guess you can never really know, right?

I am very interested in the implications of Freud's ideas, and find many of them vitally interesting and thought-provoking. I find your dismissal to be...unstudied. You have thrown away too much too flippantly. That flippancy is, I should point out, one of the noted characteristics here among the Geniuses.

Revolutions in how man is viewed were set in motion by Freud's discoveries and in many ways that revolution continues. I think your take on his relevance (which for you is irrelevance) is shallow. But it isn't my issue to solve, and it is of course---ah but that is your phrase---a red-herring, those delicious little fish you so love to toss?

But the idea (or is it a fact?) of being 'trapped by ideas' is certainly interesting to me. On so many different occassions, that is almost exactly the terminology I would use to describe the strange, repetitive circles that some on GF walk around in. And so---but it certainly can't be considered very romantic now can it?---here we are again in what is an endless repeat, another long rehearsal leading to the same result: two individuals, two points of view, that are mutually opposed and square off in front of each other. No progress, no change. But the interesting thing is that we both seem to see each other as being 'trapped in ideas'.

Somethins gotta give...

But about wu wei, now there we have agreement!

• A fully achieved person is like a spirit! The great marshes could be set on fire, but she wouldn't feel hot. The rivers in China could all freeze over, but she wouldn't feel cold. Thunder could suddenly echo through the mountains, wind could cause a tsunami in the ocean, but she wouldn't be startled. A person like that could ride through the sky on the floating clouds, straddle the sun and moon, and travel beyond the four seas. Neither death nor life can cause changes within her, and there's little reason for her to even consider benefit or harm.

Those are in fact precisely my sentiments, insofar as one can have sentiments about wu wei.

Yet, you show remarkably poor judgement when it comes to people's underlying motivations.

I am interested in this, can you talk about it more? But an adjunct question, also a statement, is: Isn't that a fault that is mutually shared? I don't so much mean by you, but by those who are opposed on this forum. Isn't it that you-we attempt divinations based on the only information we have, and of course this divination is also 'projection'? If it ain't Freud its Jung. (Which reminds me of something James Joyce said about his (psychotherapized daughter) 'She's very jung and freudened'. (Huuaar huaaar huaaar).

Truth is just a bit more difficult a goal.

We have another agreement! It is indeed infinitely more difficult. And in your statement I hear---do I hear correctly?---that you are linked in to Truth. Ah, right: and isn't that sorta the basic position of GF, traditionally defined? Absolute certainties about Absolute Truth? Now, what if I sort of edged in sideways that interesting phrase about 'being trapped in ideas'. I know, it is an uncomfortable parallel. And yet, and yet, I know that a tried and true GFer can wiggle out of it. (But that is how I see things, Trevor, all ironies aside)(for a moment).

Nevermind the fact that asking why someone believes something is borderline ad hominem. Decide for yourself whether you are commiting this fallacy. I'm quite positive there are more interesting problems to be dealt with than curing philosophers of their philosophical beliefs, or grandstanding in front of a bunch of invisible spectators.

'Borderline Ad Hominist'. It sounds serious. And it is a disorder I got, I got it bad. I have said this so many times: everything that is of importance is 'to the man'. It is the only conversation worth having. 'Why people believe what they believe' is (for me) one of the best questions a person can ask. Because I am involved in my borderline ad hominism, it is in fact a question I ask of myself, as we all should. Grandstanding, though I suppose indulgence in it is a sin of sorts, is to me a tremendous joy. Invisible spectators are the best spectators, Trevor!

You know, interesting tidbit: psychiatrists (you know, the people who refuted and then surpassed Freud) have never ever tried to tell me that my beliefs are false. Even genuine mental illness (as abnormal a 'neuroses' as you can get) is a separate thing from false beliefs.

Okay, I see your point, but I might say that when one 'does philosophy', and when you are told to get ready to 'bloody yourself' (because the issues are that important, and have such implications and consequences), I think one just has to put up with what one gets.

I already learned from it all I needed.

Before it even began? It is simply too dismissive in my way of seeing things. It is I think a hang-up of the QRStian crowd. They LOVE to upturn the table with a Zarathustrian gesture, like Jesus chasing out the money-changers.

And then they go one preaching the Gospel of the Infinite. Such a life! ;-)

What is enlightenment? It is returning to what you were before the earth was created.

Trevor, can you give me some help with this? Can we do some philsophy together on this? Can anyone---will anyone!---please help a disordered soul to reason this through?

[jupiviv]

I think we need a definition of 'unconscious'. In the psychological (Freudian) sense it refers to a vast territory under the conscious self, and it might be called the 'psycho-biological' or somatic understructure of man. It is the 'unconscious self' that produces a dream, for example, or a psychosomatic symptom to an unrecognized stress or conflict.

Again, how can we become conscious of this unconscious understructure, if it is indeed an unconscious understructure of our consciousness? Wouldn't the fact of its unconsciousness prevent us from becoming conscious of it, or indeed anything else?

it seems that it is understood that people---you and I---pretend to rational activity, in choices, etc., but it has been proposed that we are never as 'rational' as we assume.

If that is so, then why does it even matter that we know about it? Aren't we being at least partially irrational in knowing that it is so?

When you say 'battle' and 'reject'---what do you mean?

I mean that I do not value it.

What is your specific relationship to your culture and community? That is, Indian culture in the present?

It's what is around me, so I have to interact with it. I don't hate it, as you might think, but I do not think that Indian culture involves much consciousness.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Dennis,

I'm trying to figure out his reasoning Trevor, can you help?

I don't think his reasoning is something anyone else here would consider reasoning. His method is almost completely excluded from the definition of "Reason" used here. It's holistic, and involves getting in touch with his feelings, and drawing conclusions based on what a statement makes him feel like when he concentrates on it. Essentially, GF gives off the wrong vibes. His hatred has nothing to do with "absolutism" or GF being "wrong", and everything to do with presentation. He gets bored when he reads David, for instance.

there's a fall into inauthenticity comprising running away, table thumping, flaming, ignoring..

How much of what Alex says do you filter away as drivel? How much substance remains afterward?


Alex,

I am interested in this, can you talk about it more? But an adjunct question, also a statement, is: Isn't that a fault that is mutually shared?

You are unaware of why you react in the way you do toward this forum, and this ignorance throws off your diagnoses of this dysfunctional forum and its neurotic members. Psychoanalysis is already a crippled way of thinking; self-diagnosis through psychoanalysis is paraplegic.

And in your statement I hear---do I hear correctly?---that you are linked in to Truth.

Anyone can be, given some motivation and some effort. I don't have a monopoly over truth. You've said true things in the course of this conversation, so if you don't believe people can have access to truth, you have some pretty thick blinders on. Or it was all ironic, in which case it's doubly ironic that you only say true things when you're lying.

'Why people believe what they believe' is (for me) one of the best questions a person can ask. Because I am involved in my borderline ad hominism....

You are parading around like an emperor dressed in his translucent finest. Ad hominem is a fallacy -- just as bad but not quite as rare as a false dichotomy -- so get over it and repair your broken method. You'd be a hypocrite to attack inappropriate "binary thinking", and not your own mistakes.

Trevor, can you give me some help with this? Can we do some philsophy together on this? Can anyone---will anyone!---please help a disordered soul to reason this through?

When you parody people, you almost sound like you have something substantial to say. Alex without his phalanx of inside and outside sources is an empty shell.

[Bobo]

What is enlightenment? It is returning to what you were before the earth was created.

Trevor, can you give me some help with this? Can we do some philsophy together on this? Can anyone---will anyone!---please help a disordered soul to reason this through?

It is Zen/Tao/Jesus. At least sounds like.

[Dennis Mahar]

You've illumined the situation well Trevor.
Emotionality.
How do you get a pattern from emotionality to rationality?

If GF is a Worldhood of Roles, Practices, Values.
And emotionality was subject to Boot Camp.

Serenity would be the foundational practice.
Detachment.

Learning not to emotionally react to appearances.

With serenity Listening becomes available.
In that way the appearance appears lit up in it's own light and is fully understood.

Reacting emotionally has one throwing a bunch of language at the appearance to try and obliterate it.

It can take a long time to grok an appearance in it's fullness so serenity as a practice grants that time.

To enjoy conventional reality requires putting boundaries around things and give them the space to do their thing for their nature to be revealed. Once that nature is fully disclosed then it's known as a usefulness. Most things in conventional reality are totally useless. One then realises one doesn't need hardly anything at all and that the less you've got the more you've got. funny that.

Emotionality cannot bring forth the possibility of one's genius, only detachment can enable it, if it's there.

I vote for detachment as the first Boot Camp practice as 'a way of being' that gets the goodies.

[Tomas]

-Trevor-
What is enlightenment? It is returning to what you were before the earth was created.

-Alex-
Trevor, can you give me some help with this? Can we do some philosophy together on this? Can anyone---will anyone!---please help a disordered soul to reason this through?

-Bobo-
It is Zen/Tao/Jesus. At least sounds like.

-tomas-
You have some answering to do on that Trevor. Like, right quick, sweetheart.

The seen world versus the unseen world.

The seen universe versus the unseen universe.

Before the earth .. what?

[Dennis Mahar]

Tomas,

You have some answering to do on that Trevor. Like, right quick, sweetheart.

A step at a time seems more appropriate Tomas, an easy gradient.
'Dwelling' in the basics builds the foundations.
Slowly, slowly.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Tomas, that wasn't my quote. Ask the person who said it what he meant.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Again, how can we become conscious of this unconscious understructure, if it is indeed an unconscious understructure of our consciousness? Wouldn't the fact of its unconsciousness prevent us from becoming conscious of it, or indeed anything else? / If that is so, then why does it even matter that we know about it? Aren't we being at least partially irrational in knowing that it is so?

I suppose that when/if you look into Freud's theories of the unconscious, you will be in a position to answer those questions. You have also roundly side-stepped my questions about your own matrix, that is to say your family, the social links to your culture. It is my contention that 'all that' is very relevant to who a person is and also to how their ideas can and will interface with 'life in the world'. As you know, I regard David's overall attitude (which I label the GF recommended praxis) as being one of 'denial'. The notion that a person can hole-up in a 'rational' position and deny so much of what makes that person a person, seems to me an unreal stance. On this forum, speaking generally, there is rarely any conversation about persons in actual circumstances, i.e. their own circumstances, and there is more often than not a sort of disconnected 'abstract conversation'. In my view, if a person isn't capable of considering the totality of their persons, and doesn't even know how to get to that or how and why to become cognizant of it, and then goes off on tangents, then that person is indulging in a sort of irrational fantasy. I don't in any sense disregard or diminish any particular element of GF philosophy, or Zen philosophy (of Nietzsche or Kierkegaard or the necessity for a particularly masculine focus in conversation, etc.) yet it is my contention that GF exhibits these qualities of denial, an unreal and unpracticable 'residence' within a falsely-defined 'rational' mental structure. I will not say that my 'diagnosis' is completely correct, but I do feel that in a general sense I have a good point. And of course this 'point' is shared by others.

It's what is around me, so I have to interact with it. I don't hate it, as you might think, but I do not think that Indian culture involves much consciousness.

That's certainly understandable. The reason I asked for information, and hoped to initiate a conversation about it, is because I believe that if ever you made the choice to set to work in some substantial and on-the-ground manner with persons living within your culture (on any level of course, but in this sense about 'being conscious' or 'becoming aware'), you would find that you would have to take into consideration so many different aspects of peoplehood that, from the look of it, you are unable or uninterested in considering (or that never comes up in your discourse).

I have the same sense, obviously, about David. David sees himself arriving in a home where there is an approximately '20-something' young man who is interested in 'genius' (or whatever it is that David is offering/selling). There is a woman, the lover or mate of that young man. A conversation arises in which David sees this young man struggling between 1) what David is offering and 2) that young man's girlfriend, wife or lover. The woman resists David's kerygma, and the way David describes and presents her resistance shows us an 'hysterical' woman, in the grip of emotional forces. The young man is placed into a terrible conflict and holds his head saying 'Oh Jesus...' David establishes a situation in which this young man must choose between 'wisdom' and self-development and his girlfriend, which oddly enough becomes a choice to be made between David and the girl. Looked at in this way, David vies for the attentions of a young man and hopes to 'win' him to his cause. And to have and enjoy this 'wisdom' he must sacrifice the girl. It is the only way.

I suggest there is an unconscious factor in operation here. The structure of David's Call to Consciousness involves, as I have been able to see, similar radically presented choices, but at the core of it, also as I have been able to tell, there seem to me to be 'unconscious motivators' in operation. How to talk about that? How even to come and see it, which I would link us with the questions you asked above and which I underlined. How to become conscious of what you cannot even see? How to see what influences and motivates us at a core level but yet we are unconscious of? My Heavens, this is such an important question for mankind, and for this reason alone Freud's notion of an 'unconscious factor' is worth its weight in gelt.

Well, it can just be dismissed as 'emotionalism' (the favored and time-word tactic here on GF), or you might let an articulate monkey's opinions rein (Dennis). Or, some part of this can be considered. To whose advantage is it to 'consider' these things? Well, as always, the 'invisible hordes' I am sure are interested. Why? Because the 'rationalistic structure' of GF is quite adept at deflecting all criticism, and any criticism is a Rally to Arms of the Geniuses who come forth to defend the Holy Doctrines (notice how I paint this in religious terms, which is what I actually think about GF philosophy, and why I focus on David's interesting and very revealing little quote). Oh Heavens, there is just so much about David and about GF that raises red flags, so much that can be looked at!

Is no one going to offer their exegesis of: "What is enlightenment? It is returning to what you were before the earth was created." Is it off-limits for you? Would you get in trouble if you took a stab at interpreting its meaning? Jupi? Trevor? Dennis? Diebert? David?

[jupiviv]

I suppose that when/if you look into Freud's theories of the unconscious, you will be in a position to answer those questions.

What Freud calls "the unconscious mind" seems to be the parts of our brain which we aren't *normally* aware of. These do influence our consciousness in some ways, but those "ways" are probably not the same as what Freud thought they were. For example, our consciousness may not survive if these parts weren't there. And in a more ultimate sense, they cause it. He makes the mistake of *identifying* those unconscious things with consciousness.

You have also roundly side-stepped my questions about your own matrix, that is to say your family, the social links to your culture.

I don't think telling you about my matrix would be useful to this discussion. You seem to want to convert this forum into some kind of online coffee house.

"What is enlightenment? It is returning to what you were before the earth was created."

Since David said it, he is the best person to explain it.

[Tomas]

Tomas, that wasn't my quote. Ask the person who said it what he meant.

Thank you. I stand corrected.

Bobo and me-me gave a short synap tho I don't blame [confess, placate] buddha, obama, jesus or other sorts of wizardry..

Okay David let's have it. That'll be a thread in and of itself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't think telling you about my matrix would be useful to this discussion. You seem to want to convert this forum into some kind of online coffee house.

Deliberate Misreading #4532. Date Wed 6 July, 5772/2011. Location: Cyberspace. Misreader: Jupiviv.

What Freud calls "the unconscious mind" seems to be the parts of our brain which we aren't *normally* aware of. These do influence our consciousness in some ways, but those "ways" are probably not the same as what Freud thought they were. For example, our consciousness may not survive if these parts weren't there. And in a more ultimate sense, they cause it. He makes the mistake of *identifying* those unconscious things with consciousness.

I suppose that if you continue to look into Freud's ideas about the unconscious, your understanding of them and your commentaries will get even better.

Since David said it, he is the best person to explain it.

Fair enough. But what do you think he meant (because David will not, I repeat will not explain this unusually theopoetical phrase).

Am I to assume there was nothing at all else worth commenting on in my last post to you? ;-)

[Anders Schlander]

What is enlightenment? It is returning to what you were before the earth was created.

I really would like some more information about this statement. I also would like to hear what others here take it to mean. 'Doing philosophy'---how does one 'do' this statement?

Alex, why do you care what others think it means though? what if they were wrong? you couldn't know unless you thought about it logically too. I think that's what you want to avoid though, atleast in one way.
You'd rather try to put the statement in a 'box', in the loft in a neatly catagorized index with other olboxes, than tackle the clear simple logic in the statement, something which requires logic aimed at the very personal existing individual. You don't seem to have any motivation to do the latter, which makes your posts very interesting in one way, and quite boring in another.


like the classic 'intellectual' academic person, you'd rather just have it all neatly placed at a distance in your own neat system. That's why you'll never really 'get' what the big fuss is about, yet at the same time, you interestingly stick around, maybe at some level, you do think there is some importance to the idea of wisdom? I'm not sure exactly, I just find it very interesting.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't think his [Alex's] reasoning is something anyone else here would consider reasoning. His method is almost completely excluded from the definition of "Reason" used here. It's holistic, and involves getting in touch with his feelings, and drawing conclusions based on what a statement makes him feel like when he concentrates on it. Essentially, GF gives off the wrong vibes. His hatred has nothing to do with "absolutism" or GF being "wrong", and everything to do with presentation. He gets bored when he reads David, for instance.

Deliberate Misreading #4533. Date Wed 6 July, 5772/2011. Location: Cyberspace. Misreader: Trevor.

I just think this idea of misreading is so interesting. Misreading, restating. This is eristic and not conversation, isn't it? I think we can do better. Frankly, all of my posts, and often far in excess of many who write here, are 'logically constructed'. They are written in intelligible prose and they succeed in communicating my points. Now, if may be true that I approach 'reasoning' differently than y'all, or reason differently, or perhaps include more, so I will accept your designation. But the 'and involves getting in touch with his feelings, and drawing conclusions based on what a statement makes him feel like when he concentrates on it' I do not except. This is a 'malicious misreading'. It's purpose is to insinuate that dreaded 'emotionalism' which it is so easy to get the chaps to rally against. The fact is, my critiques are substantive, reasonable and worthy of consideration. I suggest it is not fair that you attempt to join up with Dennis on this (and he will of course play along with you).

Also, GF gives off many of the right 'vibes'. Those being: focus on man's intellect, psychic power, men's unique gifts and potentials, the question of 'the right way to live and act' (though Ultimate Reality is far too grandiose for me and I couldn't use the term). Additionally, it is a forum that allows none of that distractive imagery, stupidly long sigs, and is one that really does allow for full expression of ideas over time. It is not at all common. I have been doing GF a tremendous favor in writing here. Try to take the following into consideration: some years back it was David et al who made declarative statements that I was akin to 'the Devil incarnate' for entertaining the ideas I entertain. I was to be 'resisted until the final breath'. The original 'branding' was of me, not me of them. This is the position that GF has establsihed for itself: it takes on all comers (and wins). Also, oppositions tend to produce the best conversations (if indeed conversation---communication---is your objective)(and it may not be).

In a sense I 'get bored' when I read David, but that is not why I take issue with him. Why I take issue with him has, of course, been spelled out so many times.

You are unaware of why you react in the way you do toward this forum, and this ignorance throws off your diagnoses of this dysfunctional forum and its neurotic members.

You mean I am motivated by occult factors? Something I can't see or recognize? Can you speak more about this?

Anyone can be, given some motivation and some effort. I don't have a monopoly over truth. You've said true things in the course of this conversation, so if you don't believe people can have access to truth, you have some pretty thick blinders on. Or it was all ironic, in which case it's doubly ironic that you only say true things when you're lying.

I guess it wouldn't be fair to ask you what truthful things you think I've said. And I do think I concur with you that we can (approach truth). Possibly, what sets up apart is that I can't imagine an 'abstracted truth', a truth separate from the human person, though I totally understand why people believe such a thing must exist. But let us be precise: I think GF gets it wrong in certain areas, and I focus on those. Not to destroy GF, but to continue in the enterprise of 'approaching truth'. The irony thing is a problem. Generally, when I am sincere, I assume people recognize it, and when I am ironic that they also recognize it (I try to throw in clues). You, sir, are far more devilish with your ironies!

You are parading around like an emperor dressed in his translucent finest. Ad hominem is a fallacy -- just as bad but not quite as rare as a false dichotomy -- so get over it and repair your broken method.Yes? But what about this: The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. This is my position, do you see it as utterly fallacious?

When you parody people, you almost sound like you have something substantial to say. Alex without his phalanx of inside and outside sources is an empty shell.

My parodies are very well received by those who agree with my predicates, and by those who do not have the eristical skill (!) to mount opposition to GF et al. So, on some level I play in the ressentiment zone. And I have certainly put up with parodies of my fine person. It is just that no one (of the founders) is much good at it, because they take their own selves so utterly seriously. Only someone willing to appear a fool (or who knows their foolish self) can make a fool of someone (else).

Alex, why do you care what others think it means though? what if they were wrong? you couldn't know unless you thought about it logically too.

That is a good question. One part of it is serious. I genuinely want to know what such a statement can mean in the context of hyper-rationalism. The other reason is devious. Since I know that no one here CAN answer it, because it is completely extraordinary, I can delight in that fact and sort of 'rub people's noses in it'. Less deviously, it supports my contention that there are odd unconscious motivators in operation (here). That is an important point of mine and one I feel it is worthy to...keep pressing on. And I don't think that the statement can be 'thought through logically' (though I understand why you suppose it could be), and that is because the emergence of this Reality is not logical! That statement is a statement of mysticism and has no possible relationship to what we typically recognize as 'rational thought'.

[Anders Schlander]

Alex, why do you care what others think it means though? what if they were wrong? you couldn't know unless you thought about it logically too.

That is a good question. One part of it is serious. I genuinely want to know what such a statement can mean in the context of hyper-rationalism. The other reason is devious. Since I know that no one here CAN answer it, because it is completely extraordinary, I can delight in that fact and sort of 'rub people's noses in it'. Less deviously, it supports my contention that there are odd unconscious motivators in operation (here). That is an important point of mine and one I feel it is worthy to...keep pressing on. And I don't think that the statement can be 'thought through logically' (though I understand why you suppose it could be), and that is because the emergence of this Reality is not logical! That statement is a statement of mysticism and has no possible relationship to what we typically recognize as 'rational thought'.

Forgive me by the way, I edited my post before yours with a bit of analysis and poking around, but editing took so long you already replied. Let me reply to this in a minute though, i'll edit it into this post in a sec.

edit: reply:

I see, well as for the statement I don't really get the 'hyper-rational' context. For me hyper-rational is like people who over-interpret things, reaching a poor conclusion because something stops them from the obvious correct conclusion. Basically, since something is either rational or irrational, I like to think that anything that is 'more' than rational is simply wrong/not-rational, hyper-rational sounding more like wrong over-rushed interpretations. To put it short, there is no third, something is rational or irrational - putting hyper at the front doesn't really invalidate anything, it's like an ad hominem attack on the rational ;) like, that person is ugly, he's wrong.

Anyhow, I do believe people here can answer your question, including me, atleast, in the spirit of logic, and maybe less so in action, to me, what David said is a hard hitting statement if you really let it affect your being, but it's also a relatively simple logical conclusion in essence.

Why would you think that it would be natural for me to 'think' that I could answer it? do you think that the statement entails something mystical ''beyond logic'? which in fact can't be answered, and if yes, how does one realize something can't be answered, but through logic? If something was truly beyond logic, one would neither know if it could be answered or not, yes?

Lastly, I have no clue what you mean with this, could you elaborate on the possible "unconscious motivators"?

[Dennis Mahar]

I actually prefer the term 'reactive mind' over emotionalism, emotionality.

If the mind's thing is recognition, differentiation, reaction,
then it's revealing to look at 'reaction'.

Alex, in your story about David and the young guy and girl....you are 'in reaction' to something.
emotionally reactive.

In your parents story where you say I lived it, implying I lived the madness of it, you are in reaction.

Being 'in reaction' gets the mind all fired up and marching off to war.
The mind's got extremely offended, wants to set things straight, puts on it's size 10 boots and gets about kicking arse, the bonfire seems to blaze forever...
it's empty and meaningless.

Freedom is way better.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Lastly, I have no clue what you mean with this, could you elaborate on the possible "unconscious motivators"?

Excessive rejection of 'woman', or a complete rejection of 'woman', to my way of seeing, indicates a man with a problem. The reason there is a problem (with relating to women, or 'handling' women as I sometimes say), as I have observed, could well be rooted in a developmental issue in that man. One notes it among classic 'nerds' or sensitive types and of course homosexuals. Often, there is a compensatory reaction because the 'reason' for this problem cannot be squarely faced. One often sees it among classically mathematically-minded men: they take up residence in an area of themselves in which they feel comfortable, powerful. From that position they can then look down on woman, classify her, observe and catalogue her peculiarities, and find a million and one reasons to reject her. But, at a basic level---the level of the body---all the same force of attraction still operates. The mind (the rational aspect) may reject her but at a fundamental level (now repressed) she is just as attractive as she ever was, and perhaps in some way more so. Somehow, one is bound to what one rejects. It doesn't have to do necessarily with achieving or defining 'genius' (but one does note that the term 'genius' here is really to indicate some sort of existential genius, some kind of master of this material plane perhaps best exemplified by (the mental image of) a Zen or Taoist monk-practitioner) but more with a preservation of one's self-esteem. But, all or a significant part of the 'real motivators' to reject and to be, strangely, bound to 'woman' thereby, are not registered consciously. A game is played with self. The game gets more and more complex and the need to maintain it continues.

From all that I have gathered so far, the spiritual position, and I mean this of most or all developed religions, is a reaction against and a rebellion against the basic ontological condition. The facts of the real conditions of biological life are untenable. Looked at squarely they are also rather horrible---terrible. And so there is an aspect of the religious motive that is like a cry of anguish, and seen in this way anguish can turn in two directions: to escape or to creative activity to modify terrible conditions.

My sense about the position of the Founders of GF, though I haven't got it all worked out, and I also don't have all the time in the world to do so, nor the interest, because I am involved in my own existential problems, but my sense about the Founder's position is that it is reactive in the sense that all religious positions are reactive, and I am not exactly sure whether to classify it in the camp of 'escape from anguish' or 'recognition of the need for creative activity to modify conditions'. There are many ambivalencies. But, it is established within a predicate, and that is the predicate of Absolute Reality and the 'attainment' of it, a rather grand one, if not also a little titanic (?) It seems to me to have two levels: what it reveals of itself publically, and what is in fact the real truth, which is its private reality. So, for example, Founder Two utterly rejects 'woman' and yet has both an (ex) wife and a child---but none of this is talked about. It is not part of the 'public position'. He seems to recommend this radical severing from 'woman' but cannot himself exemplify it. Whereas in actual fact a man always has to make compromises with life and existence, and work creatively within his context. All that this means is that there is ALWAYS a kind of contrast or conflict between who one says or pretends to be, and who one really is. I am more interested in who we really are than in all these levels of (what I call) Image Management.

Should I be summing this up, making some final (crushing) statement? I can only say that within this environment I sense the presence of many different 'unconscious motivators'. Can I ferret them all out? No. But I can stick with my sense.

Anyhow, I do believe people here can answer your question, including me, atleast, in the spirit of logic, and maybe less so in action, to me, what David said is a hard hitting statement if you really let it affect your being, but it's also a relatively simple logical conclusion in essence.

I imagine that you believe you can 'answer' it logically because, from all I have read, you orient yourself as just such a logically oriented person. Logic, for me, functions in mathematics and in many areas in the physical sciences, but I do not see how logic can be used to understand existence. The so-called 'logic' will become mystical, as it does with that truly curious statement of David's. No one as yet has said anything at all about it.

[Blair]

A game is played with self. The game gets more and more complex and the need to maintain it continues.

Yet again projecting, Alex.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

But the 'and involves getting in touch with his feelings, and drawing conclusions based on what a statement makes him feel like when he concentrates on it' I do not except. This is a 'malicious misreading'. It's purpose is to insinuate that dreaded 'emotionalism' which it is so easy to get the chaps to rally against.

Its purpose was to draw clear contrast, like a highlighter pen. My overarching point, which I didn't think I needed to state, is simply that you define Reason differently. I'm enough of a Renaissance man to be aware that people don't always agree on what Reason actually is.

You mean I am motivated by occult factors? Something I can't see or recognize? Can you speak more about this?

Now your ears perk up! Now that someone agrees that you're in denial, your constant assertions that everyone else is in denial are justified. Nevermind my very next sentence called psychoanalysis a crippled way of thinking. Nevermind the fact that I've been railing against argumentum ad hominem for the last couple posts. Nevermind that I've been recommending you stop diagnosing people.

I really couldn't care less about what, exactly, motivates you (although I'm slightly disappointed it's not "the nature of Ultimate Reality"). I could probably go one-by-one through every possible human motivation and you'd deny each one of them. But, I'm in luck: the truth of your statements have nothing to do with your motivations.

I guess it wouldn't be fair to ask you what truthful things you think I've said.

I don't quote for truth. I also don't quote filler. You decide which is which. And be appalled that I reply to so much of what you say.

But what about this: The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. This is my position, do you see it as utterly fallacious?

Let's take a borderline case. David has a child, but he recommends men, for the sake of wisdom, stay away from women. It is a fallacy to point out that he has a child, if you are trying to decide if staying away from women is wise. If you are trying to decide if David has always acted in the wisest manner, it is no longer a fallacy.

A good rule of thumb is to avoid ad hominem, though. Just like how one should avoid circular reasoning, even though circular reasoning isn't always a fallacy.

Only someone willing to appear a fool (or who knows their foolish self) can make a fool of someone (else).

You mean like, for instance, writing a bunch of posts completely comprised of red herrings and watching the king of irony fall for it?

[jupiviv]

I don't think telling you about my matrix would be useful to this discussion. You seem to want to convert this forum into some kind of online coffee house.

Deliberate Misreading #4532. Date Wed 6 July, 5772/2011. Location: Cyberspace. Misreader: Jupiviv.

How is this a deliberate misreading?

What Freud calls "the unconscious mind" seems to be the parts of our brain which we aren't *normally* aware of. These do influence our consciousness in some ways, but those "ways" are probably not the same as what Freud thought they were. For example, our consciousness may not survive if these parts weren't there. And in a more ultimate sense, they cause it. He makes the mistake of *identifying* those unconscious things with consciousness.

I suppose that if you continue to look into Freud's ideas about the unconscious, your understanding of them and your commentaries will get even better.

I think it would be better if you explained what you interpret them to be.

And no, I couldn't find anything else in your previous post to respond to. However, I do think this question by you is worth responding to:

The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. This is my position, do you see it as utterly fallacious?

The question of personal character shouldn't be brought into an argument that has nothing to do with personal character, for example, the logical tenability of a person's ideas and opinions. But that is precisely what you do here, and why I said that you want to convert this forum into a coffee house. You disregard our actual arguments and instead start speculating on the "reasons" why we argue from the positions that we do. You are a typical modernist freethinker, Alexis. You have freed yourself from thought by making it into a kind of highly elaborate gossip.

[Anders Schlander]

Anyhow, I do believe people here can answer your question, including me, atleast, in the spirit of logic, and maybe less so in action, to me, what David said is a hard hitting statement if you really let it affect your being, but it's also a relatively simple logical conclusion in essence.

I imagine that you believe you can 'answer' it logically because, from all I have read, you orient yourself as just such a logically oriented person. Logic, for me, functions in mathematics and in many areas in the physical sciences, but I do not see how logic can be used to understand existence. The so-called 'logic' will become mystical, as it does with that truly curious statement of David's. No one as yet has said anything at all about it.

it seems almost stupid to even answer your request because of the vast amount of resources available around this place. I'm sure you've heard A=A a billion times already, I'm sure you've had the opportunity, if you wanted, to think about existence, life and death, etc, eventually come to understand what David is talking about. There's nothing mystical about it .....it's right there on the forum page. I wrote out a response, but realized now that it would be pretty much pointless. I cannot say it better than what have already been said so many times already, and made so readily available by David, Kevin, Dan, and others.

Somehow, one is bound to what one rejects.

If one was bound by something, but then reject it, then by definition, one is not bound by it any more, otherwise one has not truly rejected it. The rejection of women by some people such as those you mention, nerds, math geeks, whatever, is not because they have quenched all emotional desire, or because they have fully dedicated themselves to reason and truth. They do alot of love of their concepts, their hobbies etc, it might perhaps override the need for a girlfriend, or whatever, but that's hardly rejection, they're definitely still attracted to women. Think of married men that sometimes just want a walk in the forest, or would rather not have their girlfriend at work, or in their garage when they fix their car, sometimes a man's gotta be alone, or hang out with other dudes, right?, is this not a small rejection too?

To fully reject Woman as a whole, who encompasses the biggest attachment in this world is not something many people would even think of doing, yet, rejection of Woman is part of the process of becoming an individual, of which loving truth and reason over the comfort of Woman is necessary. But I dare say that the average computer nerd, and maths-type is not as rejecting as you make it out to be.

In closing, if you become enlightened, why would one want to either reject or attract women? emotionally, it would make no sense by definition, so that's why, in the beginning one attaches themselves to the masculine, the power of reason, and thus rejects women by loving the opposite of what women represent, this is just one of the steps. it's It's like the idea that all words are different cures for different ailments, and none of them are to be taken for the real thing, yet, this statement is not the real thing either. Or the idea of a monkey climbing from branch to branch, one continues till there is no longer any branches left to hold on to.

[Bobo]

Tomas, that wasn't my quote. Ask the person who said it what he meant.

Thank you. I stand corrected.

Bobo and me-me gave a short synap tho I don't blame [confess, placate] buddha, obama, jesus or other sorts of wizardry..

Okay David let's have it. That'll be a thread in and of itself.

Here it goes some sources. It seems that David got it from zen:

Hsiang-yen (771-853) was originally a novice under Pai-chang; he was exceptionally brilliant and quick witted, strong in analytical power and logical acumen, and versed in the scriptures. But he was not initiated into Ch’an (Zen). At the death of Pai-chang, he made himself a disciple of Pai-chang’s senior disciple Kuei-shan. Kuei-shan said to him, "I hear that when you were with our late Master Pai-chang, you could give ten answers to a single question…..This shows your remarkable intelligence and ingenuity, which enables you to understand ideas and unfold their consequences. Now the question of birth and death is the most fundamental of all. Try to tell me something about your state before you were born of your parents."

This question plunged his mind into a thick fog. He did not even know what to think. Returning to his room, he made a feverish search in all the books that he had read for something appropriate to say in answer to the question; but he could not find a single sentence that could be used.

So he sighed to himself, saying, "As the saying goes, a painted cake satisfies not the hunger." After that, he pressed his master time and time again to break the secret to him by speaking explicitly. Every time Kuei-shan said, "If I should expound it explicitly to you, in future you will reproach me for it. Anyway, whatever I speak still belongs to me, and has nothing to do with you."

In his despair, Hsiang-yen burnt all his books, saying, "In this life I will not study Buddha dharma any more. Let me become a mendicant monk ever on the move from one place to another." He took leave of his master weeping. His wandering brought him to the ruins of a temple in Nan-yang associated with the memory of Master Hui-chung. There he made his temporary abode.

One day as he was mowing and cutting the grass and trees, he tossed at random a piece of broken tile, which happened to hit a bamboo tree, causing it to emit a crisp sound. Startled by the unexpected sound, he was suddenly awakened to his true self not born with his birth. Returning to his cell, he bathed himself and lit incense to pay his long-distance obeisance to Kuei-shan, saying, "O Venerable Abbot, how great is your compassion! I am grateful to you more than to my parents. If you had broken the secret to me then, how could I have experienced the wonderful event of today?"

I sometimes wonder how many promising talents have been nipped in the bud, simply because their master had overdone their explanation of a subject, whose mastery depends by its very nature upon an experiential realization. Great as Kuei-shan was in what he expressed, he was greater in what he left unsaid.

-

The following passage taken from one of his talks speaks of the style and thought of Kuei-shan:

Let each and every one of you turn the light inwards and not try to memorize my words.... The one thing essential now is to recollect your mind to attain the fundamental, the very root of your being. Having arrived at the root, you need have no worry about the accidentals.

- from The Golden Age of Zen edited by John Chwan-Hwa Wu

"What is enlightenment? It is returning to what you were before the earth was created." Is in a Q/A koan format. And the theme is somewhat recurring in zen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_face
I've found even an account of a...

...Ramana´s statement, “discover what you were before your parents were born."

David's version talks about creation of earth. The lexicon of it remembers me of Tao and Jesus's:

Man takes his law from the Earth; the Earth takes its law from
Heaven; Heaven takes its law from the Tao. The law of the Tao is its
being what it is.

I do not know whose son it is. It might appear to have been before
God.

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered.

The last one alludes to what David was saying:

When you die, none of your "social contexts" will be coming with you. It will be just you and reality, nothing else. How are you going to face that?

What is enlightenment? It is returning to what you were before the earth was created.

[Blair]

Enlightenment is realizing the Universe has no center.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It seems almost stupid to even answer your request because of the vast amount of resources available around this place. I'm sure you've heard A=A a billion times already, I'm sure you've had the opportunity, if you wanted, to think about existence, life and death, etc, eventually come to understand what David is talking about. There's nothing mystical about it .....it's right there on the forum page. I wrote out a response, but realized now that it would be pretty much pointless. I cannot say it better than what have already been said so many times already, and made so readily available by David, Kevin, Dan, and others.

I have definitely seen A=A a billion times but for most of those billion times it has only amounted to a tautology though I admit that I 'sort of' get what it is intended to mean. But what I SEE that it does in those who entertain it, and lay such stress upon it, is to sort of mind-fuck them into believing all sorts of strange things about their own mental processes or abilities. In some cases it seems to have utterly tied them up in knots. In that case, I'd suggest disassembling A=A, throwing it in the river, and letting nature resolve it into its parts. ;-) (The irony of disassembling what is unitary was intended).

Whatever it does for y'all, it doesn't do for me. And not only have I thought about existence, life and death, etc., I can say that a great part of my incarnation has been wrapped up in my 'divinations' about what this means. In very substantial ways I have been forced into situations where such meditations were unavoidable. And, the fruit of my 'divinations' into these matters has, by and large, been unintelligible to y'all, the Grand Geniuses in your tautological treeforts and your boy's club. (Excuse the rhetorical ballestra). Note that in the next sentence you make a jump, you say that were I to have thought about existence, life and death, that I'd 'eventually come to understand what David is talking about'. But, as Bobo has shown, this phrase is NO PART of any sort of intellectual process that has ANY link to what we normally understand as the rational. I suggest that it is bad faith for you to assert it can be apprehended rationally, and were you to try you would, I think, negate the whole process through which it was arrived at (see examples in Bobo's post).

• You cannot describe it or draw it,
  You cannot praise it enough or perceive it.
  No place can be found in which
  To put the Original Face;
  It will not disappear even
  When the universe is destroyed.
  
  Cease practice based
  On intellectual understanding,
  Pursuing words and
  Following after speech.
  Learn the backward
  Step that turns
  Your light inward
  To illuminate within.
  Body and mind of themselves
  Will drop away
  And your original face will be manifest.

It is unfair and in bad faith for you to assert (or pretend?) that it does, or that it is a logical outcome of rational thought. What does this mean? It means, as I understand it, that David is dealing in straight mysticism. This kind of thinking represents a leap into a completely different mode of perceiving existence and our place in it. If you were to ask me, Well, do you have a problem with that then? I would answer that, no, and as a matter of fact I cannot see how one could not, in the end (so to speak but also as a riff off of David's end-of-life scenario), be forced to resort to mystical utterance when talking about existence and life. BUT, by opening up to mystical utterance, one has opened oneself up to mystical experience, which is in no sense the same as a strict rational experience of or means of describing life and existence. Going further: If this domain of theorpoetical mysticism is indeed opened (and David has not only opened it but resides in it), it naturally leads to an opening into so many other levels of mystical apprehension. And when one does this, one is in a territory of competing mystical descriptions, and it is not just ONE that is ascendant, as the GF position with all its utterly conflicting and spurious 'logic' presumes to be.

I could go on and on and on with ever-opening up levels of critique based just on this, and it is still likely that in the end, you would not desire to understand (or rather you would not accept) any part of what I am suggesting. That is generally why I say that the GF position is like an 'intallation in the mind', it represents an unassailable position with the in-built ability to resist all comers. It appears to me more and more like an affliction and not a means of attaining 'wisdom'.

To fully reject Woman as a whole, who encompasses the biggest attachment in this world is not something many people would even think of doing, yet, rejection of Woman is part of the process of becoming an individual, of which loving truth and reason over the comfort of Woman is necessary. But I dare say that the average computer nerd, and maths-type is not as rejecting as you make it out to be.

First, in my own view, it is absolutely essential for men to deeply consider their relations with 'woman' and women and the women they happen to be with (female culture and emphasis on femininity). If I have gained anything through my time here it is that it has allowed me to reflect pretty deeply on this question. So, it is not that I stand utterly apart from the question (or the conclusion) but that I see the issue or question of Woman as being symbolic or emblematic of this very place of existence. If that is so, then in truth there is no escaping or avoiding 'it'. One exists RELATIONALLY to it, or it is part-and-parcel of one (as I am fond of saying). This would allow, naturally, for such a Freudian analysis (that is, a means of defining a structure) as I have suggested: man is a particle or a vessel of rationality sitting atop a vast ocean of all else that is connoted by the dichotomy. You cannot 'reject' what you in fact are, but you can live through it in the sense of reaching through it. But you cannot 'take off' from it like in some sort of rational spaceship. BUT THIS IS OFTEN THE WAY THIS 'PRAXIS' IS PRESENTED. There are other alternatives. Why should I even be concerned about it? Why would anyone, ever, serve any process of suggestion, instruction, debate, entering the fray? There is the possibility of providing information that can cause a person to avoid the loss of lots of time, or to substantially misunderstand 'things', and principally themselves. The very nature of 'wisdom' has to do with experience, not with theory. So, I throw in my two-cents worth.