Explain in one paragraph.

[Cahoot]

Explain in one paragraph what this “infinite” means for a you and a me, in existence right now, on this Earth, and in this conversation. Make some statement about it.

I like this assignment. Structured. Germanic. Carrying it out not only requires limiting the concept of infinite with finite language, it lays out a list of additional constraints. This is what people go through every day ... working within conditions which limit what can be done, and what can be said.

Explain anything in one paragraph.

From a finite perspective, the infinite has significance as a potentiality. Not the potentiality of all things all at once, but potentiality within the frame made of time, which is the infinite potentiality manifesting in any given instance of right now, on this Earth. Based on the premise that potentiality is infinite, which is a premise arrived at through a knowing based on realization, a realization which may or may not occur via rational intellect but can be made to fit into a various shapes of logical consistency by means of rational intellect (and a condition of the shaping is capacity of the shaper), then the significance for a you and a me lies in knowledge of the conditions that promote particular finite manifestations of infinite potentiality. With wisdom to perceive the essence of conditions comes the wisdom to perceive the interactively combined and inevitable effects of various conditions, and the wisdom of choicelessly remaining undistracted from timeless awareness while living within finite constraints. And how does one do this? If further explanation is necessary then at least one additional paragraph is required, which lies beyond the constraints of this particular assignment. Such is a limitation of parameters.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Explain in one paragraph what this “infinite” means for a you and a me, in existence right now, on this Earth, and in this conversation.

'The question is not whether it means something for a you and a me, sir. You are not even in the conversation'.

Spinoza wrote a letter in my place of birth about it. One very long sentence that might help one started:

• Everyone regards the question of the infinite as most difficult, if not insoluble, through not making a distinction between that which must be infinite from its very nature, or in virtue of its definition, and that which has no limits, not in virtue of its essence, but in virtue of its cause; and also through not distinguishing between that which is called infinite, because it has no limits, and that, of which the parts cannot be equaled or expressed by any number, though the greatest and least magnitude of the whole may be known; and, lastly, through not distinguishing between that, which can be understood but not imagined, and that which can also be imagined. If these distinctions, I repeat, had been attended to, inquirers would not have been overwhelmed with such a vast crowd of difficulties.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To me, all I get from this is a rather obvious pretentiousness of the Bulldog of Rhijnsburg. To help on get started...on a path of pretention? You're off to a good start. ;-)

If the quote, unattributed, is your statement to me, again I think it is an even more sheer pretentiousness. And thus more of less illustrates my point: the term has some special, private meaning (distinct from its definition) for y'all and you seem to love to rehearse it in front of each other which reminds me of some boys enamoured of their own wee-willies. I mean, how else should it be seen, these displays? If no one can really speak of what it means to them or in the field of this existence, what do we take away from that? And, if it is only an abstraction, a mathematical consideration, what is the point or intention of mentioning the abstraction?

And then: back to the questions, the only relevant point (for a far better start): What are these people attempting? What is actually being achieved? Is this more than just a word-game? And if yes, how? When do the games stop?

[jupiviv]

Explain in one paragraph what this “infinite” means for a you and a me, in existence right now, on this Earth, and in this conversation. Make some statement about it.

"Infinite" literally means "not finite", and that's pretty much the meaning of the word. To live in the infinite is to live without having any attachments to finite things.

the term has some special, private meaning (distinct from its definition)

There are no fixed definitions of words. You can define them however you like, but you have to be clear about what you mean, and see to it that your definition does not contradict itself, like the definition I provided above.

And then: back to the questions, the only relevant point (for a far better start): What are these people attempting? What is actually being achieved? Is this more than just a word-game? And if yes, how? When do the games stop?

That question can be equally relevantly directed at you, since you feel that the people here aren't achieving anything, whereas they obviously feel that they are in fact achieving something. What do you want them to achieve?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alex, it's true, I should not pretend as if my one-liners would be understood well unexpanded. The paraphrasing was of an obscure remark Carl Sagan made to a fellow-scientist regarding evidence of life on Mars. He brushed him off saying: "The question is not whether you are right or wrong, sir. You are not even in the conversation". This of course to make clear that a discussion or explanation only happens where there's an actual conversation or a particular process, which always needs first some basic agreement on terms, definition and principles followed.

This of course is exactly what is happening with you Alex: you're referring to a conversation which is not the case, that is: you want it on other terms, with your own definitions and context to happen. It's like when you asked others to explain in one paragraph what the "infinite" means in a context where you already defined "you and me" and how they should relate, or what you think that existence is, or what "Earth" means outside science and fiction stories, or how you think a conversation should sound like and on which terms it needs to be held on.

So after setting this stage, all attempted paragraphs and explanations will naturally fail! Because you are already excluding any approach to the question of the infinite which would change the nature of a "you", of existence, of earth and any other term within a meaningful conversation.

The Spinoza text could be a second step then, to introduce one philosophically and gently into the idea of the infinite being applicable to the existence of substance, as opposed to existence of modes, something you appear to be more "in to". But why limiting ourselves to Spinoza at all? The conversation here, the one you are not engaging in apparently is one between I and Thou, where Thou ultimately can only be the Eternal Thou, as "worldwide relation to all relations". Or one could trace back Kierkegaard's Either/Or:

• I choose the absolute, for I myself am the absolute, I posit the absolute and I myself am the absolute; but in complete identity with this I can say that I choose the absolute which chooses me, that I posit the absolute which posits me... And what is the absolute? It is myself in my eternal validity

We're not talking about private, strict meanings: we're talking about the conversation between the limited and the limitless. On that very edge it all happens! It's you who wants some obscured private special meaning, some different conversation where the infinite then can be a guest as long as he behaves and adapts to all the implied rules!

Again, these are presented as abstractions, like all things are presented as abstractions, but it's the one thing that never can be an abstraction! But you are in so far as you don't want to have this conversation with the infinite to even start.

This is why my initial explanation of the infinite inside "this conversation" is nearly perfectly outlined in only one sentence: you are not in that conversation, not a "you" as opposed to a "me".

[Pam Seeback]

Alex: And then: back to the questions, the only relevant point (for a far better start): What are these people attempting? What is actually being achieved? Is this more than just a word-game? And if yes, how? When do the games stop?

What is being achieved is stopping the game of achieving. If you cook dinner, either for yourself or someone else, are you not [just] "cooking dinner?" If you mow the lawn or walk the dog, are you not [just] "mowing the lawn" or [just] "walking the dog?" If you build a better mousetrap, did you not [just] build a better mousetrap? Why the need for the added baggage, the unnecessary perception of "achieving" cooking or mowing or walking or building?

The mind or ego believes it can quantify and qualify movement; this is why it seeks to "achieve something." The mind is in error.

What do you achieve when you give up achieving? When you rest in the infinite and use finite things to sustain your finite body and finite mind while you live not of the world, but in the world? Simplicity, purity and mental clarity.

[David Quinn]

Explain in one paragraph what this “infinite” means for a you and a me, in existence right now, on this Earth, and in this conversation. Make some statement about it.

Freedom.

-

[skipair]

Explain in one paragraph what this “infinite” means for a you and a me, in existence right now, on this Earth, and in this conversation. Make some statement about it.

The infinite is the sense you get when you look into the causes and effects of things, seeing a source is nowhere to be found, and so having a hard time making it part of you identity.

This is a purely logical conclusion and is necessary if you want to not be dumb. Logically nothing really matters. The sports team you root for...who cares. The book you like...whatever. If you can't put emotions aside enough to get a certain level of objectivty that allows you to let things go when circumstances may MAKE you let them go, well then you'll have an interesting time if and when that moment comes.

On the other hand, regardless of whether that level of objectivity is reached, we are still human and not totally robotic. There is no reason to do anything and YET WE DO THINGS and enjoy them at that. This is not always due to egotistical reasons but also for primitive, biological reasons (which actually may or may not be labeled egotistical depending on what you mean by it). :)

For a quick example, consistently getting human touch causes vastly different brain chemistry than not getting it. This is in the same way that your hand feels totally different in water than it does on a hot stove (but perhaps with 'deeper' emotional and experiential ramifications). The infinite is not totally unpredictable chaos. There are some causal rivers and streams for now that do determine the "rules" by which we experience things, whether we use them to our advantage or not. My personal aim is to use them and to know what I'm doing when I do it.

[Talking Ass]

This of course to make clear that a discussion or explanation only happens where there's an actual conversation or a particular process, which always needs first some basic agreement on terms, definition and principles followed.

This of course is exactly what is happening with you Alex: you're referring to a conversation which is not the case, that is: you want it on other terms, with your own definitions and context to happen. It's like when you asked others to explain in one paragraph what the "infinite" means in a context where you already defined "you and me" and how they should relate, or what you think that existence is, or what "Earth" means outside science and fiction stories, or how you think a conversation should sound like and on which terms it needs to be held on.

So after setting this stage, all attempted paragraphs and explanations will naturally fail! Because you are already excluding any approach to the question of the infinite which would change the nature of a "you", of existence, of earth and any other term within a meaningful conversation.

I completely agree with what you have written here, except the part about necessary failure. Those who failed to offer sensible definitions did so as an expression of their own will. The word is obstinacy.

Also what I don't think you are seeing or taking into consideration (or admitting) is that no one, even if they were to completely avoid and over-step my 'demand' that the conversation occur on the only level that, to me, makes any sense, really is able to say anything about it. If it were me and the the leading question were placed before me (as Kelly often did, as I remember), I would simply jump over it, and make absolutely sure that I made my point, in my own language, on my own terms.

The other thing is, and I still stand by this, is that 'you-plural' use this term in a 'special' way, and I suggest non-rational way. Neither you-singular nor they are able to articulate in clear (rational) prose, that does not turn into pseudo-philosophical gobbledeegook or neo-mysticism, just what precisely the term means to you. A long snip from a letter by Spinoza doesn't cut it. Speak you about what this means, if you please.

And I also remain adamant, or perhaps one could say I continue to bray it high and low and to all who will listen, that there is indeed only one field: that of persons, incarnate, in a social context, and there is always an I and thou. This is a definition, an axiom, that I challenge you to refute. My perception is that ya'll engage in real trickery (perhaps it is mere self-deception?) by imagining this is not the case.

I challenge you to provide a definition for the value of meditation on this term, the use of it or the pondering of it (or whatever the heck you do with it) in simple prose, here.

[Talking Ass]

Skip, I have attempted to rephrase what you wrote into small factual particles. Did I get it right or wrong?

• Things are happening, but there is no way to locate the precise cause. In the face of this, 'the infinite' is a 'sense' or a feeling that one can perceive.
• If one wishes not to be 'dumb', one must have made this effort (to see there is no precise or locatable cause for anything that happens). (It is presumed that 'the dumb' are not aware of the causation that drives them).
• An axiom: according to logic 'nothing matters'.
• It is necessary to detach (emotionally and one assumes in other ways, or all ways, and in advance) since any and all things will be taken away from one. (And if one does not, one will have a hard time of it).
• Still, and even if all this is true, we are 'still humans', which means we are not 'totally robotic' (just partially robotic?). We still do things, which I assume must be stated as we imagine we 'do things' since no actual cause for whatever we do can be located or known.
• Part of being human, or perhaps all of it (?), is nevertheless being subject to deleterious or beneficent factors. So, a biological entity may fare better if it receives touch from its fellows, in comparison to another who received none or little. (This 'list' could be expanded: good food better than bad food, good air, etc.)
• The infinite can be described as 'chaotic' except that not every part of our experience of it is absolutely chaotic, for there are 'rivers' of causation (I assume speaking about our specific 'world', that is the world of you and I in this plane of existence) that are temporally (temporarily) relevant (?) to a given person, in a given moment.
• One can 'use' those streams for one's benefit. And one can be aware of what one is doing and why.

[Talking Ass]

"Infinite" literally means "not finite", and that's pretty much the meaning of the word. To live in the infinite is to live without having any attachments to finite things.

It would seem to me that you language is not precise. You use metaphors as if they are 'real things'. It is quite simple to say infinite means not-finite, no problem there. But then you speak of 'living in the infinite' which is, in truth, an impossible fact and an untenable statement. By definition, you cannot 'live in' the infinite since the 'infinite' is an idea. One imagines that you suppose that with this idea installed you would, all of a sudden, 'live' in some other plane as distinct from someone else who did not entertain the idea and knew nothing of it. The fact is, for every intent and purpose, the nature of your physical existence would not change one iota.

It seems to me that you could employ the idea of the infinite in any number of different ways, I bequeath you that, and with a handfull of freshly cut clover as an offering between friends, but I would have to deny that it is possible to have no attachment for 'finite things', for the only way to demonstrate this non-attachment would be to simply dissolve back into atomic particles, and become absolutely a 'victim' of cause and effect, of the chaos of the surrounding order. Then you would really begin to live in 'the infinite'. Also, and simply staying within the definitions you have presented, there is no such thing as a 'finite thing', there is only 'the infinite', so all your language (seems to) fall asunder.

So, at least in some sense, too much emphasis on both the infinite and non-attachment is somewhat of a hypocritical stance.

Also, and no matter what, everything and all things are undone by time, this is one of man's central meditations. And though those facts are terrible and never easy to face, it almost takes more strength to live and function purposefully and creatively in this trecherous realm than (as I suspect is the case with some here) to retreat into an escapist 'non-attachment' and a sort of nullity of spirit. I would suggest that the attitude one finds here, cross-dressing in a man's clothing, is perhaps more feminine than one would let on?

In summation: the idea of the 'infinite' and of 'infinitude' is nothing more than an idea one can entertain. And entertaining it may inspire or provoke different and various actions or reactions, none of them necessarily the same from person to person. However, there does seem to be a problematic associated with the entertaining of the idea: and that is that one still is, at least in an immediate sense and for most intents and purposes, a discreet 'finite' being.

If the infinite (as idea) has relevancy, it is an idea that modifies choices in the here and now, and between the I and thou, in this plane of existence and no other. And there is only one essential field in which such ideation can have effect: ethics and 'praxis'.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

This is a definition, an axiom, that I challenge you to refute.

Definitions aren't the same as axioms, and you don't refute either: you refute conclusions. You simply accept or reject definitions and axioms.

What you have actually said are your conclusions ("there is indeed only one field: that of persons, incarnate, in a social context, and there is always an I and thou."). I challenge you to investigate deeper into your beliefs, and come up with defined axioms that lead there.

[David Quinn]

In summation: the idea of the 'infinite' and of 'infinitude' is nothing more than an idea one can entertain.

The idea is certainly an idea. But it's the reality that this idea points to which counts.

The Infinite (the reality, not the idea) is the All. It is utterly everything. And it is utterly nothing. It is both utterly everything and it is utterly nothing.

Opening up to the Infinite involves opening up to its utter nothingness, which then automatically tunes you into everything.

-

[Talking Ass]

You are going to start to play your favorite word-games Trevor, and it is a game you can always win, even if you lose. (And please don't think I am laughing at you. That was just the way the photo was taken). (And do you notice I got a teeth-whitening? Did you even think to comment on it? What has happened to your manners!)

I suggest that your-plural use of this word is somewhere between a 'definition' and an 'axiom', except when some of you veer off into an utterly mystical territory, and then it is more or less a religious belief. You refer to 'it' as an axiom---a self-evident proposition that requires no proof---when it serves your-plural purposes. But it is untenable as a classical axiom (because it functions as a tenet of a mysticism and a religious belief), so it is presented as a 'definition'. (It is actually rather complex, and that is why getting to the bottom of its use is a task of penetrating many layers, with resistence all the way, it would seem).

I refer to it for the sake of being able to converse about it, also 'axiomatically', as a sort of proposition that I assume without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it. I suggest that the 'consequences' are real and quantifiable, and I feel they are not good, or not as good as they are presented and accepted as being. (I personally think they are rather 'bad' in fact).

And I also remain adamant, or perhaps one could say I continue to bray it high and low and to all who will listen, that there is indeed only one field: that of persons, incarnate, in a social context, and there is always an I and thou. This is a definition, an axiom, that I challenge you to refute. My perception is that ya'll engage in real trickery (perhaps it is mere self-deception?) by imagining this is not the case.

For me, this is the 'axiomatic base' to my perception of reality, that is to say this human reality that you and I participate in. I don't personally feel I need to come up with axioms to support the belief because, again, I accept it as axiomatically true. Take it as an off-hand comment, a private and personal belief, or as you wish, but I do challenge you to describe how it is false and innaccurate, if you think it is so.

But it's the reality that this idea points to which counts.

The Infinite (the reality, not the idea) is the All. It is utterly everything. And it is utterly nothing. It is both utterly everything and it is utterly nothing.

Opening up to the Infinite involves opening up to its utter nothingness, which then automatically tunes you into everything.

You have been repeating this same phrase, more or less, for a long long time. (I am reminded of the first Podcast with Victor where your whole position was nearly totally devestated when you reverted to it, as it seems you always must).

I suggest that this cluster of ideas strung-together has almost no connection with classically defined reasoning and is a deviation from it. It is only an idea about 'reality' as an infinitude that has relevance, since you cannot apprehend that infinitude, nor present it as a given in any conversation. Your use of this notion of infinitude is a stand-in for a religious presupposition. You hang a great deal on it and it is necessary for your mystical leap.

["It is utterly everything. And it is utterly nothing", is in fact an utterly meaningless statement, if it is intended logically, but since it isn't and can't be, it is mystical and 'irrational', possibly even a little deranged...] :-)

Your statement about 'the Infinite' is a faith-statement, and in fact a non sequitur, classically defined. I know that it has very special meaning for you, and I don't deny that nor do I attempt to take that 'special meaning' away from you. What I do indeed suggest---and again I allow it as an axiom only for the purposes of examining its consequences that are found in your ethical recommendations, the praxis that follows out of your tendentious handling of ideas.

These consequences can, and should, be examined very carefully.

[jupiviv]

you speak of 'living in the infinite' which is, in truth, an impossible fact and an untenable statement.

It would be if I meant something else by "infinite" other than "not finite," for example, "sea water." But I clearly stated what I interpreted the phrase "living in the infinite" to be. I know it sounds a bit vague, and if you want you can change it to something like "being attached to the infinite." It would still mean the same, i.e, not being attached to finite things.

By definition, you cannot 'live in' the infinite since the 'infinite' is an idea.

"Live in the infinite" is also an idea.

I would have to deny that it is possible to have no attachment for 'finite things', for the only way to demonstrate this non-attachment would be to simply dissolve back into atomic particles, and become absolutely a 'victim' of cause and effect, of the chaos of the surrounding order.

The atomic particles and the chaos are all finite things in themselves, so if you try to become those things in order to not be attached to finite things, then the word "attached" obviously has different meanings to you and me.

One imagines that you suppose that with this idea installed you would, all of a sudden, 'live' in some other plane as distinct from someone else who did not entertain the idea and knew nothing of it.

This "some other plane" would also be finite thing, so what's the point of living there if I don't want to be attached to finite things?

there is no such thing as a 'finite thing', there is only 'the infinite', so all your language (seems to) fall asunder.

I've said no such thing. Maybe someone else said it. But of course, all of us here are followers of QRS, so the things we say are interchangeable with each other.

Also, and no matter what, everything and all things are undone by time, this is one of man's central meditations.

Only nothing, i.e, the infinite, is undone by time. It is only our attachment to some things that lead us to think that they too have been "undone"(i.e, there is 'nothing') when different things appear. In reality, a thing is eternal in itself, if only for the reason that appears in time.

And though those facts are terrible and never easy to face, it almost takes more strength to live and function purposefully and creatively in this trecherous realm than (as I suspect is the case with some here) to retreat into an escapist 'non-attachment' and a sort of nullity of spirit.

Yes, in our sorrow over the loss of our loved ones, we regain the strength to gain new loved ones...and then we lose them, shortly thereafter creating another illusion to hold on to.

If the infinite (as idea) has relevancy, it is an idea that modifies choices in the here and now, and between the I and thou, in this plane of existence and no other. And there is only one essential field in which such ideation can have effect: ethics and 'praxis'.

It has tremendous relevancy in the here and now. But you cannot see it.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I suggest that your-plural use of this word is somewhere between a 'definition' and an 'axiom'

Okay, I'll give examples, since otherwise you won't grok the difference.

Definitions:
-"Infinite" means non-finite
-"Spirituality" is the means through which one relates to the infinite
-"Enlightenment" is the final understanding of one's relationship with the infinite
-"Reality" is everything that exists

Axiom:
-One property of reality is infinitude

I refer to it for the sake of being able to converse about it, also 'axiomatically', as a sort of proposition that I assume without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

I thought the whole point of an assumption is that it isn't held axiomatically.

For me, this is the 'axiomatic base' to my perception of reality, that is to say this human reality that you and I participate in. I don't personally feel I need to come up with axioms to support the belief because, again, I accept it as axiomatically true. Take it as an off-hand comment, a private and personal belief, or as you wish, but I do challenge you to describe how it is false and innaccurate, if you think it is so.

I hope I don't need to remind you, but since you and you alone were the one to put that belief on the table, the burden of proof is entirely on you. Why is holding the belief better than not having it?

What you have isn't an axiom, nor is it a definition. The fact that you nevertheless hold it unquestionably true means that it's dogma. Thius, you hold the belief "that there is indeed only one field: that of persons, incarnate, in a social context, and there is always an I and thou" dogmatically. It's a conclusion that you hold with utter certainty, arrived at completely without proof or solid foundation. And I know all the terms are poorly defined because it barely even makes sense. It can't and doesn't stand up without a bunch of other beliefs to hold it up.

What I want you to do is prove it, to express those other beliefs. Definitions and axioms will reveal the belief's precise meaning.

[David Quinn]

But it's the reality that this idea points to which counts.

The Infinite (the reality, not the idea) is the All. It is utterly everything. And it is utterly nothing. It is both utterly everything and it is utterly nothing.

Opening up to the Infinite involves opening up to its utter nothingness, which then automatically tunes you into everything.

You have been repeating this same phrase, more or less, for a long long time.

And you still haven't shown any signs of understanding it, despite the prolonged exposure to it.

(I am reminded of the first Podcast with Victor where your whole position was nearly totally devestated when you reverted to it, as it seems you always must).

Eh? Where did you pull that one from? I recall a completely different conversation...

Victor wouldn't know a spiritual thought if he fell over it. Like you, he is overly-academic and exists purely on the surface of things.

I suggest that this cluster of ideas strung-together has almost no connection with classically defined reasoning and is a deviation from it. It is only an idea about 'reality' as an infinitude that has relevance, since you cannot apprehend that infinitude, nor present it as a given in any conversation. Your use of this notion of infinitude is a stand-in for a religious presupposition. You hang a great deal on it and it is necessary for your mystical leap.

On the one hand, we have the newcomer Xen saying I am too rational, and here you are saying that I am too mystical and religious.

Sphere70 thinks I am too intellectual, while Victor thinks I am as unintellectual as they come.

So which is it? Am I too rational or too religious?

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...no one, even if they were to completely avoid and over-step my 'demand' that the conversation occur on the only level that, to me, makes any sense, really is able to say anything about it.

But there is not much to say about it! Anything will do just as well.

When there's no interest to go beyond the person and the personal, all material and social contexts, after having lived those with certain intensity and sensitivity, there never can be any room for spirituality. That room is spirit and of the spirit.

[Talking Ass]

Right. I'm getting it. According to Jupi, and to all apearances, each of you-plural takes the term in your own unique way, and it is relevant in a unique way. Perhaps if you were to converse about it (tip-o-the-hat to Carl Sagan), you would discover you are actually opposed to each other.

Now, Diebert here, says there just isn't much to say about it. But if so much is hung on 'it', it would seem to me that there would be many things to say, if not about 'it', than about what the knowledge of it, the sense of it, the through meditation on it, what that means. What one concludes. And in that spirit, if only with Skip's statement, I myself could say many things about 'it'.

When there's no interest to go beyond the person and the personal, all material and social contexts, after having lived those with certain intensity and sensitivity, there never can be any room for spirituality. That room is spirit and of the spirit.

Go beyond the personal to where? Where is the 'beyond the personal'? Going beyond the personal to the beyond-personal, what is there and what does one there? And the same I would ask for 'all material and social contexts'. When you, Diebert, 'go beyond' these areas/concerns, where do you go to? And then you make a very revealing claim about spirituality, and it appears to be for you an axiom: going beyond the personal and the material (which you imply you lived 'with intensity') you then enter (know, perceive?) 'the spiritual'. And so, the spiritual is no part of the personal and the material?

That is fine, I suppose, if those are your axioms (I am getting more and more sure that they are, and David's and Jupi's and Trevor's too), but I simply cannot see how you perform this maneouvre. At this point I will honestly confess that I have no idea---none at all!---what you mean by 'spirituality'. It is an ungrokkable term.

And now you are talking about 'spirit', another problematic word---about which there is not much to say too? A term with no definition. Fantastic!

And you still haven't shown any signs of understanding it, despite the prolonged exposure to it.

No, David, that is not it at all. When I finish here on the Explain-it-in-one-Paragraph thread I will know more about 'it' than you, and I will be able to offer up some statements. And I believe I will also be able to show why the statements you make about it, indeed your 'relationship' to 'it', necessarily drives your conclusions and activities, but that the premise can be examined more closely. Or, since it is at the very core a mystical notion, an article of faith, I believe it can be suggested that it shares much in common with other faith-articles, but is one that was arrived at by shallow minds, minds that had been hollowed out. The way this idea is used appears to me misfortunate, and cannot lead to creative praxis in the world except a new brand of nihilism.

If the definition you employ for 'spirituality' is anything like Diebert's, it is no wonder he [Victor] couldn't fall over it! It is a non sequitur! It is inconsiderable because it is a non sequitur! You have disturbed (and insulted) the very notion of a sensible ontology. You have an indefensible ontology, which was the core of Victor's argument against you. (Where the heck are those podcasts, btw, I couldn't locate them).

Now, the other side of the coin. I have no doubt at all that the core of my own understanding of 'things' is, in fact, utterly mystical. This is not the problem I have with your mysticism. (And, you have a rational costume but you are not rational as it is classically defined and understood. This is a very important point). The problem I have with your mysticism is that it is spurious and tendentious but you set it up as if it should be logically and rationally grasped. You use the signs and symbols of rational discourse as a giant ramp---for a leap into the completely mystical. You are in this sense a showman. The main problem I have with your doctrines is that, as we see here, it does not take place within the known-known. It is about some 'other' stuff or ideation or abstraction with no link to the you and me in the here and now. Your ideas seem to dissolve both the individual and the possibility for that individual operating creatively and practically in the world.

Victor wouldn't know a spiritual thought if he fell over it. Like you, he is overly-academic and exists purely on the surface of things.

Yes, but Victor is a scientist, and he has been trained within rigorous scientific and philosophical traditions, so when confronted with your doctrines and your conclusions he was able, as I saw it, to decimate your position, because you most definitely are not a scientist and your connection with philosophy is quite dubious, if the truth be told. You are a religious man. Your presuppositions are of a religious order, as are your conclusions. (And you heard it here on GF from an Ass Who Talks®).

And even now I ask you for some sort of definition of 'spirituality' because I have NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS or what the value of it is. Why have it? Why 'be spiritual'? (You cannot answer and shout 'Freedom!' This would be no different than a Christian shouting 'Salvation'! If you are going to use rational discourse to defend your axioms and your conclusions, you are going to have to talk about it honestly).

[Dennis Mahar]

but I simply cannot see how you perform this maneouvre

because you ARE set up that it is a scam.
You are the problem.
Unfit for Inquiry.

Admit it. Be honest. Be forthright.

You come to the table with agenda...pre-disposed.

[Talking Ass]

In my way of seeing things, 'scams' as you say are quite possible. 'Scams' surround us and we deal with them every day and many times in a day. Advertising for example is a scam. People who approach us with a smile but who want something (else) from us. There are 'scams' in the world of politics, words and speeches that conceal other intentions. The list is almost endless.

Therefore, to be concerned about certain kinds of idea-constructs, to look deeply into them, to consider the implications, is sane activity.

I consider aspects of the idea-formulations 'here' to have similarities to 'scams' but the phrase I use is 'cult-thinking'. I have explained this numerous times and I continue to explore it and to express it. Does this satisfy you as an admission? Can you see there is nothing to be discussed?

If to 'inquire' is to accept a group of axioms or the conclusions of axioms and to deliberately tun off my discriminating intellect, then I am indeed 'the problem'. Also, I have done numbers of years of inquiry here and my inquiry far antecedes your ass-licking, sycophantic presence on this forum.

You are not a contributant, you are a sort of parasite.

With this post I am being honest and forthright with you. First, I admit that I take issue with a group of core tenets that are expressed here. Second, to stop doing this, in my case, would be to lie to myself. If you want me to admit that all the views I just expressed are views I entertain and believe, I will do this for you right now.

Consider it done.

Your relentless postings---dogging my every post---has grown tiresome to me. If it is not completely obvious to you, you and I have nothing to say to each other. You have nothing to communicate to me and it is just the same thing over and over again.

Go and entertain yourself with others, Dennis. This is a request in a friendly tone. To date I have never put a person on 'ignore', but if you respond to me in this way---as a sycophant who follows, mimics and serves his masters but yet who never actually writes out his own ideas---I will put you on ignore. I don't want to do this because I do read your posts, as I read everyone else's posts. Be respectful Dennis.

Go have your interchanges with others.

One more uninvited and irrelevant post of yours...and its on ignore with you, jerk.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Therefore, to be concerned about certain kinds of idea-constructs, to look deeply into them, to consider the implications, is sane activity.

I'm concerned about your idea-constructs. I've willingly expressed fundamental definitions and axioms, and so have other forum members; you have only been willing (or capable) of expressing your ideas in terms of dogmatic beliefs. It's like there is something exceedingly superficial about the way you "look deeply" and "consider the implications". Like you can't, or won't, express beliefs in terms of the fundamentals of definitions and axioms.

You take the simplest application of logic -- definitions -- and try to draw out elaborate personality profiles explaining why someone would define a word in one way and not another. You slide back and forth over whether GF members are in collusion (always "you-plural"), or whether they furtively disagree with one another, but aren't open enough. (Did you notice that me and jupiviv used the same definition for "infinite"? Surely we must be part of a hive mind!) Sure, you've asked questions, but then you stop after one or two posts, as though you've followed the trail all the way to the end in a matter of moments. If what you've expressed is sanity, then sanity is an awfully mediocre ambition.

Furthermore, and this was a puzzle, I've been wondering for quite some time over the way you keep asking for the infinite to be expressed in terms of finite things. Nobody even attempts to do so, so you proceed as though every single person (but you) has somehow missed something. Is everyone completely oblivious? Or have you just asked for something absurd, like a flamethrower for Christmas?

First, as is my habit, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and tried to believe that maybe you were onto something nobody else could see. But that assumption failed to produce fruit. So I thought maybe it's stubborness, or you're being deliberately ironic, or you're playing Devil's Advocate, or perhaps you just like causing trouble. But, in the end, I realized I have to apply Hanlon's Razor to you: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

You are blind, and it would take an equally blind person to be fooled by your peacock displays. Even Dennis isn't so confused; and I posit that you are more offended by the fact that someone who uses a simple and brusque style can see more than you, and isn't fazed by your plumage.

The infinite can only be understood on its own terms, but since you want everything to be on your terms, you'll always be at odds with reality. Hmm... maybe, if you just argue hard enough, reality will change its mind?


Anyway, slight change of topic. You avoided my invitation to have you reveal your own core beliefs (supposing you have core beliefs, and not just a plethora of unrelated ideas):

What I want you to do is prove it, to express those other beliefs.

I'm going to assume that you didn't do this because you don't hold that "definitions and axioms will reveal [your belief's] precise meaning." Instead, you think that your psychology somehow reveals what you mean, precisely, by "there is indeed only one field: that of persons, incarnate, in a social context, and there is always an I and thou".

Any further evasions will just makes your dogmatism look all that much more unsupported.

[Dennis Mahar]

Calm down laddie.
It's your first experience of Truthfulness.
It's rough at first.
Gets easier.

[Talking Ass]

You have expressed, if you've expressed anything at all, a very slim defintion of 'the infinite', and in your case you have said nothing about what this idea does for you and what it is supposed to do, so please don't bullshit me.

My looking deeply has, in my view, brought me a great deal. There seems little doubt that my conclusions (and values) are not held (or stressed) by others, but I just say tant pis.

I am not myself very interested in expressing myself in axioms and definitions, frankly, nor am I attracted to mathematical processes for understanding this reality in which we find ourselves. I did not enter this forum on those terms nor did I ever state that I felt those terms, in and of themselves, held interest for me. What I have wanted to communicate, and the terms of that communication, I have more often than not accomplished, whether it is relevant or recognized by you. I think, right at this moment, what I often think about you, Trevor: you are more interested in the game than in the inquiry. And if there are conclusions from your inquiry I have not seen them. Your post, though there are a couple of interesting things in it, is front, and you are essentially fronting. I don't give a sanctified, annointed, blessed and holy fuck in hell if you think I am stupid, smart or merely entertaining. I don't even care if you appreciate I got a teeth cleaning if the truth be told! Your opinion, because you appear to me essentially empty, does not hold a great deal of weight. Can I make that any more clear? I base a tremendous amount in what I sense people hold and value in side them. Values and worth are expressed in achievements of the personality, in character traits. What are you made of, Trevor?

I do indeed draw 'personality profiles' from the words, the suppositions, the conclusions about life in this reality that are expressed by the personalities that express them. It is not easy to take every single personality into consideration when you are arguing against a noted and recognizable 'house-philosophy' that, for all intents and purposes, is shared by those who defend it. The game that is played on GF---and this is just one more repeat of it, another rehearsal---is that the TBs use all their skills, in a team, to defeat a person who represents and expresses contrary ideas. It is a game played by a group in a context. It has patterns and those patterns are repeated. It is not that you and Jupi share a 'hive mind', in my view, but that you share what I call a 'hollowed out mind'. You reason, possibly because you exist, in a terribly narrow and I think terribly sheltered world. That is another 'dogmatic belief' of mine: people, either by previous causation or by their own choice, choose to live in ever-shrinking mental worlds. (That is how I define mediocrity). This is *aesthetically displeasing* to me so I seek to amplify those limits. As to 'asking questions', more bullshit, Trevor. By framing the question and by putting it out there, I am asking for all the input and information that you can give and are willing to give.

What I have gotten so far is...next to nothing.

Furthermore, and this was a puzzle, I've been wondering for quite some time over the way you keep asking for the infinite to be expressed in terms of finite things.

What other fucking terms are you going to use, man!? But still, if it pleases you, define the infinite in infinite terms. Do whatever you want. But I start from the presupposition, etched in stone, inscribed on the waters of the deep and across the firmament above: any ideas about this Infinite only have relevance and meaning in the context of you as a person, in a body, in the here and now, and in relation to other souls. If that is my dogma, I guess I'll just have to accept it as such. And, in fact, it quite likely is (essentially religious and therefore indefensible). But that is my point too: the notion of The Infinite held by y'all (or must I name you one by quacking one?) is nothing less than a religious tenet. It is part of a mystical description whose meaning ans sense is achieved through revelation. (And principally I refer to David in this.)

First, as is my habit, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and tried to believe that maybe you were onto something nobody else could see. But that assumption failed to produce fruit. So I thought maybe it's stubborness, or you're being deliberately ironic, or you're playing Devil's Advocate, or perhaps you just like causing trouble. But, in the end, I realized I have to apply Hanlon's Razor to you: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

I love it! So as it turns out, the conclusions from the definitions you hold about the terrible relevance of the idea of The Infinite, held in your-plural ;-) heads, which you cannot say anything substantial about, and will say nothing about (except insofar as David chimes forth with his par-for-the-course Mystical Utterance), these half-baked ideas which I say I do not understand and are no part of rational discourse and disagree with in terms of the conclusions that follow from these beliefs, because I fail to grasp what you-all are talking about I am therefore stupid?

Kiss my donkey ass, jack! ;-)

You are blind, and it would take an equally blind person to be fooled by your peacock displays. Even Dennis isn't so confused; and I posit that you are more offended by the fact that someone who uses a simple and brusque style can see more than you, and isn't fazed by your plumage.

You're on a roll. If I am blind, describe to me in clear and direct prose why I am blind. Blind to what? Tell me exactly what I am supposed to see, like anyone with a basic command of language could easily explain a simple object sitting out there. We have a rational language that allows for rational description.

And in case you haven't noticed, I have a plumeless hide. When the photo was taken it is true it was a Wednesday and Thursday is bath-day so you might not have appreciated my spendour. But trust me, I have a hide and no feathers. You are perhaps thinking of Weisenheimer?

The infinite can only be understood on its own terms, but since you want everything to be on your terms, you'll always be at odds with reality. Hmm... maybe, if you just argue hard enough, reality will change its mind?

As I said, these are religious views and have no place within rational discourse. Please inform me how either science or philosophy understands the the physical infinite 'only on its own terms'.

And 'changing reality's mind'...didn't we conclude once that that is your department? ;-)

[jupiviv]

I see you didn't respond to my post. All you could say about it is:

According to Jupi, and to all apearances, each of you-plural takes the term in your own unique way, and it is relevant in a unique way.

...which is absolute nonsense, because I didn't say anything like this in my post!

Your problem seems to be that we do not define the infinite in terms of "finite things". But since the word "infinite", both commonly and to me, means "not finite", I don't know what you mean by my putting it in terms of finite things - ??