Colin Wilson

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Kunga » Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:18 pm

Poor sexy Jewish boy (not goy)...must have passed out....
Poor Dan....knocked out too....facepalmed flat on his keyboard....
I think I will crawl back into my hole....lol
And be reborn !

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:00 pm

Kunga,
All of us here has a style of writing. It's a personality disorder. We think we're somebody special/unique.
Haven't yet depersonalized, as a fully Enlightened egoless, identity-less being would be. I guess ?
We each have our Act.
as each snowflake is unique,
so are we.
In such a way,
we are not the same and not different.

Nevertheless the task at hand is to alleviate suffering.
To get at the causes of suffering.

User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Talking Ass » Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:05 am

Open Letter to the Invisible Readership. Distress Signal. Cry for Help. Maybe a Joke or Two.
____________________________________________________

Well, as you clearly see, this is pretty much what one has to deal with 'down here'. You can gesticulate and enunciate until your wrists dislocate and your tongue turns blue and they simply cannot understand and will never understand. Trippy, ain't it? As in An Ancient Manuscript, the marauders are indeed at the gate; nay they have topped the gate and have taken up residence in the town square. Who is there to stop them?

So, let us begin with Reductionism. This is not a joke and it is not an empty criticism, but is in fact a genuine and considerable criticism of the 'style of thinking' recommended and encouraged here and the main one engaged in. Dan, David, Kevin, Ryan, Trevor, Robert---and then down to the insect-intellects: Dennis and Blair. (Diebert is a special case). Sadly, this document Poison for the Heart is a study in reductionism. And you get to see the effects on a person (in their 'body' as I often say) of that reductionsim. I assert that the mood or the impetous toward this reductionistic operation on oneself encourages and produces a sort of 'religious fascism' which has very dangerous potential by-products. Yet they are not merely 'potential'. You can see them at work in people here, driving their inane ideas, their blustery, pseudo-intellectual boyishness. Yet, it is deeply attractive, perhaps even addictive. Jufa and his consort 'movingalways' provide evidence of it. And then Bob: he is totally captured by destructive reductionism! It drives him and whips him along and yet he imagines he is in control!

It is a reaction to the present and yet it has 'unconscious motivators'. I also suggest that it is a way and a means for a disempowered individual, running a little short of change (emotional strength and 'connection', intellectual preparation, etc.), to gain a sense of having power and control over his environment, and 'reality'. The telltale sign? It can be 'installed' in an afternoon. Similar, perhaps, to the Christian conversion.

Because it is a reductive mental system and has so few moving parts, it is 'simple' and reproducible. You might try to bang on it with a hammer but, somehow, you can never break it apart, you can never 'stop' the mechanism. For exemple: Dennis. He has been stomped on a hundred times but the 'mechanism' is still intact! And then he just repeats himself (same dull poetry):
  • We each have our Act.
    as each snowflake is unique,
    so are we.
    In such a way,
    we are not the same and not different♫.

    [And to this let us intone: ♫'It is empty and meaningless!'
    ♫]
If Helen had a face that launched a thousand ships, Dennis has a mind that deserves a thousand kicks...

For example, it would take a mere hour or two to get 'Luke' up to speed about what product is being sold here and get him 'integrated' in with the group of true-believer boys. He is near-perfect material for 'the conversion'. Soon, Mahatma David will descend from the heights and, if Luke shows some promise, promise him a little 'bliss' and some other things. But he'd got to swear off the pussy! (Medicated and frozen in front of a TV this may have been pre-decided...)(and so one must mention what is rarely mentioned here: inability to relate to women, a deep masculine weakness and wound which is 'justified' through all sorts of trickery).

Is all of this necessary, inevitable? Yes and no. First, you will never change the thinker until the thinking changes. But to change the thinking involves the thinker in pain. So, the thinkers work very hard to defeat the 'obnoxious truth' and all contrary ideas. Very similar to a religious cult. But, there is some 'hope' (if you'd call it that). I have been installing, through very secret means that no one recognizes, special units of 'seed-ideas' that activate within the dead, frozen structure of their minds! The Glory is that you can tell them this, they understand the words you say, but they MUST deny the possibility of such influence! And yet that is how the 'Trojan Ass' (that, alas, was the second 'joke' you'll get today...) makes it through the Gate!

I am getting wonderfuller and wonderfuller as time passes!

All Hail the Ass Who Talks!®
fiat mihi

cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by cousinbasil » Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:54 am

Kunga wrote:Dennis,
I think the "reductionism" TA is referring to is your style of writing (poetic).
TA: " All your pseudo-Buddhist blather is reductionism at its finest."
All of us here has a style of writing. It's a personality disorder. We think we're somebody special/unique.
"...but we're not." If that is what you are saying I remind you that you are speaking for yourself.
I find nothing poetic about the way Dennis writes. It's terse, which is fine by me. Phrasing and presenting one's ideas as some kind of free form poetry would be pretentious - you are not going for poetic, are, Dennis? The decision to write in that fashion is one that anyone can make. It's like piercing a nostril with a diamond - people decide to do that, and their motivation always eludes me. Both are oddly distracting, like someone is trying deke you out.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6050
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:09 am

Talking Ass wrote:They recommend a grand cutting expedition, and they cut away so very much (that should not be cut away). But they do this with an absolute assurance, an absolute decisiveness---an absolute arrogance? But is it arrogance or merely stupidity? If I were to judge by the people they attract -I would have to say 'stupidity'. They seem to give permission to people to perform an extremely radical 'cutting away' act. Even to recommend PFTH to an uneducated, unprepared, dullard, a young man who cannot distinguish....[snip!]
That's enough. You sound - not for the first time - like a youngster yourself, with a highly naive and inexperienced view on the world and its developments, with such lofty ideals on the intellectual and romantic aspects of our perception. But there is a relating beyond that, beyond all psychoanalyzing, diversifying and augmentation. It's way more simple, subtle and deep. You're making too much noise perhaps to get it. Or you're just not interested in it at all (as taste and character charm).
I am opposed to a kind of blind destruction (of the 'links' to) a wide arena of knowledge and knowing that, with an imperious swipe of a brutish, unschooled and arrogant arm, so many here perform. It is idiocy and it must be described exactly as such.
Even if that were true it would only be a droplet of ignorance in a sea of indifference and idiocy, this complete lunacy of existence in this world, turning your rants into obscure self-obsessive entertainment. This is still completely independent of the question of how "brutish" or otherwise offensive to your senses the performance of many here would be in truth. WIth truth being defined as any ongoing process with leads to the unwinding and unbinding of ignorance and not as anything inherent or achieved.
Because of limited intelligence, education, concern, care, and consciousness, he will gladly operate within this reductive system Kevin (through PFTH: the Mother of the Spirit of this forum I reckon) offers to these unintelligent, arrogant boys. It is like a drug. A poison-drug they shoot into their veins and then tear around with this ridiculous assertiveness that they are on the road to 'genius' (and 'enlightenment'). It is simply preposterous!
How many hours of your life have been spent to describe this viewpoint at this forum? To me that's even more preposterous. It's such a huge planet out there, even when just stuck online somehow, with so much stuff going on, so much idiocy and brilliance to find and still you keep writing here, a place at the core preposterous to you. Such misplaced nobility in your thoughts, while so ignorant of the complete random diversity and variety out there, that you actually find time and time again to rail against a handful of people who could certainly be said to create a fragmented story about some road to nowhere.
If one were interested in Nietzsche REALLY, one would study some of the same material as he. One would undertake this. One would know it and value it.
If you had studied Nietzsche with some seriousness (and you never did) at least you'd know that at least Nietzsche would despise this very idea of "studying the same material".
It reminds me of some peasants who find ancient texts in an urn written in a language they don't understand and end up burning them for heat.
You still do not understand the severity and vastness of the problem. The burning is already happening all around you. Any existential philosophy arising in a burning house will only reflect these flames. Your indignation over it remains futile and irrelevant.

User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Talking Ass » Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:34 am

Ah, the Dutch Bulldog appears to defend his accomplices. For you have never, not once, expressed criticism of the House Philosophy. And yet, and yet, you are significantly different in your approach, your familiarity with at least the basic structure of ideas in the Western canon. And you are a decent fellow in truth. On one hand, your perpetual apologetics, your need and desire to 'represent' the ideals of the forum to new-comers, is admirable. Your loyalty would be an especially admirable quality in a coorporation or a marriage.

But not in the world of ideas, Diebert.

One commentary as I am not at my desk and will have to come back to this later. Though I will certainly deepen my knowledge of Nietzsche's work as my reading life progresses, I have a very good base with the three works I've devoted time to. And I have found that some of his ideas are so condensed that you have to read, live and process, read more, live more and so it goes. One undertakes this in one's own way. Your comment, therefore, though I do recognize it as one of your standard red herrings and diversions, is simply not accurate. And when I said 'read what Nietzsche has read' (or however I put it) I meant an involvement with all the literary works that are part of the Western canon, not mindless, reductive works by irrelevant 'philosophers'. The same with Kierkegaard: one cannot even approach him without also having approached the Jewish and Christian literature.
fiat mihi

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:19 am

Are you not employing 'reductionism' Alex.
by reducing the pieces and parts of GF to an instance of mental illness or the like?

Isn't the explanation 'reductionism' in itself an Act of 'reductionism'?
of a sort?

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:25 pm

Basil,
you are not going for poetic, are, Dennis?
when the transitory Dennis Mahar croaks
and the tombstone inscription is called upon
'terse' could well appear,
along with,
adored true nature
saw the possibility of transformation for human being
Ass tamer

User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Blair » Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:09 pm

Talking Ass wrote: I have after all 450 acres of prime California pasture, trails through misty, coastal forests, glistening springs, fucsia bushes laden with pink and red flowers, wild irises, crashing coastal waves, sea-spray and sea wind, gulls and eagles, beavers and badgers
And all for the likes of sustaining of all things, you eh?

What a Waste.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6050
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:01 pm

Babe, (Talking Pig)

To me there's no "house philosophy" somewhere here to be criticized. I just read half of Poison for the Heart last year for the first time. It didn't say anything what wasn't said already in many traditions but it tries to pull a few things together in one space (how "genius like"!). Generally I don't share your concerns with the personalities or their "faults". You cannot see beyond the endless psychoanalyzing but I do. That's the main difference. You keep seeing things in terms of defect, power and influence, which can have its merits but as ongoing concern it leads to nowhere in these online discussions. It's therefore quite possible you do not understand the medium at all, let alone the message, if any.

Loyalty is not only a quality in relationships with people, being it professional or personal. I believe it's an implied demand for any truth surveyor. Tenacity, stubbornness and dedication are character issues directly linked to the possibility of real, original spirituality. And as such, yes, especially in the world of ideas, philosophy and truth, does character play an all-defining role. Loyality to principle, for starters. It all climbs up from there.
And when I said 'read what Nietzsche has read' (or however I put it) I meant an involvement with all the literary works that are part of the Western canon, not mindless, reductive works by irrelevant 'philosophers'. The same with Kierkegaard: one cannot even approach him without also having approached the Jewish and Christian literature.
Thereby erecting the same barriers these writers were aiming to pierce. Involvement with "all the canon" is a maze, a swamp nobody will ever return from unless a match is lid at the right moment. Perhaps you never returned from it either?

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:35 am

Dear Talking Ass:

I have been on the internet for 13 years, on multiple wisdom boards, and the voice you bring to this board, I have encountered many times. I call this voice the voice that cries "STOP the infinite, I want to get off!"

The very first board I was on, when I really had no idea of 'what I was doing or where I was going,' I developed a close net relationship with an individual who, like you, believed that to answer the call of the infinite was to answer the call of the devil . That to detach oneself from their human experience was a dangerous and destructive enterprise, that instead, the way to enlightenment was to expand upon these attachments using emotional wisdom. We communicated by email for over four years, and despite his fears for my soul, I could no longer ignore what I could no longer ignore; with a heavy heart, I ended the relationship and moved on to heed the spirit voice of my conscience.

What I am saying is that when the infinite calls, the infinite calls. One has no choice in the matter. What the spirit wants, the spirit wants. What I see on this board, as I see on every other board I visit, is an unfolding of individual calls of the one call of the infinite. For me, the internet is the vehicle by which the call of the infinite has been heightened and quickened to include all expressions of its call, including the call to halt its expansion. No thought, idea or image is not purposed, be it interpreted to be positive, negative, high, low, sacred or profane.

You believe me to be of the "reductionist" philosophy, and in a sense, I am. But what you cannot see, because you have not yet entered the world of spirit thought ascension, is that once one brings one's awareness to the alpha omega point of the one substance of spirit, the essence of spirit is awakened and what is often called 'mystical wisdom' is revealed, and what was once the human experience of word and image of emotion and logic, becomes the spiritual experience of word and image of spirit essence and substance.

Why should you or anyone else believe me? They shouldn't. This is why boards like this exist, "to test the spirits", and as the Buddha admonishes, find out for yourself if what another says is true.

User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Talking Ass » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:39 am

A Most Wonderful Ass Speaks Again, Educates, Enlightens

Diebert, a few things. The first is that it occurred to me with your last post that, if you had not read PFTH (the ur-document of the QRS and the motivator for the establishment of this forum and in a sense the 'call to action here'), perhaps you had not yet really considered the 'core message' presented here? Laird's term (a good one) was 'the House Philosophy'. Such a philosophy most certainly exists and is promulgated. I should not have to point this out. So, it is possible that you have never really come to understand what this 'core message' seems to be, and because you haven't done that, or don't want to, you cannot understand where I am coming from.

The very term Poison for the Heart, taken at a basic, linguistic level, is dangerous. Not a little dangerous, but a lot dangerous. Please do not take this to mean that I cannot recognize that there are 'things' (moods, attachments, etc.) within the heart that can or 'should' be 'poisoned'. But the use of the term significantly connotes such like poisoning a rat; extermination. I suggest that the notion of such poison entering the core part of a person's being (the 'heart') is a very inappropriate metaphor and symbol. For what happens when the heart is 'poisoned' is that the person is strangled. It is a symbol and a metaphor of a primary violence, and one directed against self. So that, psychologically, it is a ruinous idea, and yet it is an idea that in various forms has been used in cult-environments. There is a deep attractiveness in the idea of using such a 'poison', of separating oneself from what is human (after all, what else would the 'heart' mean except the 'human, all too human', etc.?) Again, to say this does not mean that I am incapable of seeing the need of purification of the heart and even of the great difficulty and pain and 'death and rebirth' this might entail, and does entail. Also, you do not and no one else has to accept my assertions, but I have every right to form my opinions and to present them in the context of this forum. At the very least I am 'on-topic' which is more that can be said for many here.

As I see things, you seem to represent the 'hard structure' which needs to be penetrated and dissolved. You would do well to stop playing the sycophant. I critique, and you charge forward with a defense and a counter-attack. Lamentably, IMO, you do not deviate at all. You call into question my motives for being in a place I critique and you reverse the criticisms I make and attempt to get them to stick. Oddly enough, as it turns out, YOU who may not have even read the QRS material (according to your own admission) are the one who comes forward here to defend it. But I just don't think that you (even you) understand what I am criticizing, and why. Now, why this is so I am not really certain.
Diebert wrote:You sound - not for the first time - like a youngster yourself, with a highly naive and inexperienced view on the world and its developments, with such lofty ideals on the intellectual and romantic aspects of our perception. But there is a relating beyond that, beyond all psychoanalyzing, diversifying and augmentation. It's way more simple, subtle and deep. You're making too much noise perhaps to get it. Or you're just not interested in it at all (as taste and character charm).
I think that what you are *hearing* is my essential *young-at-heartness*, the resonant flute-like sound of a healthy, expanding heart in which 'poisons' do not course! A free, gorgeous spiritual singing! Is that it? ;-)

Okay, I'm game but you really have to deliver on this: Please talk about my 'highly inexperienced view of the world and its developments'. I have never seen you write on this theme within these pages, and yet it comes up in relation to me? Would you be so kind as to expand on it? Can you demonstrate it?

As to 'relating beyond that', I think I would agree, except that in truth it is not really done 'here', or very little. I have a sense that is because of the ideal that hearts should be 'poisoned' and that an unpoisoned heart is an invalid heart, and that one who comes from a place of 'heart' is not qualified for wisdom? Diebert: you have not really thought through the specific use of the terms here. I am both quite surprised and I also feel I understand you better: you are not interested. But I am interested, and that is why I stayed here.
It's way more simple, subtle and deep.
YOU are often subtle and deep (but not so simple my dear chap). And if there is deepness and subtleness, who is 'carrying' that here? I don't think that 'subtle and deep' comes out of a person who is injecting poison into themselves, and the metaphor must be brought to the fore once again. It seems to me that it happens in a very different way: energy is conducted into the heart, perhaps by breath or prayer or exalted emotions, and the heart moves, changes, purges, GROWS. But to POISON the organ that is at the very core of ourselves? The symbol does not function aesthetically, morally and ethically, spiritually, physically, psychologically, humanistically, economically. The first level of error is with the first, overarching idea. Everything after that seems to be inflected by that first error.
Even if that were true it would only be a droplet of ignorance in a sea of indifference and idiocy, this complete lunacy of existence in this world, turning your rants into obscure self-obsessive entertainment. This is still completely independent of the question of how "brutish" or otherwise offensive to your senses the performance of many here would be in truth. With truth being defined as any ongoing process with leads to the unwinding and unbinding of ignorance and not as anything inherent or achieved.
I say that this 'brutishness' arises out of a project of 'poisoning' oneself, so let us be very clear. I also say that such a 'project' of self-poisoning attracts a certain type of person, and this type of person seems to come 'pre-disposed' to such a project. It is never expressed as a 'growth', in the sense that a plant grows and flourishes, but as, well, extermination, killing, poisoning, depriving, starving. Pay close attention to words and their use, little one! But wait! You in fact don't really care. You have not really read the material! So what are you defending with such vigor, Diebert? This is baffling to me.

The world may indeed be lunatic and ignorance may indeed be rampant, but I am taking issue with a very specific aspect of 'it'. Generally, I keep my posting to one thread for the duration of my Blessed Sojourn and too I vaporize from time to time, I ascend upward and out of the hell-pit where the minor intelligences lurk. But try to understand this: What I am learning here, and what it means, is (I think) beyond your ability (now) to grasp. Think on that! You think you are so damned smart, Pumpkin, but perhaps you also have your blind spots. Hmmm? Is it possible? And with this: 'With truth being defined as any ongoing process with leads to the unwinding and unbinding of ignorance and not as anything inherent or achieved...' I think you reveal how you are hoodwinked! You've hoodwinked yourself. Please talk about this 'ignorance' and what happens to a man when he 'unwinds and unbinds' from it! Like the boys here, you pretend as some GREAT KNOWLEDGE but...I really question the whole basis of your GRASP of 'wisdom'. See?
...with so much stuff going on, so much idiocy and brilliance to find and still you keep writing here, a place at the core preposterous to you.
I tend to move through things rather slowly, perhaps too slowly? But, I absorb what I need, and make use of what I absorb. I think you'd serve yourself and everyone better by dropping the 'I'm gonna bust you' on my remaining here. DEAL WITH THE CONTENT.
To me there's no "house philosophy" somewhere here to be criticized.
Oh there is, there is indeed. You just haven't read it. You do not seem to have realized that *it* exists, that it is specific, that it excludes a tremendous amount! It is what it excludes that interests me, and also what it 'poisons'. But let us face this truth: you have not registered this. It is not interesting to you. (Flavor? Taste? as you say...)
Loyalty is not only a quality in relationships with people, being it professional or personal. I believe it's an implied demand for any truth surveyor. Tenacity, stubbornness and dedication are character issues directly linked to the possibility of real, original spirituality. And as such, yes, especially in the world of ideas, philosophy and truth, does character play an all-defining role. Loyalty to principle, for starters. It all climbs up from there.
You misunderstand me. You are 'loyal' to the 'founders' or to the 'forum' in exactly the WRONG way. You become the Bulldog who is sent forth to defend what---we have just discovered---you are only marginally interested in: their specific doctrines! So, your loyalty is more in service to an ideal though I would like to have said 'doctrine'. But, you are only marginally aware of that 'doctrine', by your own admission. For this reason I am incomprehensible to you. The te4nacity and stubbornness is what I am engaged in: against almost a whole forum! On one side I face the unutterably inane (which is not at all hard), and on the other...the likes of you! You are tricky and prolix but, alas, hollow.
Thereby erecting the same barriers these writers were aiming to pierce.
How about: 'Thereby erecting the same barriers these writers were aiming to poison'? The argument that you understand 'what these writers were attempting to do' is a joke, Diebert. Silly on the face. Nietzsche attempted about a thousand things, he was an explosion. And people take from him what they want and need. (For that reason he seems great to me: he is vast, a well, a lifetime of consideration. I know quite a bit less of Kierkegaard but of what I have read I also see one takes from him what one wants, and he is varied, variegated, also like a well). Now, David et al take away this aspect of 'piercing' and make it 'poisoning' and blend it with a bad Buddhist reading and turn it into what they will. But this doesn't have a great deal necessarily to do with either of them (N & K), or with you for that matter. So stop the pretense that you are the Nietzschean (or wisdom or value) professor, will ya? ;-)
fiat mihi

jufa
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by jufa » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:42 am

As a tree, and undiscerning mind absorb all it receives, even the poison.

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

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Dennis Mahar » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:09 am

Spiritual is not an arrangement of concepts.

Spiritual means one thing and one thing only.

It means,
not putting the harm in.
not putting the harm out.
by word or deed.

It's a Context to live a Life out of.
An Act.

A Worldhood of people,
living that Act,
gets a Worldhood of people living that Act.

Context is decisive.
Context is commitment.

Spiritual is not knowledge.
Spiritual is know-how.

Spiritual is true nature of human being.

putting the harm in,
putting the harm out,
overwhelms true nature.

Everybody cognites that much at some point.
It can't be missed.

User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Kunga » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:58 am

Yes...if man is to evolve
He must evolve spiritually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa

User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Talking Ass » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:08 pm

When the undiscerning mind, like a tree, absorbes the poison along with the water, minerals and nutrients, what happens with the poison? When the discerning mind absorbes the nutrients and the poisons, what does the discerning mind do with the poisons? But to discern means to have the capacity to choose, so following your metaphor I assume the 'poisons' can't get past his 'filter'. But what are poisons and what are nutrients?

Moving always, thanks for your thoughtful post, I'll try to respond tomorrow. Right now the moon is shining and the nightingales are calling melodiously. I'll wander the night away in my mythical kingdom by the sea, but sometime between the first stirrings of the orioles and the cock's third crowing I should have at least the sketch of a reply worked out.

To all: The Talking Ass beats upon you, but loves you. Loving, beating, loving, beating---rather like God, no?
fiat mihi

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Dennis Mahar » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:53 pm

The question is,

Is the Ass in the practice of posting with a belly full of booze?

User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Talking Ass » Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:48 am

A head full of angels is more like it. All Praises to the Ass Who Talks and let us all thank our Lucky Stars that He is here with us, helping us out of our various darkened pits!
fiat mihi

User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Kunga » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:11 am

angel dust

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:10 am

Talking Ass wrote:A head full of angels is more like it. All Praises to the Ass Who Talks and let us all thank our Lucky Stars that He is here with us, helping us out of our various darkened pits!
An angel talks indeed, and wrestles with us until we bless him!

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Dennis Mahar » Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:42 am

angels in the glass

the glass who talks

User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Gather Round Friends and I'll Tell Ye a Tale...

Post by Talking Ass » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:49 am

movingalways wrote:That to detach oneself from their human experience was a dangerous and destructive enterprise, that instead, the way to enlightenment was to expand upon these attachments using emotional wisdom.
A few things: from whence this desire to 'detach oneself from human experience'? In my investigations, I found that this basic idea motivates various religious schools of thought. And depending on what school of religion it is expressed in, it seems to arise from awareness of the horror of death. (I'm thinking of the vedists, those very early thinkers and seers: the 'Rishis'). If there were not something in this 'human experience' that were distasteful, painful, even sickening, there would of course arise no desire to escape, to side-step, to ascend.

There arose, obviously, schools of mystical thinking and practice that proposed (declared is more like it) that if you do x, y will occur. You probably know some of this evolution (of ideas). It does not seem to have arrived 'all in one peice' but seems to be a viewpoint or a science that was honed and perfected. What the early vedists wanted was a route of prosperity, strength and well-being, but what later Vedanta wants is to exit this plane of existence altogether. At this point everything depends on which language symbols one wished to employ: some will say transcend this material plane of existence and relocate on another, higher plane of existence. Or, some propose the 'ultimate manoeuvre: reabsorption into the primary consciousness (and since I am using the example of Vedanta I would refer to the Vaishnava conception: simply to be in the presence of the Supreme Lord, which for them is not a fantasy but a fact).

There is no doubt in my mind that an artificial detachment from 'the human experience' is in many cases a dangerous and costly mistake. This idea (transcending, escaping) has motivated many different groups all making big promises. So, when you see the aftermath of that: people who disconnected from themselves, who severed away from 'the human', or who sacrificed valuable incarnated time in what (and this happens) are later recognized as vain, mind-driven pursuits, it is quite possible and necessary to wave a flag of danger. Your approach to 'all this' may be the most healthy, normal and sane, I have no way of knowing (and perhaps neither do you, not ultimately), but what I notice happening in people (here) does not seem to me to be that healthy and sane. Not the least reason I think 'it' is mistaken is because, at its core, it is 'atheistic'. Therefore, driven by a person's desire or will and as I have said 'vanity'. I perceive that there are whole orders of conscious 'entities' who oversee consciousness here. I believe that one does not go ANYWHERE until one has gained permission, until one has 'passed the test' so to speak. If some child makes an assertion that by spending a few evenings reading Poison for the Heart, shaving their head, and putting on a whole, intricate act, I merely laugh: a hearty, resonant ass's belly-laugh. And if one thinks, as many seem to, that one goes ANYWHERE in life or out of life without ones HEART, I declare that one a fool. The heart may need all sorts of medicines but it must not be annihilated. But, if you read some of the doctrines (and I will suppose that you haven't) you will find very many different and various levels of error in them. So, I apply some correctives.

It is true, I function from my own, subjective value-base. I say: there are certain things that must not be given up, certain things about who we are.
What I am saying is that when the infinite calls, the infinite calls. One has no choice in the matter. What the spirit wants, the spirit wants. What I see on this board, as I see on every other board I visit, is an unfolding of individual calls of the one call of the infinite. For me, the internet is the vehicle by which the call of the infinite has been heightened and quickened to include all expressions of its call, including the call to halt its expansion. No thought, idea or image is not purposed, be it interpreted to be positive, negative, high, low, sacred or profane.
Well, this use of the word 'infinite' is a little troublesome for me. Your use of this word is, it seems, different from, say, David's. These are two different languages. Two different modalities. You are very mistaken if you think I desire to 'halt expansion' though I do not see this Infinite in quite the way you do, and I am opposed to Absolutism. Effectively, for as long as we are here comminicating, exchanging, we do this through the medium of our physical self, the self that is you and me. If there is a 'spirit' (I am only opposed to the term because 1) it is vague and 2) it is unitary and singular), it operates through this vehicle of life, our physical selves, our self within this manifestation. We are here to be in that. The difference, perhaps, is that I am chary of using too abstract language. I think one finds some 'inner point', some sense of who one is and what one is to do here, and one does that. You make the mistake of misunderstanding what I oppose. But so do most here. To David (he declared this at various times) I AM the Devil himself, and 'my ideas' are ideas that he has sworn to oppose!

I suppose too I don't believe that one can 'work' for freedom. If I were a Christian I would be of that school that believes it is ALL Grace. Once one has felt that Grace---something so far beyond oneself that one's self could never DO anything in relation to 'it'---what is there to do then?

Here, listen and tell me what you think...
You believe me to be of the "reductionist" philosophy, and in a sense, I am.
My rather off-hand comment (as so many of my comments are and they are designed that way) about 'reductive ideas' is something I do not detract. Reductions are not a good thing. The use of reductive and 'binary' thinking here on this forum is rampant. To the degree that you remain unaware of that (of what is actually recommended and encouraged on this forum and what is its Core Philosophy, I will naturally have to oppose you. But I think you speak your own language. To me, it is too airy and insubstantial since I think that we are in our spiritual selves RIGHT HERE, and so our words need to be tangible and our lives concrete.

An Ass's Merry Tune.
fiat mihi

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Dennis Mahar » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:11 pm

Alex,
GF is a conversation for transformation.
It's not a conversation that somehow doesn't 'get it'.
Healing happens.

Absolute, infinite, not a thing or God is inferred or 'grokked'.
When humans give properties and functions to 'IT', they fall into confusion.
We can't say anything about it because it would be rendered relative, a thing.

Coming away from that to existence for human being.
We notice that he/she is part of a causal web.
The nature of human being is that he/she is effectively thrown in at one end of life and thrown out the other.
Human Being is transitory.

It is known then that a human being's existence is empty (contingent) and meaningless (ultimately ineffectual).

In the face of this brutal fact,
Man has to find meaning for himself for the duration of his life.

A man can have as his meaning, the building of a home for himself and his family.
In time his house will collapse, and each member of his family will be, in turn, thrown out the other end of life.

Humans collectively form cultures as a negotiation between themselves as to how to live together. that constitutes the arising of politics, ethics.

cultures eventually fail and new cultures form.

It is a recycling depot.

The existentialists understood all this to some extent.

This is what emptiness means.
A web of causes/conditions, pieces/parts interconnecting.
A web of associations/references.
dependant arising.
Not one human being, animal, plant, planet, galaxy, molecule, atom is self-established.
None the same,
none different.

At this point, if it is understood, compassion kicks in for those who fail to grok the situation and suffer needlessly.
I think Camus called it absurd and Sartre called it nauseous.
It's wiser not to name it and realise there is no reason that it's empty and meaningless. What is the point of emoting about it. It is what it is and isn't what it isn't and just get on with your purpose for it.
The QRS purpose is to educate about it to alleviate suffering.

When this is realised one has a sense of peace and stillness of mind and lives harmoniosly.
One has beginner's mind. the grasping ego is knocked out.

To be enlightened is to go further and realise there is no separate self.
there are ultimately no boundaries anywhere.
non-duality.

You will grunt and groan about this as usual,
no one cares a whit about your response,
for those who've grokked it,
why on earth would you think they would exchange happiness and freedom for your confused interpretations.
Your attempts at persuasion are stunningly ineffectual.

but you will be unconditionally loved anyway.

(brief summary)

User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Blair » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:41 pm

And in all fairness, Jew
I really do think that we have heard quite enough of you.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Colin Wilson

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:55 am

My rather off-hand comment (as so many of my comments are and they are designed that way) about 'reductive ideas' is something I do not detract. Reductions are not a good thing. The use of reductive and 'binary' thinking here on this forum is rampant. To the degree that you remain unaware of that (of what is actually recommended and encouraged on this forum and what is its Core Philosophy, I will naturally have to oppose you. But I think you speak your own language. To me, it is too airy and insubstantial since I think that we are in our spiritual selves RIGHT HERE, and so our words need to be tangible and our lives concrete.
Oppose me if you will, but who is the recipient of the poison of this opposition? It is not me, for I am not opposing me, which is you, as I write these words.

The soul wanders like a whore, finding many moving lovers called Tangible and Concrete. Where, I ask you, as I asked myself, is her husband that moves not away from her when she asks for his Truth?

Post Reply