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? ;-)