Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Liberty Sea »

Nothing possesses real selfhood as separated entities. Only the All possesses selfhood.
The become enlightened is to forsake the delusion of false selfhood, and to become one with the All, with That which is, and therefore possess real selfhood.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by guest_of_logic »

Dan Rowden wrote:Aww Mum! Laird's making me read one of his posts again! Make him stop!
She says hush now, it's good for your soul, and besides, if you really wanted to be enlightened, you'd do it.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

liberty,
Nothing possesses real selfhood as separated entities. Only the All possesses selfhood.
The become enlightened is to forsake the delusion of false selfhood, and to become one with the All, with That which is, and therefore possess real selfhood.
Appreciate that expression. Thankyou.
Breath of fresh air.
How did you come into the recognition of that.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Alex Jacob »

Dennis asks: "Refreshing...How did you come into the recognition of that."
You make it sound like some great achievement! Any dope could come up with such a (fundamentalist) expression! That sort of expression surrounds us! It is not thinking but rather escape from thinking...

And refreshing for some...and for others just another means of expressing Fundamentalism. The expression is held up as a sort of idea-blazon, like in some sort of crusade. I've heard similar expressions from Baptist ministers on Christian radio stations.

"Outside of Gawd, brothers an' sisters, y'all don't exist as sep'rate ent'ties. Only GAWD possesses selfhood! To become one IN GAWD is to forsake the sinful illusion of individuality, and to become one with GAWD is the only way f'man to have real selfhood!"
Dan wrote: "Anything that exists at all is part and parcel of the Cosmos, so what you said looks like a bit of redundant, poetic fluff to me. But then, you aesthetics just can't help but throw pretty colours over the obvious whenever you get the chance."
David wrote earlier:
  • "A particular logical truth, such as 1+1=2, is true for all minds and all perspectives, whereas a particular meaning is dependant upon a particular mind and a particular perspective. As such, logical truths possess an objective quality that meanings lack."

I am not a mathematician, yet when I read people writing about math and physics, their conversation often looks more expansive and reasonable than does 'yours'. They seem to understand that even mathematical truths are descriptions, or perhaps 'abbreviations' for what occurs in our reality. I have a feeling that, as philosophers, y'all are fundamentalist philosophers. You have carved out an area for yourselves that is defined by narrow axioms that dominate your whole perception-process.

And you reject everything and anything that does not conform to the little area that you dominate.

I attempt to 'play' within David's own logic-fundamentalism and assert, also fundamentally, that just as number-relationships exist and are fundamental, so too meaning-relationships (in more or less the same sense) 'must' exist, must have a 'local dimension' and also a 'total dimension'.

If my declaration is 'aesthetic' then too David's is 'aesthetic', and perhaps that means (merely) intuitive. David dresses up a Grand Intuition (his shtick about 'the All') in a logical language it seems to me but it is not 'logical', not really.

For example, in thinking about it, it seemed to me that in this world we live in there are certain things or events that repeat throughout 'all worlds', since all worlds are likely spherical worlds. The time of a deep darkness before the light returns, for example. I might assume that night (absence of light) would have a similar 'meaning' here and throughout the universe, and that for other beings in similar circumstances the moment of darkness, just before the dawn, might have a similar, comparative meaning. Since the whole cosmos is composed as a system of similar relationships (how could it be otherwise?) it follows that what happens here also happens there. It would seem, then, that there might be a group, even a fairly wide group, of 'metaphors' that are universal, and that 'meaning' about that, all of that, is part-and-parcel of the universe and arose with it. And in this sense is not random or arbitrary. And though local in one small zone, there may be universal metaphors.

It all follows from the same logic-structure David loves to play in...
Ni ange, ni bête
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

That word you use 'fundamentalist'.
It's like your little treasure.
It's like all the meaning in the world is held in it.
It seems to carry a sense of gravitas and penetration.
It's your favourite little thing.
It's the little thing you keep under your pillow at night as a warding off of any walkie, walkies.

It's your primary accusation.
It's a card you carry about with you and give out to any appearance that's not you.

You are so dimwitted that you fail to realise that you are revealing, by the persistent use of it,
the outward projection of your own inner condition.

You are announcing emphatically to all and sundry...

'I am so fundamentalist I can see it in you and you're wrong'.
'I am world's best practice 'fundamentalist' and you don't stand a chance'
'Don't come at me with fundamentalism boy, I can out-fundamentalist you any day'
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Alex Jacob »

Nice!

But I use it more in this sense: Fundamentalism. It is a term that, addmitedly, is a little sticky and one must be careful using it. Still, as to Liberty's declaration, I believe it is accurate. I also think the QRS doctrines have a fundamentalist tinge. Some part of that is 'good' while another part of that is 'bad'. However, the cure is a wider appreciation of the Grand Conversation on these themes, and an 'opening up' of the tenets of conversation. You, Dennis, do not ever do this. You seek always to reduce and narrow ideas, to assert reductions, to team up with people to assert them. In this specific sense, you are a fundamentalist.
Ni ange, ni bête
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You missed the point.

the word 'fundamentalist' is your security blanket.

it's an ego thing that keeps you safely separated, in control.

it's your barrier.

how it's organised fundamentally for you as a coping strategy.

it is a blocking out.

all your tricks 'keep others at bay'

breakdown condition.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Alex Jacob »

Believe me, Dennis, I did not miss that point. The real feat---the challenge---is for you to deal with the assertion. To show you understand what fundamentalism is, how and why I apply it to your and GF formulations, what is positive about it and what is negative. Doing that, you would engage in rational conversation, and not your standard fare. This is something you are incapable of, however.
Ni ange, ni bête
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The Liberty Sea declaration is a declaration of non-duality.

It's how one is organised around the declaration that counts.

Doesn't matter what words you throw at it, how many libraries you visit for justifiers, how many you tube clips you defer to.

It's the basic organisation of the way one is in the face of what one is dealing with.

what horrifies you concerning non-duality?
what's at stake for you?
what could you lose?

your Self?

As an aside,
In the Jungian conception,
the trickster, albeit a transpersonal archetype,
fitted in as a low-grade, minor stage to be overcome en route to 'Timeless Man'.

Synchronicity actually means 'events showing up appearing to be acausal or random in the stream' but were in fact causally related to move one along for the result.

Prior to the result it looks random.
After the result the logical progression 'blows the mind' as a realisation.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by David Quinn »

cousinbasil wrote:
DQ wrote:A particular logical truth, such as 1+1=2, is true for all minds and all perspectives, whereas a particular meaning is dependant upon a particular mind and a particular perspective. As such, logical truths possess an objective quality that meanings lack.
I will go you one further, David. It is precisely this so-called lack of meaning one encounters when first discovering a logical truth that hinders learning or understanding that truth. One need only observe the glazed-over eyes of students in a math class, especially the female students.

In order to learn, one applies. In applying, one assigns meaning. Meanings change constantly - it is the very persistence of a logical truth through these changes that makes such a truth so powerful. By itself, any abstract logical truth has no power.
That's a good point. 1+1=2 is a pretty dry truth and unless one is a rabid math head it is difficult to get excited about it. But when it comes to fundamental truths about the way things exist, it is a different matter, surely? If a person can't get excited about the truth that all things are caused, or that Nature has no beginning or end, well, what hope is there for them? They are already dead inside.

It is only when it becomes apparent that the truth is there for everyone that the assignation of meaning begins. The accountant, for example, had to be convinced of the permanent truths involved in the process of addition and subtraction before 1+1=2 became $1+$1=$2.

I am with Laird in seeing the infinitude of meanings rather than a paucity.
This is a spiritual forum and so the assumption is made that everyone who comes here is interested in becoming enlightened. And the very first step towards becoming enlightened is learning how to leave behind subjective, finite points of view and see things from the ultimate perspective. And from the ultimate perspective, nothing has any meaning.

When Jesus said to people that unless they give up everything they hold dear, they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, or when the Buddha made the giving up of all desire the fundamental tenet of his teaching, they both had this transition to the ultimate perspective in mind. Unless a person gives up all the little subjective meanings that sustain his emotional life and fully embraces the ultimate perspective, he has no chance of becoming enlightened.

It's your choice, of course, whether you want to cling to the plethora of little subjective meanings that exist in the world, but know this: God cannot fill your life until you become completely empty.

-
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Cory Duchesne »

David Quinn wrote: And the very first step towards becoming enlightened is learning how to leave behind subjective, finite points of view and see things from the ultimate perspective. And from the ultimate perspective, nothing has any meaning.
That would be the first step. However, do we agree that both scientific knowledge and art can be meaningful to an enlightened man, particularly if he has some degree of Genius? After realizing ones divinity, the universe is there for you to create - which means using your talents towards some area of social engineering. The artistic canvas becomes the whole of humanity and existence itself. It is not easy, and even dangerous, but I see no point in resisting what the mind does effortlessly.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by David Quinn »

Alex Jacob wrote:
Dennis asks: "Refreshing...How did you come into the recognition of that."
You make it sound like some great achievement! Any dope could come up with such a (fundamentalist) expression! That sort of expression surrounds us! It is not thinking but rather escape from thinking...

And refreshing for some...and for others just another means of expressing Fundamentalism. The expression is held up as a sort of idea-blazon, like in some sort of crusade. I've heard similar expressions from Baptist ministers on Christian radio stations.
The key point in all of this is logic and understanding. If Liberty Sea is simply repeating words that he has heard elsewhere, or if he is using these words to express an intuition that he hasn't fully clarified to himself, then yes, he is expressing fundamentalism. But if he fully understands the logic behind the words, if he has a clear understanding of the truth contained in them, then it ceases to be fundamentalism and becomes a clear-sighted affirmation of truth instead.

That's the problem with your turning-everything-into-a-story approach to life. It negates the logic and understanding side of things, the very stuff that makes spirituality and wisdom come alive. It causes you to misjudge things from afar and turn people into caricatures.

Alex Jacob wrote: David wrote earlier:
  • "A particular logical truth, such as 1+1=2, is true for all minds and all perspectives, whereas a particular meaning is dependant upon a particular mind and a particular perspective. As such, logical truths possess an objective quality that meanings lack."

I am not a mathematician, yet when I read people writing about math and physics, their conversation often looks more expansive and reasonable than does 'yours'.
That's probably because they don't have to continually deal with people who charge into their laboratories and destroy the equipment, or who continually belittle science by calling it a fundamentalist activity. :)

I'll let you in on a little secret: What I express on this forum represents a fraction of what I experience and understand on a daily basis. I always confine my offerings here to entry-level stuff, the very beginning pathways to the wonderful world of wise living. It is the meat and drink of spiritual teaching - that of encouraging people to make those first few steps in an environment where most people don't want to hear the first thing about it.

I attempt to 'play' within David's own logic-fundamentalism and assert, also fundamentally, that just as number-relationships exist and are fundamental, so too meaning-relationships (in more or less the same sense) 'must' exist, must have a 'local dimension' and also a 'total dimension'.

If my declaration is 'aesthetic' then too David's is 'aesthetic', and perhaps that means (merely) intuitive. David dresses up a Grand Intuition (his shtick about 'the All') in a logical language it seems to me but it is not 'logical', not really.

For example, in thinking about it, it seemed to me that in this world we live in there are certain things or events that repeat throughout 'all worlds', since all worlds are likely spherical worlds. The time of a deep darkness before the light returns, for example. I might assume that night (absence of light) would have a similar 'meaning' here and throughout the universe, and that for other beings in similar circumstances the moment of darkness, just before the dawn, might have a similar, comparative meaning. Since the whole cosmos is composed as a system of similar relationships (how could it be otherwise?) it follows that what happens here also happens there. It would seem, then, that there might be a group, even a fairly wide group, of 'metaphors' that are universal, and that 'meaning' about that, all of that, is part-and-parcel of the universe and arose with it. And in this sense is not random or arbitrary. And though local in one small zone, there may be universal metaphors.

It all follows from the same logic-structure David loves to play in...
No, it doesn't, as it's based on lots of faulty ideas and premises.

For example, no world is ever truly spherical. There are always deviations away from the geometric spherical shape. The earth itself is an example. Its mountains and valleys alone take it away from the spherical shape, let alone the strong gravitational distortions created by the moon. Some planets, such as Pluto, are very far from the spherical shape - resembling, as it does, an asymmetrical lump of rock.

There are never any repetitions in Nature, not in the strictest (and therefore truest) sense. Our perception of repetitions are generated by our own abstractions. A sphere is always an abstraction, never a reality. The darkness of night is never truly dark and its darkness (or lightness) is always changing from moment to moment, depending on what the stars and moon and other light sources are doing. The length of each night is always changing. And so on.

In short, repetition is an illusion.

Leaving that aside, your idea about universal meanings is poorly argued. Take your illustration about darkness, for example. Even here on earth the "meaning" of darkness has no universal status, let alone elsewhere in the universe. The criminal-minded, for example, attribute a very different meaning to darkness than normal folk do. Nocturnal animals consider darkness to be the high point in their daily lives. As always, it all depends on your point of view.

So rather than arguing for the universality of meanings and metaphors you are actually arguing for the opposite - namely, that they are abstract in nature and therefore entirely dependent on a subjective mind to bring them into existence.

-
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by jufa »

David Quinn wrote:
This is a spiritual forum and so the assumption is made that everyone who comes here is interested in becoming enlightened. And the very first step towards becoming enlightened is learning how to leave behind subjective, finite points of view and see things from the ultimate perspective. And from the ultimate perspective, nothing has any meaning.

When Jesus said to people that unless they give up everything they hold dear, they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, or when the Buddha made the giving up of all desire the fundamental tenet of his teaching, they both had this transition to the ultimate perspective in mind. Unless a person gives up all the little subjective meanings that sustain his emotional life and fully embraces the ultimate perspective, he has no chance of becoming enlightened.
I would like to add this excerpt the forum http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com - entitled > Will You Die For Him? > Section: WALKING IN THE FRUIT>

Will You Die For Him? Jesus told the rich ruler to go, "sell everything you have,and follow me." To truly follow Christ, man must rid himself of his human thought attachment. Hang them upon "THE CROSS AND THE LYNCHING TREE. http://www.pbs.org/moyers...rnal/11232007/watch.html" This is the death man must die in order to follow Christ. Everything humanly learned, man must unlearn. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Truth is hard, but just. What is hard about it is that it demands for one to face the reality of themselves, and become responsible and courageous enough to "die for my sake," and walk with the hope that to change for the good, is not about ones self, but all mankind. Man doesn't have to seek God in order to perform and accomplish this task, God is there where man stands. And "he performeth the thing that is appointed for me, and many such things are with him." - Job 23:14. All a man have to do is be a beholder of Life without putting his interpreted identifiable conditions on living that Life. If a man waver not from this stand, this position, this decision to be a beholder of Life, without putting his conditions on living that life, he will realize, in his Spirit, the battle is not his. And he will find "the path of the just is like the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."

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

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Cory Duchesne »

David is right in his approach. I went through many different spiritual teachers before I met David and Kevin, and their approach and style to teaching is entirely necessary, I probably never would have gotten the confidence I have without it. Their approach is the very foundation of absolute confidence, at least how I've come to understand it.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by David Quinn »

Cory Duchesne wrote:
David Quinn wrote: And the very first step towards becoming enlightened is learning how to leave behind subjective, finite points of view and see things from the ultimate perspective. And from the ultimate perspective, nothing has any meaning.
That would be the first step. However, do we agree that both scientific knowledge and art can be meaningful to an enlightened man, particularly if he has some degree of Genius? After realizing ones divinity, the universe is there for you to create - which means using your talents towards some area of social engineering. The artistic canvas becomes the whole of humanity and existence itself. It is not easy, and even dangerous, but I see no point in resisting what the mind does effortlessly.
The only thing that is meaningful to the enlightened man is God Himself - and even then that only applies to his weaker moments.

But as you say, he is free to use both art and science (and anything else) to stimulate people into becoming aware of God. The enlightened man's canvas is indeed humanity and existence. That's well put.

(Still not convinced about your video, though ... :)

-
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Liberty Sea »

Hi, Genius forum. I am a 20 years old Vietnamese who considers himself to have understood the fundamental logical Truth and is practicing it.
I will elaborate my comprehension of Truth, which I arrived at through logical deduction with the help of wise men in the past, and stated briefly in my previous post. I also posted a briefer version of this in my Facebook note.
If anyone believes he has a self to serve, he is bound to be selfish no matter what he does, on various levels. Some are more selfish than some other, but all are selfish as long as this illusion remains. Every human evil is born from the belief that a human has a self. So let see the nature of the self:

1- You say you have your body, your brain, your mind, your heart, your past, your future, your point of view, etc. But what is the mere 'you' that possesses all these 'yours'? The 'you' that cannot be put as a 'yours', the 'self' that resides in all this 'yours', it is non-existent, isn't it? To paraphrase Kevil, everything is made of parts and constituents. There are particles that are arguably have no part, but they have characteristics and attributes cause, so a particle does have 'its' instead of 'it'. Imagine a mere sphere. We can say it is made of 'its' two halves, right?

2- You can say :"Whatever! Relatively speaking, I am my body. And the soul is something that is a part of the body." But where is the finite border that separates your body from the rest of the universe? Inside you are atoms, outside you are also atoms. Seeing in an atomic level, there is no definite line, so there is basically no inside you nor outside you, which means there is no you.

Further more, the atoms inside you move and change constantly. The lifespan of a quark can be shorter than 1/million second. Which means your body in this second is something entirely different, entirely new from your body one second ago, even though it doesn't appear obviously to your eyes. So, which body is you?

3- You can say "I am my consciousness". But what is consciousness? Some electric impulses in your brain, some material process in your brain. A 'process' is not something concrete, not a physical entity, not an inherent existence, isn't it? But is it even your process? Let move to the next point.

4- You can say "I am my will". But free will is an illusion. Everything is inevitable and every thought, every decision you made are absolutely conditioned. The fact that quantum physicists can predict the movements of sub-atomic particles within definite statistics proves this. So, your will is not yours, it is the will of Nature.

5- You can say "I am something that is different from everything else". But this only means your existence is merely a contrast. Let expand on this a bit. I am going to use a quite common example. Imagine that there is a black circle in a white piece of paper. If we paint the whole piece of paper black, the circle would disappear, isn't it. If you paint it all white, the circle would disappear too. Which means the existence of the circle is merely a contrast. You can say that the paint on the circle would have different thickness from the paper, but that too is a contrast. The existence of 'X' is due to the existence of "not X". Is a "constrast" something intrinsic, something inherent, or concrete as a physical entity? No. So existence is purely a human concept.

Everything you see, you can see them because of their difference, in color, in shape, in thickness, etc. Their existence is a contrast. Take an example, if you see everything in the color green, and there is not even't different level of dark and light green, or shade, you would be basically blind and the color green is not green. The color green cannot exist without every color else.
Imagine that in the whole universe, only a quark exists, and surrounding it is absolute void, absolute vacuum. If we take away the void, would there is the quark any more? Does this thing we call a quark still exist? Can you perceive it?

So existence of anything other than 'the whole', 'the all', is basically not inherent, not intrinsic, not dependent, right? Nothing is self-existent, even nothingness. Everything is interconnected, and therefore one.

---------

Allow me to convey my point more clearly with one of Miyazaki's most extraordinary statements, which he spoke to us through Nausicaa:
"Our lives are like the wind...
Or like sounds
We come into being, resonate with each other...
Then fade away..."
Before we look again at the nature of human existence, let us take a look at the nature of wind and sound. What is the wind? The flow of gas, the movement of air. That is all it is, a movement, nothing more. It is not an inherent existence, not an entity, a physical being, but simply the moving of something. Is the part of the air that flows separated from the part that doesn't. The truth is, no. The air throughout the Earth is one entity, relatively speaking. And to be accurate there is no air that stays still. They all move, some parts more radically than the rest.

The existence of man is also like that. He is not an entity, and inherent existence, but simply a movement of the Universe. When all the needed atoms move to their 'right places', they construct/conform the shape of what we call man. But, the atoms move constantly, the constructions/conformations of atoms changes constantly, so which construction is man? You at this moment is not you one moment ago. If the atoms move more radically, so that his head is at his bosom, while his right leg is in his neck, would we call that a man? If all the atoms move faster, so that a child immediately becomes an old man, and the old a corpse, and the corpse a collection of dust. Would we call that collection of dust a man, even though the totality of atoms stay the same? We call one a man, and another a collection of dust, which is no different from constantly giving different names to the same wind from time to time, from moment to moment. We invent names and categorize endlessly, but ultimately there is no category other than the All, the Universe.

There is no entity called wind, only the air; and there is no entity called man, only the universe. Ultimately the Universe is the only entity, the only inherent existence, the All and the One. The existence of 'everything else' is purely a human concept and exists purely within the mind. An illusion. Man is a movement of the universe, and during this constant movement consciousness is created from the conformation of matter, of the brain, and this consciousness deludes itself into thinking it has an inherent existence, an entity.
If there is a giant to whose eyes a million years past in an instant, then the whole 'existence' of humanity is nothing more to him than a wind. All that culture, art, invention, architect, etc.. are no different to him than a wind.

What is sound? A vibrancy within matter. It too is not an inherent existence, an entity. Plus, there is no sound without the ear and the brain to receive and interpret. Colors are also like this. 'Color derives from the spectrum of light (distribution of light power versus wavelength) interacting in the eye with the spectral sensitivities of the light receptors.' And therefore, without the eyes and the brains, there is no color. This applies to the shapes and forms of everything we see. Without to the brain to receive and interpret, they have no shapes or form. The shapes and forms are therefore constructed purely within the brain and don't exist outside of it.

We humans, unaware of our true nature, cling to our possessions while we live, and are heart-broken when they are taken away from us. We all know this simple truth, that we all wide die one day, and yet we still cling to worldly possessions, cling to a mirage. Forever do we remain in our illusion, never wake up to truly live. The desire to possess, the desire to hold on to that which will eventually fade away are the root of all pain and all suffering.

If you can learn to see all this clearly, thoroughly, effortlessly, intuitively, logically, intellectually, empirically, in yourself and then expand to everything within the range of your consciousness, to your perception of the whole universe, you will eventually lose your sense of the self, and are free from the delusion of the self. This can be accomplished through observation and meditation. This is the first step to enlightenment. By then, no matter what you do, you cannot be selfish, because you have no self to serve. The enlightened sage can care about the world or not care about the world. He can go around preaching the Truth to help people escape suffering, or he can hide in the mountain, or he can walk between the crowd without anyone noticing.


In my opinion, an enlightened person who fills his mind with nothing other than how to help people become free is truly selfless in every sense of the world. Dealing with the world, he is bound to make errors and suffer because of people's ignorance, but he knows his effort won't be useless.
Last edited by Liberty Sea on Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:12 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Cory Duchesne »

DQ,

As a philosopher, I'm probably among the closest to the spirit of rock and roll, and I will be the engineer of the first pure Rock Genius, clarifying the relationship between Shaman and Sage.

Your possible denial of who I will become is just your need to destroy the distinctions and contrast in life. The limitations of your capacity to see, will limit the world. But I will save you from that. For instance, a clearly developed shaman in relationship to a sage is more interesting than just a sage. It's my world, I'll make it how I wish.

Your personality type probably cannot understand this. My entire biology is less masculine, and am indeed a flowie, and I say that without shame.

I'm also going to transform the way music is used in modern culture, making a much clearer distinction between entertainment and prayer.

Here's another video for you, David. In this one, you get to play a staring role.

Science of Sacrifice and Prayer | Joy Division, Shadow play| Funny Ways, Gentle Giant
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by jufa »

I know that there is no destination to be reached in this lifetime spiritually except the destination of of one's self. I've come to know that I am the last enemy to be overcame, and I can only overcome myself by understanding I am the teacher as well as the student of myself. In this realization I acknowledge...........CONSCIOUSNESS............. INFINITE LIFE.............SUB-CONSCIOUS as never having a place of destination to arrive at because there was no destination of a journey to begin with.

From where I've been, to where I sit at this very moment, I have carried the child of acknowledging I am a conscious being of Spirit because this dimension of living awareness, as all dimensions, exist by-way of Spirit fulfillment. No more, no less.

Ascension of the dimension within myself must be a realization then. Why? because "If I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me." Now what does this mean from the wisdom of Spirit? It means, from what I've been made aware of, that I am a product of this flesh mentality because of all my ancestors. It was they who made me a thinker of good and evil by inheritance, and "as a man thinkest in his heart, so is he." And "as a man continues to think in his heart, so he remains."

So this means I do have something to overcome. It is my inheritance. And because life is the omnipresent consciousness extension of those who have went before me, I must bear my cross, and my cross is that of the conscious human mentality of all my ancestors and family members [the human family]who are the culmination of this man of flesh I am.

The buck must stop here. And how did the Master stop Himself from passing the buck? In all that you have become the Awareness of, you had to realize that the Master claimed nothing of a personal ego, or 'id' that would keep Him earth bound. Sure He lived in the world, but He was not of the world because He had overcame the world. He had "rendered unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's. Jesus had overcome His human mentality. What human mentality? The mentality of being born the Son of man.

So man's task is to stop the buck here. To be able to say: "Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit.............It is finished." And then go into the depth of the hell which he had to overcome within his inherited thought mentality and free all his ancestors of their error thinking. This is the responsibility of all men. To free the thought patterns of error thinking which were put into the aether so the "light commanded to shine out of the darkness" can do so.

Word thoughts comes out of the Silence and they themselves are the power which cause man to become receptive to the Spirit forms which enter the human domain through one's inner Conscience.

God is Consciousness. And Consciousness has no beginning nor end. Therefore the thoughts of what is deemed to be creation has no beginning nor end. They have only man's conscious interpretation and acceptance of a movement by-way of words written down literally, when the truth is they are Spirit endowed.

This Spirit is bound by "the law of the Spirit of life." And because God is Consciousness, and the individual Consciousness of each and every man, woman, and child, the principle of order of one's interpreted thoughts play out to be the manifestation of those interpreted thoughts as reality. This is why nothing which happens to an individual can be blamed on God. "The law of the Spirit of life" is just that. It is the law of man's Spirit beliefs, thinking, doing, acknowledgements, projections and continuous living.

When one can see the ocean, or climb to the mountain top, all that is visioned is vastness of that which has no beginning except from the point of where one is standing. That vastness includes all life. I am the keeper of that life. I am my brother's keeper. I cannot reach and touch any good or evil unless I touch it for all which I am as Consciousness. This is the meaning of "Take No Thought" as a possession of your own. It does not belong to you, it came to you by-way of inheritance.

So with mankind it always boils down to this: "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Ba'al, then follow him. . .Choose ye this day whom ye will serve."

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


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by David Quinn »

Cory Duchesne wrote:DQ,

As a philosopher, I'm probably among the closest to the spirit of rock and roll, and I will be the engineer of the first pure Rock Genius, clarifying the relationship between Shaman and Sage.

Your possible denial of who I will become is just your need to destroy the distinctions and contrast in life. The limitations of your capacity to see, will limit the world. But I will save you from that. For instance, a clearly developed shaman in relationship to a sage is more interesting than just a sage. It's my world, I'll make it how I wish.

Your personality type probably cannot understand this. My entire biology is less masculine, and am indeed a flowie, and I say that without shame.

I'm also going to transform the way music is used in modern culture, making a much clearer distinction between entertainment and prayer.

Here's another video for you, David. In this one, you get to play a staring role.

Science of Sacrifice and Prayer | Joy Division, Shadow play| Funny Ways, Gentle Giant
This one is better constructed than the last one (I agreed with Tomas's assessment of the last one). But its message might prove to be a bit too vague or confusing for other viewers, given that it is composed of isolated snippets of a private correspondence that they are not privy to. Still, I quite enjoyed it.

I don't have any problems with your MTV/rock-and-roll approach, but your works do have to be constructed well, otherwise the message gets lost. The last video was bad; this one is better.

You'll also have to learn how to take criticism in a more open spirit, particularly at this stage in your life when you are still learning your craft. It is important to know your limitations and current failings, so that you can work on them.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by David Quinn »

guest_of_logic wrote:
guest_of_logic: Even if I agreed that it were a "localized" (why use the American spelling?) meaning, such a localised meaning can very easily be reframed as a universal/necessary truth of the same type as 1+1=2. Can you see how?

David: I can't, no. But feel free to give it a try.
It's simple - it can be framed like this: "There is a possible world in which a particular person at a particular time apprehends the particular meaning [insert 'localised' meaning here]". Now, the statement is a universal and necessary truth, because, out of all possible worlds, such a possibility necessarily exists.

Going further (which, depending on how 'localised' the meaning is, we won't always be able to do), we can frame it as: "There is a possible world in which multiple people at a multiple times apprehend the particular meaning [insert 'localised' meaning here]". This universalises the truth - and the meaning - further, and separates it further from any individual mind.

Going even further (which, again, we won't always be able to do), we can frame it as: "There is a possible world in which all people all the time apprehend the particular meaning [insert 'localised' meaning here]". This universalises the truth and the meaning as much as it can be universalised without stripping away references to particulars.
You do make me laugh, Laird. The contortions you go through .... :)

Okay, let's look at it more closely:

The first paragraph basically boils down to: "There is a possible world where [insert some particular thing] exists." For example, there is a possible world where a purple elephant is singing Verdi's Requiem to an audience of deaf badgers. In other words, the way you frame it, Laird, the argument has nothing to do with "meaning" as such. It could apply to anything. It's just a vague statement about possibilities.

Logical truths contain hard data that can be verified in the here and now. By contrast, what you are offering here is a speculative argument that could apply to anything and is impossible to verify.

The second paragraph adds nothing. The same issues remain.

The third paragraph plunges into insanity. "There is a possible world where all people are apprehending the meaning of cheesecake all the time".

guest_of_logic wrote:
guest_of_logic: From that universalisation, it's easy to see how meaning itself (independent of the universalising truth in which it is couched) can be regarded as mind-independent, in the same way that 1+1=2 is.

David: A particular logical truth, such as 1+1=2, is true for all minds and all perspectives, whereas a particular meaning is dependant upon a particular mind and a particular perspective. As such, logical truths possess an objective quality that meanings lack.
As I've demonstrated above, though, "localised" meanings can be turned into universal logical truths. Granted, given that they refer to particulars, they are not as truly universal as such logical truths as 1+1=2, but here's where I can make good on what you just quoted me as saying - we can take the universalisation above even further, by stripping away all references to particulars (except that of a possible world), and simply write:

"There is a possible world in which there exists a meaning [insert 'localised' meaning here]".

Going the whole hog, we can arguably even strip out even reference to a possible word, and simply write:

"There exists a meaning [insert 'localised' meaning here]".
No, you can't turn a piece of speculation into a verifiable fact just like that. It is one thing to say it's possible that somewhere a purple elephant is singing Verdi's Requiem to an audience of deaf badgers (a speculation that is unverifiable), but it's quite another to assert that it must indeed be happening.

As for objectivity, I deal with that in my elaboration further below.

I think that perhaps Dennis has (and perhaps you have too) misunderstood what I mean by mind-independent. I'm not trying to argue that context, including the context of the mind in which the meaning is apprehended, is always irrelevant to the informational content of the meaning, but that much should be obvious - I'm not an idiot. Instead, by "mind-independent" I mean that:
1. meaning, consisting in information, can be seen as existing independently in the abstract, regardless of whether it is currently being apprehended by a mind, and that
2. the informational content of all meaning (that can be seen as existing in the abstract) is implicate in reality - in other words, that minds do not "create" meaning but instead "apprehend" it, just as minds do not "create" the truth that 1+1=2, but rather "apprehend" it.
Regarding your first point, the idea of "things existing independently in the abstract" has no meaning, given that the abstract world is a mental construction that depends on a mind to sustain it. Without a mind to provide the field of abstraction, there is no place for abstract things such as meaning to reside.

As for the second point, yes, there is a sense in which we can say that mind-constructed meanings are "implicate" in reality. Anything that arises in reality, inwardly or outwardly, no matter how fleetingly, can be said to be implicate in reality. It still doesn't change the fact that meanings are momentary mental creations that come and go, and that reality as a whole has no overriding meaning.

-
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Jamesh »

Liberty Sea
Sadly, there was not enough bullshit in your post to induce the urge to disagree. Those are the sorts of truths one learns while climbing up the mountain.

I don’t practice these things, so after X years of knowing them (at least in a superficial sense) they no longer have much importance to me. They once did though, before I realised enlightenment involving an intrinsic desire for goodness to others was not for me. Now, I only turn to them when distressed by some situation – they are ego calmers to me, not parameters for logical thinking.
By then, no matter what you do, you cannot be selfish, because you have no self to serve. The enlightened sage can care about the world or not care about the world. He can go around preaching the Truth to help people escape suffering, or he can hide in the mountain, or he can walk between the crowd without anyone noticing.
I’m glad you gave me an out so that I can continue to be self-centred :) I look at this as coming down from the mountain.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Jamesh,
Did your cable subscription run out?
TV broke?
off ratings period?
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Liberty Sea »

Jamesh wrote:Liberty Sea
Sadly, there was not enough bullshit in your post to induce the urge to disagree. Those are the sorts of truths one learns while climbing up the mountain.
My post was not anything special. As I said, it is just fundamental understanding. I came here to learn and mock my own folly, so, if you are in the impression that you know more than me and have something to teach me, please do so.

I don’t practice these things, so after X years of knowing them (at least in a superficial sense) they no longer have much importance to me. They once did though, before I realised enlightenment involving an intrinsic desire for goodness to others was not for me. Now, I only turn to them when distressed by some situation – they are ego calmers to me, not parameters for logical thinking.
An intrinsic desire of goodness for others? Not necessarily. Enlightenment is simply the absence of all delusions. Are you certain that you are not remaining in any delusion, and, would you prefer to remain in them? Furthermore, would you rather remain in your false selfhood than gaining real selfhood?
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by jimhaz »

[Edit: oops didn't realize I'd logged into my old account
Posted by Jamesh]

Well picked up Dennis. There is a direct correlation between me being disillusioned or bored with work, and me posting here.

I don't like posting at home much, cos I'm lazy, or don't like going over the same stuff time and time again, or because when I get into a topic I find it difficult to sleep.

I also lack sufficient bodhicitta or bodhisattva. Too much lack of meaning in my head (nihilism) to induce much in the way of those attributes. The story my ego uses to determine values was formed and reinforced by experience before I encountered philosophy. Suffering tightened my ego-story and the knots cannot be undone, at least without some form of severe external influence.

In terms of the dynamic duo of bodhicitta/bodhisattva, then I'm in two minds. I'm a bit stuck on the Truth Destroys Beauty maxim, so I'm reluctant to fall in love with the whole kit-kaboodle of the enlightenment game. Few seem to achieve *rational* enlightenment to the degree where Truth Creates Perfect Beauty - more seem to become lost in some mental form. In a positive-emotional sense I feel 90% dead, and truth is leading me to a rather negative reaction to the modern world. I miss the naïve spontaneous childlike joys of the ignorant. For these reasons, I can’t be earnest or courageous or even desire to "let go" of my constructed-by-experience self, and construct an ego with a more universal base, particularly as I don’t really believe anyone ever really does. Maybe some Ayahuasca Treatment would do wonders :)



For convenience - a buddhist dictionary describes these terms as:

Bodhicitta: The aspiration to attain full enlightenment in order to enlighten all beings. [Gosh, you'd need a big ego for that job]

Bodhisattva: One moved by compassionate zeal to aid fellow beings, hence willing to postpone his or her own entrance into Nirvana to this end.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Suffering tightened my ego-story and the knots cannot be undone, at least without some form of severe external influence.
I am the severe external influence.
Get your arse into gear.
Get set for potty training.
Locked