Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby guest_of_logic » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:38 pm

David Quinn wrote: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.


Yes, you can universalise the truth of the existence of particular objects and events using this same technique, but that's a different thing - meaning is not concrete like objects and events, it's abstract like truth, so that's why this approach leads to different results for particular meanings than for particular objects like "deaf badgers". You're thus straw-manning me when you write:

David Quinn wrote:
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.


This is a straw-man because what I'm suggesting is not like asserting the necessity of the existence of a specific event or object: as I explained above, meaning is abstract like truth, not concrete like an event or object. So, what I'm actually trying through my "contortions" to get you to see is that, just as truths are true even when no one is contemplating them, so meanings "mean" even when no one is apprehending them.

David Quinn wrote:
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.


I know that you've written in the past words to the effect of "1+1=2 would remain true even if there was no consciousness to contemplate it's truth". I'm just suggesting that you see how this extends to meaning too: that 'an object that absorbs all wavelengths of light visible to the human eye except red' means that 'a normally functioning (i.e. non-blind-or-colour-blind) human eye will perceive that object as red in colour' even if there is no consciousness to apprehend that meaning, and even if there is no such object in existence.

David Quinn wrote:As for the second point, yes, there is a sense in which we can say that mind-constructed meanings are "implicate" in reality.


I would say, "I'm glad you see my point", except that you seem to contradict yourself here. From my perspective, a meaning cannot be both "mind-constructed" and "implicate in reality". It could be "mentally apprehended" rather than "mind-constructed" though.

David Quinn wrote: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.


1. Not all meanings are "momentary"; in fact, like truth, there is a range of types of meaning, from most specific/momentary to most universal/timeless.

2. It seems to me to be a shifting of the goalposts to bring the "overriding" meaning of reality into it. The phrase "it's empty and meaningless" seems to be used as a bludgeon in a variety contexts, not all of them concerning the "overriding" meaning of reality. In any case, let me address it: the "overriding meaning" of reality could be seen as the amalgamation of all of the meaning within it, or, alternatively, it could be seen as the most universal high-order meaning within it; I'm sure there are various other ways of defining it - the point is that it definitely need not be seen as non-existent or empty. As to what the most universal high-order meaning might be, I won't speculate, except to suggest that it would be a spiritual one.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Jamesh » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:01 pm

Liberty Sea said
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.


Nah. I just post what I think, and stir a bit.

You seem to be in the right philosophical position, especially so considering your age, so I've no complaints. Been on the forum a long time, so there is a sense of been there, done that. Don't let any aggressive phrasing from me bother you.

As to teaching, well I'll leave that to others who are more competent and consistent, and less cynical :).

Just in case you don’t know there is an excellent collection of documents on David Quinn and Kevin Solways websites. I spent a lot of time looking at that stuff in the first few years.

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?


I am clearly not absent of all delusions, but that does not make me think I'm delusional. If I apply myself I am rational (relative to the limits of my front cortex processing, and, what I know and my subconscious recalls at the time), but otherwise I can be subject to emotional interferences.

I cant really know where I am still delusional until I have been caused to realise the logical faults in my current thinking. I'm aware of all the basics of reality, but can’t say for sure that I've fitted them all together. It's easy to say truths like "everything is interconnected", or "everything is caused", as some form of mantra, but it is much harder to grasp the How and Why those truths are what they are. To be fully non-delusional all gaps must be removed.

The statement Enlightenment is simply the absence of all delusions, while being true, has some connotations.

One of which is the absence to a large degree of standard human emotions, apparently replaced by the "oneness" emotion (I treat all feelings as emotions), an emotion or state seemingly boosted by the confidence emotion and supported by its conjoined brother, the emotion that comes from logical/rational/right thinking.

Another is the required death of our intrinsic attachment to the self. Intrinsic as in - "I am the centre of the universe because that’s where I think from" or "I must take into myself or my possession everything I need from outside myself in order to survive" or "To lessen danger, what I take in and what I do must be coordinated by a central authority, and that central authority must act in the best interests of my survival".

Furthermore, would you rather remain in your false selfhood than gaining real selfhood?

I hadn't read your response before I responded as jimhaz above, so it seems I've answered this pretty much already.

PS. I said "not parameters for logical thinking". That was phrased poorly - they are parameters for logical thinking, but I really meant as them as being a permanent way of thinking, an automatic enlightened way of thinking.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby guest_of_logic » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:20 pm

Here are some further musings. It seems to me that there are at least three types of meaning:

1. Consequential meaning. Sometimes when we ask, "What does that mean?" we are asking "What are the consequences of that?" This is the type of meaning of the red object example that I've been using in my past few posts: the meaning that the object will appear red to the human eye is a consequence of its absorption of all frequencies of light other than red.

2. Associative meaning. Sometimes when we ask, "What does that mean?" we are asking "What is that associated with?" This, for example, applies to words, or to works of art: one thing (the word or work of art) is associated with other things (a concept in the case of the word and a set of concepts and/or feelings in the case of the work of art) which form its meaning.

3. Intentional meaning. Sometimes when we ask, "What does that mean?" we are asking "What does s/he intend by that? For what purpose did s/he say it?" This, for example, would apply to the meaning of a council worker holding up a stop sign: the intentional meaning is for drivers to slow down and come to a halt.

So, David, when you write that "reality as a whole has no overriding meaning", it leads me to wonder which type of meaning you are talking about. Do you mean that reality has no overriding consequence(s), or that it conveys/contains no overriding association(s), or that it has/contains no overriding purpose(s)? My suspicion, given my knowledge of your thinking, is that you are most focussed on intentional meaning: I believe that this is essentially your way of saying, "There is no overriding intentional force behind the universe", or, in other words, "I, David Quinn, am an atheist". Would that be fair to say?
Last edited by guest_of_logic on Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Jamesh » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:23 pm

I am the severe external influence.
Get your arse into gear.
Get set for potty training.


Umm, I don't really listen to anyone Dennis, well apart from an occassional brief honeymoon period, where I judge that I could learn, or find entertainment in communicating with them.

Those days for you and me, have already past, so you'll be left convincing yourself again.

I have to say to think you can change someone like me, with such confidence, is mighty egotistical. Puts the fear of Evangelism into my rebellious cranium.

People have their own pathways - yours does not suit me, so I've rejected it all along.
You have spiritual basis to your reality, as in an inbuilt desire to merge with something else. I do not.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:17 pm

I was injecting a little humour into the situation.

Considering Liberty Sea has challenged you :

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?


Would it be possible for you to subject Liberty Sea to a fit and proper cross-examination so we can access his curriculum.

He has a verve that calls for exploration.

Can you do that?

I see you are already conversing with him,
perhaps a new thread would be better.

What do you think?

Can you bring yourself to the task?
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3860
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:39 pm

Laird,
meaning is abstract like truth, not concrete like an event or object.


events and objects are loaded with multiple significances applied by minds,
how concrete are they?

You think they have independent, objective existence.

Get up to speed will you.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3860
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Jamesh » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:49 pm

Can you bring yourself to the task?


No.

I think you need to let go of your controlling nature. It is not consistent with your ideals.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:53 pm

It was a request.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3860
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Alex Jacob » Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:06 am

David writes: [Answering cousinbasil] "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."
What you 'get excited' about and what someone else, especially those Spiritual Men from the world of spiritual lore that we access through stories, tales, scriptures, biographies and the like, may indeed be quite different things. Having more or less grown up within this lore---my parents sold everything when I was 13 and took me and my sister to live in India for a year---and having continued in it for quite a number of years, I can distinguish that what you focus on, and the way you focus on it, is exceptional, not a little weird with this blending of Taoism, Kierkeraarddian and Nietzschean philosophy, and the whole substructure of Weiningerianism. The other notable feature is a pseudo-rationalism, and it is very important to note this. You are NOT rational, and you are not a rational debater, and your ideas do not, in truth, depend on 'rational argumentation'! This is facade and to a significant degree pretense. I distinguished this very clearly in the podcast Victor Dachanko (sp?) debate between him and Dan and you. He decimated your position philosophically and rationally, and what was left was two mystic fundamentalist pseudo-rationalists yammering like old ladies!

The important thing to note (and all one can do is to note it) that it is not by way of rational assertion or logical demonstration that you assert your position or validate it, but by sheer, willful insistence. I suggest that a 'mirror' of this willfulness can be found in Dennis Mahar and quite a few other who post here with their absolutist, fundamentalist formulations. The place attracts those types because the structure of ideas that is outlined here fits the needs of that style of thinking! The environment becomes rather quickly 'dysfunctional' because that style of thinking will generally produce that sort of distortion. It goes beyond the mere quaint and, at times, becomes a parody of all the worst tendencies in thinking!

What I try to do is to reflect back that absurdity so that it can be seen, 2) suggest other means by which meaning and beauty and spirituality can be known, appreciated and lived. When one deals with people who have, as I say, 2 or 3 moving parts in their brains and mental structures---I grant you this!---it is very difficult to break through with any new method or means. But all the poems, humor, inversion and 'argument against' is only to keep other conceptual lines open. For the most part, if not completely, it can't get through. Because it stands outside the simple, repetitive 1-2-3 movement of your reasoning and perceiving system, it is described by you as folly, ignorance, etc.

This does not mean that 'fundamentalisms' do not have their place and even their use. I have been around these things, I feel, for all my life, and I have seen the different manifestations of them and, for reasons I haven't quite figured out, have had to deal with them. I 'deal' with them, forst of all, on an internal level, and I think it is in a region below that of the reasoning mind, perhaps in some 'psychological space'. And then arises the project of combatting [the fundamentalist forumlations] rationally and with argument, but also through presentation of other results of spiritual quest and understanding, mostly poems (which are totally unintelligible to your 1-2-3 mental structure).

A fundamentalism, say for example a strict, Pauline evangelical Christianity (this example because your philo-psychological position is essentially Protestant and evangelical), can and often does serve a useful function for the foundering individual: it provides a strct structure around which the 'soul' and personality can recoalesce around a harsh, but clarifying, program. One limits the range of consideration to the most elemental and the most simple, and remodels one's life relationally. All of the religions offer such a way of seeing Reality and acting in relation to it. A religious program is a way of life, a way of organizing life, a way of getting through life.

'Enlightenment' is the crucial term that you are completely unable to define. Indeed, as I say, there is only enlightenment of a given person, at a given time, in a given context. But to you, with your 1-2-3 thinking (both A = A and now 1 + 1 = 2), this is a disconcerting idea. No, there HAS to be a rational, mathematical solution to the problem of existence, to the confusion of it, 'And goddammit if Life doesn't offer me that equation, I will invent it and insist on it with all the fundamentalist fury contained within me!'

The Great Attraction of fundamentalist systems is in their offer of the Perfected Man. They say 'You too can do this!' but it is all dependant on offering the right kind of obeiscences to the Spiritual Master. You have to serve the Master first. Master often wants permanent chelas, but what often happens is that a self-willed or independently-minded student 1) wants to do exactly the same thing the Teacher does (have a following, get involved in this Image Management trip, get the Glory, etc.), or 2) He sees through the Teacher's shenannigans, sees the flaw in the formulations, and seeks to correct them. There is this part having to do with The Anxiety of Influence (Harold Bloom) where, sometimes, there is a deliberate 'misreading' in order to establish the new. I find it interesting that Cory brings up Cain & Abel: the ur-conflict between men, which also has the Father-Son dynamic established in it. Interestingly, Christianity is such a willful misinterpretation of Judaism, but is a Cain & Abel-level conflict. This is relevant because QRStianity is, at its core, a branch of Christianity (in the Kierkegaardian, Nietzschean and Wieningerian sense!).

David writes: "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."
The first step for any man is to gain familiarity with the 'world of ideas' and to plug in at some point. It is impossible, in a very real sense, to say where 'spiritual life' begins and ends, and it is possible to see all parts of life as essentially 'spiritual', and it is definitely possible to 'spiritualize' them. QRS may Grand Statements about what spirituality is and isn't, but effectively (with this 1-2-3 thinking) they shut down the ramp that leads to it! The choose to hide their heads in the sand and to fight tooth & nail against any other way of understanding or living spiritually! They 'control' and limit meaning, and the meaning they do hold, is a fundamentalist, limiting (self-enclosing, shrinking) structure.

With the above-quoted you express, order and offer a limited program fpr understanding 'the spiritual'. It is part-and-parcel of the limiting 1-2-3 structures you choose to operate within. I suggest that this is an expression of religiously-driven fundamentalist thinking and is also obscurantist. I have done little else but write why this is so and to offer alternatives...

David writes: "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."
Here, you engage in fundamentlist thinking to defend a fundamentalist program of thinking! It is verily the very structure of your mind. You cannot step outside of it. You have installed it, tweaked it, trouble-shot it, rewritten the sketchy parts, and now it is fundamentally YOU. Usually, this is where the torch gets passed.

It is very hard to say, now, what is and what isn't 'spirituality'. We seem to be in a process of remendous transformation, a transvaluation of values. Our language is being restructured. Our POV vis-a-vis the created, existent world is being reworked. I suggest that we have to redefine and reforumalate the Questions and hold to them. But to accept a limiting 1-2-3, A = A, tautological idea-structure as the best & finest. I don't thiiiiiinnnnnnkkkkk sooooo.....

David writes: "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."
Well, perhaps you should write about that. I don't see why you are so selfish! I on the other hand, am not confined at the 'entry level'! I soar through value & meaning, then bank off all the Holy Mountains, tell a tall tale or two, and then just sit there, tranquil, in reverant self-admiration! I am that wonderful!

David writes: "No, it doesn't, as it's based on lots of faulty ideas and premises."
Yes, and as Dan said 'aesthetical' perception. You have certain tools, rather blunt and over-used tools, that you employ so to appear to defeat 'faulty reasoning'. But it is more truthful to say that your faulty reasoning get challenged and defeated and you have a way to just roll over it...and go on exactly as before! This manoeuvre, as I have said many times (one notes it, hilariously, in Dennis), is an act of sheer will! You don't give a flying fuck about a rational premise, a rational rebuttle, and the constructon of a rational platform, because you are given to utterly mystical thinking, conclusions and activities!

Don't pay attention to the pseudo-reasoning, but follow the Will. This is one of the most important lessons to me about people and their ideas, and especially religious and spirtual ideas. At the base, a very defined Will is being expressed. Story, argument and 'reasoning' are used to support the foregone conclusion!

The Talking Ass© came down from his Sacred Domain to teach you all about this, but did you listen? Could you hear?
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Bob Michael » Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:51 am

Surely you're no dummy, Alex. But you lack depth of insight and deep understanding of the human condition. Keep searching and hopefully someday the answers will come and you'll clearly see the big picture.
User avatar
Bob Michael
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Alex Jacob » Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:58 am

You are somewhat weird, Bob, but I still like a great deal of what you write. ;-)

I don't know if it is my destiny either to know or to help this terrible human condition. I do not have a Great Mission in life. If there is a continuity of life (maybe it is all a simultaneity?), this life will have been one where a trajectory was (significantly) shifted. If I can succeed in expressing it in the novel I am working on, that might be an 'achievement'. I think each life should be motivated by Great Ideas. A man has to choose where, how, how much.

Here's a Story for y'all:

    Once upon a time, after many years of 'spiritual work' and struggle (as it always seems to be) Freddy Sinclair had a 'dream'. In the dream someone was knocking at the door and when he opened it a man was standing there. Light clothes but dark hair, in Jungian terms he might be a 'positive shadow' figure. Freddy recognized him but Freddy did not know where from. The man explained that Freddy had had many interactions with him, but in that 'dream' realm. Mentioning it, Freddy remembered some of them, but they were still closed off in that dimension where dreams occur.

    [It was suggested that we all have a similar 'back door' where we all have quite elaborate interactions that parallel our conscious, embodied lives. (But that is another story).]

    Then, the man introduced Freddy to a group of people, and each of those persons 'worked' with this fellow, each of them having had a unique, difficult even tragic experience in life where they got 'turned around'. To get turned around, in this sense, meant to serve other, new purposes. Freddy very distinctly remembered the quality of these people (men and women) who he was introduced to, and he very clearly remembered the 'mission' he and they were given (in this life). It was to be on the lookout for certain junctures (in people's lives, people in certain places and situations) where change can occur. He understood that we usually get there through crisis, and so crisis can be Holy Crisis [which I might suggest, dear David, is one of the Transcendent Metaphors operating in all spheroid universes...]

    What Freddy was given to understand, bless his heart, and what he internalized, is that there is no real 'spiritual attainment', there is no where really to go, there is really nothing to do, but to realize one really rather small 'thing' about life in the here-below, and to act in accord with that knowledge. In Freddy's own case, he defines that 'act' as 'untying knots'. In our world, in our realm of manifestations, that is one of the tricks and the traps that are part-and-parcel of the place itself. There are those who 'tie knots', and there are those who 'untie knots'. A great deal hinges in this peculiar area. Freedom and bondage, liberty or slavery, fluidity or coagulation.

    The last time I spoke to Freddy, he told me that he remained on his path and consitent with the simple, small thing he had been taught, in accord with his own internal prompting.

    "What is that 'thing', Freddy? Can't you reveal it? Wouldn't that serve the Transformation of the World if you spelled it out? The Dennises of the world NEED this information for their work! Why do you hold back?" I asked, frustrated.

    He laughed merrily. "You don't get it until you get it and then it is not a question of talking about it", he said, "but doing it. It is shown, not described. It enters through a doorway that is not the conscious mind!"

I haven't seen Freddy for some time. I don't quite know what to make of his gospel or that rather silly little story.

Still thinking about it I guess...

Epilogue: I suppose I should mention that the last time I saw Freddy he had transformed himself into a purple elephant and was singing Verdi's Requiem to an audience of deaf badgers!

"Synchronicity?" you ask.

"Anything is possible", I mumbled to myself, "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!" and walked on down the road, humbled & overcome.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Cory Duchesne » Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:13 am

David Quinn wrote:
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.


This is entirely subjective. I've used reason and the absolute to find God for myself. I am God, and that includes all emotions, experiences and people, everything around me. I have an active social life, I enjoy people, stories, music, dance. There's nothing weak about it.

I know people who hide in isolation, I have that soul in me. It creates a sense of great power and even grandiosity, blocking out the rest of the world, but it's just one of many modes of engagement with Life. You're no better than me.

Weaker, Stronger....even criticism, it's meaningless. I see things in terms of relationship, contrast, harmony, function, new death, and new life. There's no bad, there's no worse. Some people do not realize their divinity and have difficulty loving the whole. I help them with that.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Kunga » Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:44 am

one day i noticed my teacher washing a cup...
he held it and lathered it...
as if it were a living thing....

gives me goose bumps
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Cory Duchesne » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:15 am

Analytic reasoning is indeed a cup. It can help take you into the religious. But the aesthetic and ethical spheres are an endless play on creativity, involving economics, business, music, science... David's idea of a Sage is one of many limited roles.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Dennis Mahar » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:24 am

Analytic reasoning is indeed a cup. It can help take you into the religious. But the aesthetic and ethical spheres are an endless play on creativity, involving economics, business, music, science... David's idea of a Sage is one of many limited roles.


All these things are empty (causes/conditions)

You aren't doing anything.
'God' does it.

I am God,


In your dreams.
Last edited by Dennis Mahar on Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3860
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Cory Duchesne » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:27 am

I am God.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Dennis Mahar » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:30 am

You are empty.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3860
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Cory Duchesne » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:31 am

empty is full
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Kunga » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:35 am

Form is Emptiness
Emptiness is Form

Within the expanse of spontaneous presence is the ground of all that arises.
Empty in essence, continuous by nature,
it has never existed as anything whatsoever, yet arises as anything at all.

(Longchenpa)
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Cory Duchesne » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:36 am

Around the hero everything becomes a tragedy, around the demi-god everything becomes a satyr play, and around God everything becomes —what? Perhaps a “world”?— (Nietzsche)

This is one of my favourite Nietzsche aphorisms. The truth is, all three levels are God. The hero, however, has no wisdom, and his attempt at creating a reality for himself ends in his own demise. He is the fool.

The demi God has some wisdom, and so he laughs at his creations.

The God is entirely detached, and creates worlds effortlessly, without even enough oppression to laugh at himself.

A man who is always giggling is a very oppressed man. Watch out, he will do something very reckless, that will endanger both you and him.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Dennis Mahar » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:38 am

Go and lay on a train track.
Wait there for the 10.40.
Get back to me this afternoon.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3860
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Cory Duchesne » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:40 am

Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive. - Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Bob Michael » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:50 am

Alex wrote:You are somewhat weird, Bob.....

Such a view is understandable and quite acceptable here, Alex. Most, but not all, people feel the same way about me. But just beneath that weirdness is a brilliant (and most importantly) centered and balanced mind. A mind that in a sense could be called a no mind in the normally accepted scheme of things. A mind that is God-centered, if I may, and in a body that harmoniously corresponds or flows with it and life everywhere. A long-awaited, fully-awakened, and near-pure Spirit in a human body, if you will.

Which is what I feel you may have the potential to become, if only you would stop 'running' with your cleverness and come to the end of your 'self'. Whereby the light just might break through and you'll thereby come to realize that you, like myself, just may have a "Great Mission" in life. You'll also come to fully understand and experience potentially unending "Synchronicity" in your very own life. Whereby alone you'll come to be of real value in helping others discover and enjoy that delightful and indescribably wondrous synchronicity working in their own lives.

Alex wrote:.....but I still like a great deal of what you write. ;-)

Unlike yourself, at least presently, I'm dead serious about the things I write, Alex. Nor are my intentions, also unlike yourself, to belittle or feel superior to or more clever than others. I suggest your "novel" is very likely but another means of 'running' and very likely will serve no real purpose, save for perhaps (and hopefully) learning more about yourself and thereby helping you come to that vital and necessary dead-end. Whereby your wealth of knowledge and keen insights will begin to all make sense to you and will then serve to effectively help bring true and full Illumination into the lives of others.

Alex wrote:Be an eye

This may be important for starters, Alex, but ultimately one must be a LIGHT unto himself and the world!
User avatar
Bob Michael
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Kunga » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:52 am

God is Dead ~ Fred

lol

just wondering why you love quoting FN Cory :)
Last edited by Kunga on Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

Postby Alex T. Jacob » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:53 am

I feel you may misunderstand what Cory, drinking fire, means by declaring himself divinity. I guess it is a tough bridge to cross: some have said we can't say Man becomes God and must phrase it God becomes man. In my delirious, aesthetical view, if we do not recognize just how we are connected with divinity, we have not really gotten on the boat. In much of Hindu metaphysics, from which Buddhism arose (the rebellion of Cain, the Anxiety of Influence) the perception and all the senses are the connecting substance between God and man.

I think I also believe that, though I am waiting for the Authorized comic book where it is drawn, not merely described. THEN I may decide to believe it.
I can't go on. I'll go on.
User avatar
Alex T. Jacob
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest