What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Yes, it does need to be combined with one's intuitive powers and a wholehearted desire to banish all delusion from the mind. Only then can one begin to act "correctly".
Hail to David, the strong power-principaled elephant in the ant-eater zoo! Let my praise tempt the weak to think flattery and the flat to think ridicule!

The statement made me actually think of John Nash, especially how it was portrayed in the movie "A Beautiful Mind". The greatest accomplishment in the end was surely not his mathematical theorizing but how he managed to get a grip on his delusions by combining logic, questioning and a passionate desire to not be fooled again by paranoid ideas and disembodied voices telling him how others were out for control and manipulation. He decided the "political discourse" in his mind was just not worth listening to anymore.

What a great story when it's allowed to function as a true modern parable of modern men.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

guest_of_logic wrote: Elizabeth,

"Evil isn't so much permitted to exist". So, I take it you have no belief in a higher power capable of eliminating evil through an act of will or anything like that. I kind of had that understanding of your world-view already, but you do seem to have sympathies for paranormal phenomena - I guess those sympathies don't extend to sympathy for (literal) divinity. Would it be fair to say that your world-view is naturalistic?

"Evil exists because it is good at what it does. It provides short term pleasure for those without a conscience, and those who are especially skilled at evil have no consequences. Evil is fought, but good never has won to the point of stomping out all evil, and evil keeps cropping up where certain desires exist. The desires themselves could also be classified as evil, but it is the more solid manifestations that are problematic."

That all seems accurate to me as far as it goes, which - it seems to me - is a naturalistic explanation of evil. Perhaps you would advance that evil traits, rather than having any spiritual source/mapping, evolved in the natural world as permutations or perversions of more wholesome or moral or social traits.
Yes, I believe that all of the above are fair statements.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

Diebert,

Aren't you the Grumpisaurus today! First, you come to prop up Sri David, making a rather dangerous allusion to a popular movie in support, and then your demolish Ma in a frustrated tirade!
What a great story when it's allowed to function as a true modern parable of modern men.
But there are a few difficulties to surmount. One is that Nash forced himself to cling to what you-all categorically regard as the supreme illusion: his love for his wife and his child, which is to say 'his tangible life, in a body, in time, here and now'. Isn't that a bit of an oversight on your part? You fail to mention in your tear-jerker that, in a certain sense, the QRS program is in some ways similar to Nash's 'abstract paranoid delusion' for stubborn intractability.

A stronger position is to examine with a little more critical skill. Not merely toe the part line...

That's so...2011!

U moet zelf spank, doe een beetje kritische zelfanalyse, en verslag uit te brengen in de ochtend!

;-)
fiat mihi
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Liberty Sea »

Talking Ass wrote:"Tuy nhiên, tôi sẽ cho phép bạn dọn dẹp gian hàng của tôi."
Talking Ass wrote:Kunga: Một con lừa không nghĩ rằng, anh chỉ là. Tuy nhiên, sau khi có trở thành một Kitô hữu sinh-một lần nữa, tôi hạnh phúc bạn giữ lại cảm giác hài hước của người Do Thái của bạn!

Và đối với phần còn lại của bạn (mặc dù tôi hứa hẹn đây sẽ là cuối cùng): Vẫn hy vọng sẽ nhận được xác nhận: bạn hay bạn không mong muốn tiêu diệt người cha của bạn và ngủ với mẹ của bạn? Trả lời xin vui lòng!
I am laughing hard, you know. That is some really bad Vietnamese. Especially because you use phrases that don't mean anything in Vietnamese, not to mention fucked up grammar and misuse of words. For example, "clean my boots" was translated into a phrase that reads as "clear up my store". Google translation sure is fun.
I know what you are thinking. And to clear that up, I am a Vietnamese, who happens to know English, German, French, Chinese, Japanese and am studying Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Spanish and Italian.
Unfortunately I don't spend my days trying to be clever and arguing on the Internet, but learning new languages to prepare myself to be a better vehicle of Truth (teacher, if you will).
The Chinese language plays a large role in Vietnamese language. Over 1000 years of domination, the Chinese has deeply imprinted their culture and philosophies upon Vietnam. Confucianism and Taoism, along with Chinese Buddhism, are three main philosophies dominant in Vietnam, as in many other Asiatic countries. Sino Vietnamese is in fact phonetic transcription of Chinese, and even modern Vietnamese contains a large amount of sino Vietnamese words. I can't help but think the culture allowed me to grasp Lao Tzu's words more smoothly.


@Guest_of_logic: Don't humans cause pain to other sentient beings for their benefit? Who has given humans the right to eat other animal? If a lion catches a deer, who has the right to save the deer and let the lion starve? Who has created the lion to be carnivorous? If human-eating giants suddenly appear, who has the right to save humans and let the giants starve?
I don't defend evil. I prefer to go beyond [human definition of] good and evil. That is what I call 'goodness', if you like that word.
Last edited by Liberty Sea on Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:41 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Liberty Sea »

Talking Ass wrote:If this last part (in 18 board inches of Liberty Sea's posts) is true [language drives us] poetry (a peculiar, freer, spontaneous, inspired and 'non-harshly rational or arational combined use of language, meaning and message) can have and sometimes does have message and meaning that is 'superior' to straight, strict, 'rational' use of language. In its best sense, poetry therefore [but really this depends.on the poem.and the poet] can be seen as the mode of expression that gets out from under the grip of.deterministic language.
It seems that you have reading comprehension problem. Let me repeat what Krishnamurti said again:
And if you use language, not [letting] language drive you, then we are using words without any emotional content. [Only] Then there is a possibility of exact communication."
He is saying we should use words without any emotional content, which is pure rationality.
In other words, what David said.
The best way to escape the grip of deterministic language is to push one's rationality as far as it can go and then take the leap beyond.
Genuine poetry -that is deliberate, rational, multi-layered poetry- can free people from being controlled by emotions. Holderline's poetry is the best example of this kind of poetry.
I guess the best way to get into poetry and understand genuine poetry's catharsis effect is to read Aristotle's Poetics.
Really, the lot of you know nothing about poetry, as do many self-proclaimed poetry-experts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis

Funnily enough, Aristotle's Poetics is a much-disdained book because his definition of genuine poetry is so unique and rational that people with common sense considered it absolutely un-poetic. But who are they to define what poetry should be?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

Talking Ass wrote:Push rationality as far as it will go and, taking the leap, write a poem!

That's what I do!

David, don't misunderstand: I do not think you are 'doing' anything to me. I am concerned about how ideas function, what hides behind the accepted-obvious, and also about 'true spirituality': what it is, what it does. I am just adding things from my angle. I don't see how you think I am a 'wimp'.

I think you allow yourself to become wimpy - as a way to avoid having a direct relationship with truth. Hiding in weakness, instead of developing in strength.

In any case, gurus can only have power if people give them power. If everyone was rational, clear and wise, then gurus wouldn't be needed. The entire industry would vanish. It's only because people are swamped with confusion that they look for easy answers from a guru.

And here lies the irony with respect to your position. By speaking in praise of confusion and by trying to suck every little bit of pleasure from its endless labyrinths, you are in fact promoting the guru industry. In other words, through your words and actions, you are promoting and strengthening confusion in other people, which then leads them to start seeking out gurus. And that is why I find your concerns about the guru industry to be insincere.

But hey, it's all part of being irrational.

It also seems that you are down-playing or explaining away K's core position of 'existential angst'.
I hate that term "existential angst". It's one of those vague terms that can mean anything to anybody. It's good for fostering confusion, though, so I can understand why it is a popular term.

The source of Kierkegaard's angst was his relationship to truth. He basically defined Christianity, or the spiritual path, as wholehearted passion for truth, and to the degree that his weaknesses prevented him from fully embarking on that, he suffered angst.

Similarly, you cannot see him as a 'man of faith' nor as a theist. Such selective vision! But that is how you often seem to see things...
He was a man who had faith in the Infinite.

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

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
guest_of_logic wrote: Elizabeth,

"Evil isn't so much permitted to exist". So, I take it you have no belief in a higher power capable of eliminating evil through an act of will or anything like that. I kind of had that understanding of your world-view already, but you do seem to have sympathies for paranormal phenomena - I guess those sympathies don't extend to sympathy for (literal) divinity. Would it be fair to say that your world-view is naturalistic?

"Evil exists because it is good at what it does. It provides short term pleasure for those without a conscience, and those who are especially skilled at evil have no consequences. Evil is fought, but good never has won to the point of stomping out all evil, and evil keeps cropping up where certain desires exist. The desires themselves could also be classified as evil, but it is the more solid manifestations that are problematic."

That all seems accurate to me as far as it goes, which - it seems to me - is a naturalistic explanation of evil. Perhaps you would advance that evil traits, rather than having any spiritual source/mapping, evolved in the natural world as permutations or perversions of more wholesome or moral or social traits.
Yes, I believe that all of the above are fair statements.
Families are the source of all evil, aren't they?

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

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Liberty Sea »

Both UG Krishnamurti and Jiddu Krishnamurti were anti-guru. UG's teaching, however, was just a poor imitation of J, an overly aggressive, superficial repetition of J's insight.
David Quinn wrote:
It also seems that you are down-playing or explaining away K's core position of 'existential angst'.
I hate that term "existential angst". It's one of those vague terms that can mean anything to anybody. It's good for fostering confusion, though, so I can understand why it is a popular term.

The source of Kierkegaard's angst was his relationship to truth. He basically defined Christianity, or the spiritual path, as wholehearted passion for truth, and to the degree that his weaknesses prevented him from fully embarking on that, he suffered angst.
Heidegger in his Being and Time made a distinguished definition of Angst, a concept he borrowed from Kierkegaard. Angst played an important role in Heidegger's philosophy as an agent that enables man (Dasein) to open up to the Truth of being.

"But there is a mood, anxiety or dread (Angst), that functions to disclose (dis-close) authentic being, freedom (Frei-sein), as a potentiality. It manifests the freedom of man to choose himself and take hold of himself. The relevance of time, of the finiteness of human existence, is then experienced as a freedom to meet his own death (das Freisein für den Tod), a preparedness for and continuous relatedness to his own death (Sein zum Tode). In anxiety, all entities (Seiendes) sink away into a "nothing and nowhere," man hovers in himself as ex-sisting, being nowhere at home (Un-heimlichkeit, Un-zu-hause). He faces no-thing-ness (das Nichts); and all average, obvious everydayness disappears--and this is good, since he now faces the potentiality of authentic being." - Heidegger
Heidegger and his almost Taoist philosophy is still far from being appreciated enough.
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Liberty Sea »

Cahoot wrote:
Liberty Sea wrote:In defense of Poetry, I think poetry can be used to convey Truth pretty effectively. Allow me to post some of Jiddu Krishnamurti's poems, exposing his 'enlightened vision'.
Though not poetry, this meaning is pretty clear.

“Out of my confusion, bewilderment, uncertainty, the feeling of being incapable of clarity - out of this I act. I choose a leader; I choose a certain course of action; and I commit myself to a particular activity, but that activity, that pattern of action, the pursuit of a particular mode of thought is the result of my confusion. If I'm not confused, if there is no confusion whatsoever, then there is no choice; I see things as they are. I act not on choice.

“A mind capable of choosing is really a very confused mind. perhaps you may not agree with this, but, please, if I may suggest, just listen to the very end of it, neither agreeing nor disagreeing.”

- Jiddu Krishnamurti
http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/19 ... ublic-talk
Yes, to be free is to free from the confusion of delusional concept of Free will. Choiceless awareness is a central theme of Krishnamurti's philosophy, which, to put in Kevin's word, is to become an immaculate machine of God, free from all biases and distortions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choiceless_awareness
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

Liberty Sea wrote:Heidegger in his Being and Time made a distinguished definition of Angst, a concept he borrowed from Kierkegaard. Angst played an important role in Heidegger's philosophy as an agent that enables man (Dasein) to open up to the Truth of being.

"But there is a mood, anxiety or dread (Angst), that functions to disclose (dis-close) authentic being, freedom (Frei-sein), as a potentiality. It manifests the freedom of man to choose himself and take hold of himself. The relevance of time, of the finiteness of human existence, is then experienced as a freedom to meet his own death (das Freisein für den Tod), a preparedness for and continuous relatedness to his own death (Sein zum Tode). In anxiety, all entities (Seiendes) sink away into a "nothing and nowhere," man hovers in himself as ex-sisting, being nowhere at home (Un-heimlichkeit, Un-zu-hause). He faces no-thing-ness (das Nichts); and all average, obvious everydayness disappears--and this is good, since he now faces the potentiality of authentic being." - Heidegger
Heidegger and his almost Taoist philosophy is still far from being appreciated enough.
Or to summarize, you can only enter authentic being when you have nothing to lose.

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

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

Easy does it, Mr Liberty Sea. Google translate does a perfectly horrible job of translating! But it is funny what comes out of it. Actually what is funny is to.put back in what it has badly translated to see what then comes out. I am excited by your grandiose plans. I like the ring of 'truth teacher' and it is impressive to be so clearly fired-up about anything. It is just that I don't go in for almost all of the truth-claims I hear. I begin to wonder (as I.expressed) if.it really does boil down to the imposition of personal will, and the use of.langauge for personal purposes? I was not commenting on what Krishnamurti said, but more about the notion that language in itself becomes a.determining force. Having studied at least some different languages, though not for the purpose of becoming a Truth Bringer to the world, I notice that language-systems do determine idea-flow and also perception. I don't give a rat's ass about Krishnamurti's---or your---conclusions about the function or relevancy of.poems or poetry as I seem to do a passable job on my own. Still, poetry as I know.it, turns ideas around, produces new combinations, opens perception to different vistas that may or may not reveal Truth in the Absolute sense that you are interested in---with a priestly arrogance, perhaps? (As I also alludes to)---but sometimes in exactly the opposite sense. But it is still interesting that, for you, and too for.Sri David, language and meaning must serve your specific and defined truths---some Grand truths, those! You will take the world by storm in ANY language, no doubt!

Meanwhile, down below, I will note your jeweled selves soaring along with the clouds...going hither and thither on Truth Missions---and you'll know what I'll be up to: examining it all from different angles, asking a question or two, doubting the declared claims, remaining deeply suspicious of 'priestly types'...

I think sometimes 'you' are some.sorts.of 'spiritual nazis' or is that too.strong a word?
fiat mihi
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

I think it's more to do with you being a wimp again....

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

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

Talking Ass wrote:Still, poetry as I know.it, turns ideas around, produces new combinations, opens perception to different vistas that may or may not reveal Truth in the Absolute sense that you are interested in---with a priestly arrogance, perhaps? (As I also alludes to)---but sometimes in exactly the opposite sense. But it is still interesting that, for you, and too for.Sri David, language and meaning must serve your specific and defined truths---some Grand truths, those! You will take the world by storm in ANY language, no doubt!
I'm reminded of a quote I read recently:

You can remove all the words from a brilliant thought.

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

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

The 'wimp argument', dear David, is not going to fly. Please keep in mind that in this phase I am examining strong ideas that have to do with 'inversion', 'reversal', 'restatement', etc. There are.moments when my thinking might come alongside yours, but generally speaking 'we do not share the same language'.

And that's cool...

It is.not impossible,.at least in some possible world, that for all your assertions, that you may be avoiding 'direct relationship with truth'. Ah but do you see how the phrasing has put me on the level that you, and the phrase, establishes? Curious, isn't it?

Apparently, too, we may define both weakness and strength differently. In any case, I don't think it will happen that I will submit to the Truth you define, but I neither will ask you to submit to mine.
fiat mihi
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Kunga,
I think just to know THE TRUTH...whatever it is...would be sufficient...God or not. I'm tired of not knowing, and tired of PTTTK !
you are, as a separate self,
absolutely, metaphysically, unutterably alone.
Duality.

you are, as One Being, the Being of Beings,
absolutely, metaphysically, unutterably alone.

there's no white bearded guy looking in, listening.
this is it.
it ain't a rehearsal.

You are jesus, christopher columbus, jack the ripper, the downtown hooker, the junkie in the alley, george washington, obama, the spider spinning the web, the rat in the drainpipe, the albatross gliding the mistral, the moon in june, the rolling thunder, the neuron hanging around a synapse that 'gets excited' for a minute or two then 'lets go', the weeds in the cracks in the concrete, the ruby rose in the florist's window.

It's all you,
You set it up.
You forgot.

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

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

DQ wrote:I'm reminded of a quote I read recently:

You can remove all the words from a brilliant thought.
That reminds me of a quote:
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

TA wrote:Easy does it, Mr Liberty Sea. Google translate does a perfectly horrible job of translating! But it is funny what comes out of it. Actually what is funny is to.put back in what it has badly translated to see what then comes out.
A few times I did this for amusement at BabelFish. The key is to take an initial passage which has some length and is quite familiar. I found the most hilarious linguistic round-trips were English -> Korean -> English.

Here is the Preamble to the US Declaration of Independence after coming back from the Orient:
They are given from life between of these happiness, the specification transfer which is freedom and tracking in compliance with their creator who has the right which is impossible, is self-explanatory, it respects and all people equally, was created this truth which is preserved in compliance with us, - It right, in order to secure the government in the man what kind of form of government which is founded will change it at any time this end becomes destructive or is a right of the people whom abolishes, and forms it foundation in like that principle and puts and from and about that (thing) field organizes in order to found the new government them bringing about a safety and a happiness positively almost, it force which is to like that shape and, will seem, governs the force which them is legitimate from motion deriving. The prudence, truly, is located when the government is exchanged respects the light and a transients cause and will instruct the fact that wears out; And therefore all experiences hath shewn, the human evil is a possibility of enduring and but, undergoes and tries to be disposed abolishes in order to compensate the shape which is a habit and is. But the aim which is identical changing, the despotic government which is absolute will pursue without, dictatorship system, oppression and dictator behavior, the despotic monarchy, that (thing) will listen in the prerequisite governments and despotist prerequisite theory voluntary lower parts and in order to decrease misappropriation and extortion the long train falls and when proving a design, like that government throws, their rights which their future safety to the new guard provide, their duties which are it, is.
(I had these nightmares of Hillary cracking her knuckles over her laptop and saying, "Never mind, I'll write it myself!" as she composes a letter to Kim Jong-il about nuclear weapons...)
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

DQ wrote:Or to summarize, you can only enter authentic being when you have nothing to lose.
Then what? Can one then proceed to acquire things without losing the authentic being...?
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

Okay, I'll admit I laughed, Mr Liberty Sea. Still, I don't have time for these amusements when I am subverting and inverting all Established Truths and drawing the masses along with me to interior, hidden and delcious partial truths. I cannot stop until.I.have draw out every last residual flavor, every possible delight!
fiat mihi
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Kunga,
I think just to know THE TRUTH...whatever it is...would be sufficient...God or not. I'm tired of not knowing, and tired of PTTTK !
you are, as a separate self,
absolutely, metaphysically, unutterably alone.
Duality.

you are, as One Being, the Being of Beings,
absolutely, metaphysically, unutterably alone.

there's no white bearded guy looking in, listening.
this is it.
it ain't a rehearsal.

You are jesus, christopher columbus, jack the ripper, the downtown hooker, the junkie in the alley, george washington, obama, the spider spinning the web, the rat in the drainpipe, the albatross gliding the mistral, the moon in june, the rolling thunder, the neuron hanging around a synapse that 'gets excited' for a minute or two then 'lets go', the weeds in the cracks in the concrete, the ruby rose in the florist's window.

It's all you,
You set it up.
You forgot.

Non-duality.

How about fungus, cancer & shit ?
The cracks the grass grows through, and
the crack in your ass,
It's all equal.
Duality is non-dual in reality.

What we see is an illusion.
The Real is Equally Undivided.
One Energy,
Manifesting as
Multiple


Image


[Thousand-armed Avalokitesvara]



Avalokiteśvara with 1000 arms and 1000 eyes. 12th century Chinese painting, Taipei, Taiwan.
One prominent Buddhist story tells of Avalokiteśvara vowing never to rest until he had freed all sentient beings from samsara. Despite strenuous effort, he realizes that still many unhappy beings were yet to be saved. After struggling to comprehend the needs of so many, his head splits into eleven pieces. Amitabha Buddha, seeing his plight, gives him eleven heads with which to hear the cries of the suffering. Upon hearing these cries and comprehending them, Avalokiteśvara attempts to reach out to all those who needed aid, but found that his two arms shattered into pieces. Once more, Amitabha Buddha comes to his aid and invests him with a thousand arms with which to aid the suffering multitudes.[20]



My interpretation of the Thousand-Armed Buddha is :

This One Body (The Universe/Multiverse)
Has many arms and faces...
But All is ONE.









BTW...Thank You (Dennis)....I feel most of the time that I really don't know...but in my heart, this is the only logical explanation I can think of....
Why do I even leave room for error ?

I felt a hot flash of love just now. What was that ???
Last edited by Kunga on Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:05 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

As far as poetry goes...

To me it represents a condensed form of truth/communication
Abstract, like an abstract painting.

High intelligence requires less lingo.
Example: Extraterrestrials say in 1 word what we spend volumes explaining.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Talking Ass wrote:One is that Nash forced himself to cling to what you-all categorically regard as the supreme illusion: his love for his wife and his child, which is to say 'his tangible life, in a body, in time, here and now'. Isn't that a bit of an oversight on your part?
Which part of "modern parable" didn't you get? A term which I purposefully used for this very reason. Weren't you tempted at all to see the wife and child as budding wisdom, the moment and the future? And perhaps the delusion as the general state of men? And even Nash himself still doubts the categories other have invented for his illness.

Like Laird in this instance you obviously "looked at the maps and photos, sniffed them, chewed them, threw them about". Why would you want to analyze the detail further? The plot was about someone overcoming delusion by using reason alone but also about the interesting link between out-of-the box complex thinking and the challenges which this causes to our sanity.

All in all you're behaving again like so many good old Genius Forum members, fitting in perfectly: witty, smart, fluent but with any shift in mood, threat level or monthly period and all rationality goes suddenly out of the window. Then all we get is a string of bad reading and insane conclusions which others have to clean up for them to no avail.
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

When you say 'budding wisdom', whose 'wisdom' are you referring to? While I think it is a great and a necessary thing to stop and to ponder [all activities, all views, all that we do and don't do], it should be clear by now that I am not convinced by the [general] 'truth claims' of the GF Tribe. But I am here with you. I am certainly not unwilling to work. But really, Diebert, I think it is fair to say that you are just ranting now.
The plot was about someone overcoming delusion by using reason alone but also the interesting link between out-of-the box complex thinking and the challenges which this can provide to our sanity.
THAT plot was about someone overcoming advanced psychosis, which is a wee bit different from recognizing delusions. You also drew a parallel to some of my comments on the 'politics of power' in relation to the sort of moulding skill and interpretive skill that mastery of language allows, and desired to paint this also as 'deluded' and paranoid, as if these questions shouldn't be asked. And with that we are back to the idea of 'truth claims'.
All in all you're behaving again like so many good old Genius Forum member, fitting in perfectly: witty, smart, fluent but with any shift in mood, threat level of monthly period and all rationality goes suddenly out of the window. Then all we get is a string of bad reading and insane conclusions which others have to clean up for them to no avail.
Please point out some 'bad readings' if you'd be so very very kind. Someday you are going to get a handle on what really motivates you and what really bothers you about my ideas, my style, and my thinking. This [rather incoherant] group of jabs just doesn't speak to me, Diebert. I am pretty clear where I am at and what I am doing. I made this plain when I came back in to the conversation (when it had gotten again to its predictable lull).

I am reading The Descent Into Hell which, theologically, is an upturning of an entire assumption about an entire 'spiritual' modus (conventional Christianity). There is much about this upturning that shines a favorable light on certain GF ideas, insofar as GF is or desires to be a radical upheaval of common conventions. I don't have any idea [still, I know you are just ranting which begs the question Why do I even bother to respond?] how you could not see this as a 'mood-shift' that has positive elements. But you know what I think, Diebert: you have in fact left these and this conversation a long time ago. On another level: you never entered it. I think you have lost track even of what it is about.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Talking Ass wrote:THAT plot was about someone overcoming advanced psychosis, which is a wee bit different from recognizing delusions.
Again with the details which you also are hardly aware of anyway. The movie exaggerated the psychiatric situation to the extreme as in real life John had some paranoid theories and had a hard time to distinguish between his own thoughts and outer voices for a while. That's not advanced psychosis.
You also drew a parallel to some of my comments on the 'politics of power' in relation to the sort of moulding skill and interpretive skill that mastery of language allows, and desired to paint this also as 'deluded' and paranoid
Are you sure I made it all about you again? It seemed to me more a coincidental theme of power-centric reasoning and suspicion raising which I tuned into. There's so much to explore there for a willing man.
I am reading The Descent Into Hell which, theologically, is an upturning of an entire assumption about an entire 'spiritual' modus (conventional Christianity). .....But you know what I think, Diebert: you have in fact left these and this conversation a long time ago. On another level: you never entered it. I think you have lost track even of what it is about.
You are indeed starting to read what I finished almost twenty years ago. These works function well in a very limited scope which I simply outgrew. But that's not a reason to look down upon it. Or if I do it's in pure amazement. So much is left behind, whole universes of "mendacious word bridges". They are all mine now, I own them [as in "mastered" the issues] while you are just visiting. Hah!
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

Ah, yes, I had fogotten: the 'spiritual one-upmanship of the ultra-rational'. I suggest that in your specific case, Diebert, you are not really in conversation, not learning or questing, but attmpting to assert your ascendency. This is the central weakness of the 'highly reasoned position' (when it.comes to unexplainable.existence). I submit as evidence this egoic display.

The thing about shifting the focus [in theology or in any domain] from a worship of the past [say, your 'twenty years ago'?] to an impulse, unknown, that comes from the future and illuminates the present, is that it might enable a more honest and immediate conversation.

To 'Hell' with your old reading!
fiat mihi
Locked