What is reality, what is a 2x4?

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

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

Postby Liberty Sea » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:35 pm

http://i.imgur.com/ftOcs.jpg



David Quinn wrote:Here is a different translation of that passage:

My words are easy to understand, and easy to perform,
Yet no man under heaven knows them or practices them.

My words have ancient beginnings.
My actions are disciplined.
Because men do not understand, they have no knowledge of me.

Those that know me are few;
Those that abuse me are honoured.
Therefore the sage wears rough clothing and holds the
jewel in his heart.


-

That translation is pretty good, but still has mistakes. I guess it is hard for a Westerner to fully grasp Chinese.
I have read the original.
Chinese: 第七十章: 吾言甚易知, 甚易行. 天下莫能知, 莫能行. 言有宗, 事有君. 夫唯無知, 是以不知我. 知我者希, 則我者貴. 是以聖人被褐懐玉.
Vietnamese phonetic transcription of original Chinese (sino Vietnamese): Ngô ngôn thậm dị tri, thậm dị hành, thiên hạ mạc năng tri, mạc năng hành. Ngôn hữu tông, sự hữu quân. Phù duy vô tri, thị dĩ bất ngã tri. Tri ngã giả hi, tắc ngã quý hĩ. Thị dĩ thánh nhân bị hạt, hoài ngọc.
My translation, for clarity, not poeticality:
"My words are easy to know/understand, easy to practice. Yet people in the world (under heaven) neither know/understand nor practice.
[My] words have reason/origin, [my] deeds have methods/discipline.
People in the world do not understand/know that, so they can't understand/know me.
Few people understand me, therefore I am a rare treasure.
That is why the sage wears rough clothing and yet holds [inner] jewels."

Oscar Wilde was a fan of Lao Tzu, and I guess his statement:"To be great is to be misunderstood" was borrowed from the above chapter of Tao Te Ching.
BTW, the Tao Te Ching is not really poetry in the common sense of the world. Ancient Chinese scripts, ethical or spiritual, are written in rhythmical prose so that they can easily memorized, in order to preserve wisdom in a convenient way. That is why ancient Chinese students and scholars could memorize a lot of scriptures, but unfortunately in a parrot-like way and few could truly understand them.
User avatar
Liberty Sea
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

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

Postby David Quinn » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:06 pm

Liberty Sea wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Here is a different translation of that passage:

My words are easy to understand, and easy to perform,
Yet no man under heaven knows them or practices them.

My words have ancient beginnings.
My actions are disciplined.
Because men do not understand, they have no knowledge of me.

Those that know me are few;
Those that abuse me are honoured.
Therefore the sage wears rough clothing and holds the
jewel in his heart.


That translation is pretty good, but still has mistakes. I guess it is hard for a Westerner to fully grasp Chinese.
I have read the original.
Chinese: 第七十章: 吾言甚易知, 甚易行. 天下莫能知, 莫能行. 言有宗, 事有君. 夫唯無知, 是以不知我. 知我者希, 則我者貴. 是以聖人被褐懐玉.
Vietnamese phonetic transcription of original Chinese (sino Vietnamese): Ngô ngôn thậm dị tri, thậm dị hành, thiên hạ mạc năng tri, mạc năng hành. Ngôn hữu tông, sự hữu quân. Phù duy vô tri, thị dĩ bất ngã tri. Tri ngã giả hi, tắc ngã quý hĩ. Thị dĩ thánh nhân bị hạt, hoài ngọc.
My translation, for clarity, not poeticality:
"My words are easy to know/understand, easy to practice. Yet people in the world (under heaven) neither know/understand nor practice.
[My] words have reason/origin, [my] deeds have methods/discipline.
People in the world do not understand/know that, so they can't understand/know me.
Few people understand me, therefore I am a rare treasure.
That is why the sage wears rough clothing and yet holds [inner] jewels."

That seems pretty close to me. Where do you see the mistakes?

It makes you wonder about the translation provided by Kunga. It's as though the fellow pulled three-quarters of it out of his arse. Sorry, I meant heart!


Oscar Wilde was a fan of Lao Tzu, and I guess his statement:"To be great is to be misunderstood" was borrowed from the above chapter of Tao Te Ching.
BTW, the Tao Te Ching is not really poetry in the common sense of the world. Ancient Chinese scripts, ethical or spiritual, are written in rhythmical prose so that they can easily memorized, in order to preserve wisdom in a convenient way. That is why ancient Chinese students and scholars could memorize a lot of scriptures, but unfortunately in a parrot-like way and few could truly understand them.

Yes, it's clearly far too rational to be a poem.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

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

Postby Liberty Sea » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:35 pm

David Quinn wrote:That seems pretty close to me. Where do you see the mistakes?
-

Aside from the second to last sentence, it is not so much mistakes as insufficiency in conveying the spirit of the original words. I feel as if one must be born in a somewhat of a close culture to his to fully grasp it.
The word "宗" can mean ancestry, origin, root, principal aim/purpose, or school (as in "Pure Land school" or "Middle Way school"), words with good measure. What Lao Tzu means by this is that his words are not spoken randomly, spontaneously, capriciously, but have deliberate reason, principle and systematical root. In other word, very rational.
The word "君" can mean monarchy, or military discipline. What he means is that his actions, however spontaneous it may seems, are in fact very methodological, with strict principle.
Now is the main mistake. The word "則" does not mean "to abuse" or anything close to that, albeit it is homophone with a word that means "to tackle", "to execute", "to handle", "to deal with" (as in "to tackle a criminal", "to handle a criminal") which can be translated as "abuse" if the context is appropriate. However, regardless of the context, the word "則" here means "of course", "then", "therefore", "thus", "it necessarily follows that" as used in a logical deduction. What Lao Tzu mean here: The fact that people who understand him are very rare necessarily means that he is a man of tremendous value; but it can also be understood that he values those few who understand him.
Also, "under heaven" should be understood as society in general, as those common people that spread rumor and gossip. "People in general/common society do not understand me" would convey what he means better than "No man under heaven understands me".
It makes you wonder about the translation provided by Kunga. It's as though the fellow pulled three-quarters of it out of his arse. Sorry, I meant heart!

Yeah. Having not previously read any English translation in entirety, when I first read Kunga's post I was confused and wondered where the hell those passages came from. When you posted the better version I was like "Ah!"

I used to be a poet and I admit that most of the time I just wrote them spontaneously, capriciously and vaguely in a way that sounds 'poetic'. However analyzing my own poems did give me insight into language.
Last edited by Liberty Sea on Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Liberty Sea
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

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

Postby Liberty Sea » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:37 pm

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'.

I have no name (from The Song of Life)
I have no name,
I am as the fresh breeze of the mountains.
I have no shelter;
I am as the wandering waters.
I have no sanctuary, like the dark gods;
Nor am I in the shadow of deep temples.
I have no sacred books;
Nor am I well-seasoned in tradition.
I am not in the incense
Mounting on the high altars,
Nor in the pomp of ceremonies.
I am neither in the graven image,
Nor in the rich chant of a melodious voice.
I am not bound by theories,
Nor corrupted by beliefs.
I am not held in the bondage of religions,
Nor in the pious agony of their priests.
I am not entrapped by philosophies,
Nor held in the power of their sects.
I am neither low nor high,
I am the worshipper and the worshipped.
I am free.
My song is the song of the river
Calling for the open seas,
Wandering, wandering,
I am Life.
I have no name,
I am as the fresh breeze of the mountains.
--------------
My comment: Krishnamurti is right. Truth has no name. Truth is not a philosophy, a theory, a tradition.
--------------
I Am All
I am the blue firmament and the black cloud,
I am the waterfall and the sound thereof,
I am the graven image and the stone by the wayside,
I am the rose and the falling petals thereof,
I am the flower of the field and the sacred lotus,
I am the sanctified waters and the still pool,
I am the tree that towereth among the mountains
And the blade of grass in the peaceful lane,
I am the tender spring leaf and the evergreen foliage.

I am the barbarian and the sage,
I am the impious and the pious,
I am the ungodly and the godly,
I am the harlot and the virgin,
I am the liberated and the man of time,
I am the the indestructible and the destructible,
I am the renunciation and the proud possessor.
I am all
few know me.

I am neither This nor That,
I am neither detached nor attached,
I am neither heaven nor hell -- few know me --
I am neither philosophies nor creeds,
I am neither the Guru nor the disciple.
O friend,
I contain all.

I am clear as the mountain stream,
Simple as the new spring leaf.

Happy are they
That meet with me.
---------------------
My comment: The enlightened man is beyond all duality, even the duality of dualism and non-dualism, of attachment and detachment. Such a man is beyond human moral judgement. Who cares if he had sex or not sex. Such man, even if he engaged in a marriage, he would still not be attached to it (like Chuang Tzu). Celibacy or non-celibacy is unimportant, when his heart is not bound by anything. He is neither ashamed of bad deeds nor proud of good deeds, nor the other way around. Whether he tells truth or lie, outwardly expresses anger or excitement, there is in his heart an oceanic depth where neither the wave of sorrow nor joy can reach. Such man is free.
In his "The Book of Life" (not "The book of Wife"), Krishnamurti commented:
"March 8
The cultivation of detachment

There is only attachment; there is no such thing as detachment. The mind invents detachment as a reaction to the pain of attachment. When you react to attachment by becoming “detached,” you are attached to something else. So that whole process is one of attachment. You are attached to your wife or your husband, to your children, to ideas,to tradition, to authority, and so on; and your reaction to that attachment is detachment. The cultivation of detachment is the outcome of sorrow, pain. You want to escape from the pain of attachment, and your escape is to find something to which you think you can be attached. So there is only attachment, and it is a stupid mind that cultivates detachment.
All the books say, “Be detached,” but what is the truth of the matter? If you observe your own mind, you will see an extraordinary thing—that through cultivating detachment, your mind is becoming attached to something else.

March 9
Attachment is self-deception


Attachment is self-deception
We are the things we possess, we are that to which we are attached. Attachment has no nobility. Attachment to knowledge is not different from any other gratifying addiction. Attachment is self-absorption, whether at the lowest or at the highest level. Attachment is self-deception, it is an escape from the hollowness of the self.The things to which we are attached — property, people, ideas—become all-important, for without the many things which fill its emptiness, the self is not. The fear of not being makes for possession; and fear breeds illusion, the bondage to conclusions. Conclusions, material or ideational, prevent the fruition of intelligence, the freedom in which alone reality can come into being; and without this freedom, cunning is taken for intelligence. The ways of cunning are always complex and destructive. It is this self-protective cunning that makes for attachment; and when attachment causes pain, it is this same cunning that seeks detachment and finds pleasure in the pride and vanity of renunciation. The understanding of the ways of cunning, the ways of the self, is the beginning of intelligence.


March 11
Attachment is escape

Just try to be aware of your conditioning. You can only know it indirectly, in relation to something else. You cannot be aware of your conditioning as an abstraction, for then it is merely verbal, without much significance. We are only aware of conflict. Conflict exists when there is no integration between challenge and response. This conflict is the result of our conditioning. Conditioning is attachment: attachment to work, to tradition, to property, to people, to ideas, and so on. If there were no attachment, would there be conditioning? Of course not. So why are we attached? I am attached to my country because through identification with it I become somebody. I identify myself with my work, and the work becomes important, I am my family, my property; I am attached to them. The object of attachment offers me the means of escape from my own emptiness.
Attachment is escape, and it is escape that strengthens conditioning."
==========
According to J. Krishnamurti, if something is cultivated, it is fabricated. Like Martin Heidegger (whom I consider the greatest Western philosopher. He surpassed Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, both of whom influenced him strongly), Krishnamurti held that any merely oppositional movement remains trapped in the logic/area of what it opposes. To transcend worldly attachment and opposites - maintained Krishnamurti- one must quietly observe his state of mind, not cultivate detachment.
With his incredible research into poetry and language, Heidegger concludes that language speaks us. He said:
"Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man"
And independent of Heidegger's research, Krishnamurti had the same observation:
"Language, that is the usage of words, the meaning, the verbs, the syntax – language, drives most of us. Right? When you say, "I am a Frenchman" – the word is active and forces us in a certain pattern. So language uses us – right? I do not know if you have not noticed it. When you use the word "Communism", "Socialism" or "Capitalism" or a Catholic, a Protestant, a Hindu, a Jew and so on [to describe yourself], these are the words which act upon us and force us to think in a certain way. Right? So language is driving us, using us. 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."
User avatar
Liberty Sea
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

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

Postby Cahoot » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:38 pm

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
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

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

Postby Talking Ass » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:50 pm

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

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

Postby Talking Ass » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:06 pm

Jamesh, appreciated your post. A couple of things. I am myself careful in the use of the word 'evil'. In fact, in my case, it gets harder and harder to distinguish either 'good' or 'evil' (or bad). Not so long ago I used the phrase 'borders on evil' in regard to the conveyance of ideas or conclusions in a post by Sue Hindenmarsh. I distinguish only a couple of areas that I (personally) might consider as 'evil'. One is deliberate torture and cruelty inflicted on another being. The other is far more tricky, and has to do with establishing conceptual pathways that lead a being not to freedom but to bondage. Along these lines, and connected to the above posted idea about freedom in use of language, I think that some language-constructs can lead to 'freedom' and others to bondage. The issue or.the problem I note in the GF formulations is that 'they' have arrogated to themselves the right and the power to decide very tricky and very subtle questions with their philosophical hammers. In short, one must be very very careful with one's declarations. One must always keep one's eye on 'the priestly class'.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

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

Postby guest_of_logic » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:28 pm

Liberty Sea,

To clarify why I responded as I did to your previous post: it seemed to me to be apologetics for evil, in part by watering down what that evil consists of. You wrote that the devil's view of what is "wrong" might be:

1. to adopt a view that will eventually lead to failure, and cause harm to the one adopting it; 2. to adopt a view that is ultimately false, regardless of prevailing perspectives or popular opinions.

This is also compatible with what is commonly understood as God's view of "wrong" (perhaps arguably He would find (2) justified in certain cases), except that God's view goes further, to not causing harm to others. You have crucially left out what is commonly understood to be the devil's view of "right", too, and that is the converse of God's view of "wrong": to deliberately cause pain, suffering and misery to others for selfish reasons. It seems to me that rather than presenting a recognisable view of the devil, you are redefining his nature to something that can be appreciated. That is what I am objecting to: the apologetics for and watering down of evil.

So, the simple point I'd make is that to the extent that the devil delights in doing evil and God delights in doing good, we ought to be clear about what exactly those entail: delight in causing pain, suffering and misery to others, in torturing and abusing them, and delight in causing joy, peace and happiness to others, in loving and cherishing them. You might want to muddy the waters with prior social conceptions as to whether such acts would then have been classified as good or evil (and I would argue that in most cases, in instances where they were seen as "good" it was because they served a higher purpose, such as the glory of the nation or tribe, or the elimination of those who meant one harm, which is not the case with the devil's evil, a malevolence devoid of higher purpose), but let's at least contrast what they are as starkly as they ought to be: they are polar opposites.

David,

Your analysis is, as usual, distorted and twisted beyond recognition. Faith in God does not entail failure to introspect. Recognition of external predatory psychic forces doesn't relieve one of the need to recognise and overcome personal shortcomings.

As for "the path to truth": it's typical of you to refer to your own philosophy as "the" truth, when, even to the extent its abstractions are true, it leaves out so much that's of relevance: there is so much more to truth than (to the extent they even are true) "every thing is caused" and "no thing exists inherently"; there is so much more to spirituality than rejecting the ego and the emotions. Your "truth" is in many ways a caricature.

As for a "medieval" view of good versus evil: my view is not as stark and black and white as you might be implying. I recognise that it is not always useful to view human affairs through the dichotomy of good and evil (even though that dichotomy could always be applied). Life is nuanced, and human motivations are complex; I recognise this. A lot of the time people aren't so much trying to be "good" or "evil" as simply to survive, or to enjoy life and to create something novel with it.

Kunga,

"Maybe Laird is not ready for a Godless spiritual journey". Could it also be said that maybe you and David aren't yet ready to start searching for the right understanding of God?

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.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

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

Postby Kunga » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:30 am

David Quinn wrote:
Kunga wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I'm sorry, it's a weakness. I admit I'm not the finished article.

My teachings are easy to understand
and easy to put into practice

Yet your intellect will never grasp them,
and if you try to practice them, you'll fail

My teachings are older than the world
How can you grasp their meaning ?

If you want to know me,
look inside your heart.



[From your brother, Lao-tzu]









Here is a different translation of that passage:

My words are easy to understand, and easy to perform,
Yet no man under heaven knows them or practices them.

My words have ancient beginnings.
My actions are disciplined.
Because men do not understand, they have no knowledge of me.

Those that know me are few;
Those that abuse me are honoured.
Therefore the sage wears rough clothing and holds the
jewel in his heart.


-




And heres another one :( Red Pine )



70.1 My words are easy to understand easy to employ but no one can understand them no one can employ them
70.2 words have an ancestor deeds have a master because they have no understanding people fail to understand me rare are they who understand me thus I am exalted
70.3 the sage therefore wears coarse cloth and keeps his jade inside



So .....by keeping his Jade , Jewel, or Heart inside....does that mean he keeps the Truth to himself ?
Like "Don't cast your pearls to the swine " ?
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

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

Postby Kunga » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:41 am

guest_of_logic wrote:Kunga,

"Maybe Laird is not ready for a Godless spiritual journey". Could it also be said that maybe you and David aren't yet ready to start searching for the right understanding of God?


True. I have searched for God. I feel He [ IT ] is everything. I still don't know if that really is the Ultimate Truth. I don't know the Ultimate truth.
I love Lao Tzus' philosophy of the Tao.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

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

Postby Talking Ass » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:45 am

"My words are easy to know/understand, easy to practice. Yet people in the world (under heaven) neither know/understand nor practice. / [My] words have reason/origin, [my] deeds have methods/discipline.
People in the world do not understand/know that, so they can't understand/know me. / Few people understand me, therefore I am a rare treasure. / That is why the sage wears rough clothing and yet holds [inner] jewels."
What I find interesting in this, is that this is a declaration of the value of the content of the philosopher/mystic, as well as the 'methods' (ethics) that arise from the perception and skill of that mystic philosopher.

There are many priest-classes throughout the history of religions which make just such basic declaration. I am thinking of Manu and the relationality of 'Brahminic' culture [the conquering class] and ethic to those lower classes that are subject to that 'superior' class [the sudras, the conquered, the slaves]. So, in this sense, when the writer-philosopher says that 'people under heaven neither know/understand nor practice' one can take a look at any specific peasant-class from Alabama to rural Vietnam, who are unsophisticated, unlettered and 'ignorant', and understand why the superior class with education, command of language, ability to handle and to 'control' meaning, and which is also the administrative class, has 'reasons/origin and methods/discipline' that people 'do not understand', and so that Brahminic classman correctly views himself as being 'the rare treasure'.

While I have no doubt that this writer/philosopher sees himself as a sage of another order, as one who responds to 'heaven's decrees' (or what-have-you), it is wise to demystify his teaching a little. Or to understand it also in the context of social systems and hierarchies. He who controls language, who is trained in it, skilled in it, is automatically thrust into a 'superior' position vis-a-vis all who are 'below'. It is indeed a 'rare treasure'. But this is just as true in Medieval Catholic European culture as it is in 'Vedic' India, and of course anywhere else.

Is it possible that Westerners (and Easterners) are 'mystified' by these priestly declarations that, when stripped of their mysteriousness (by being written in simple, clear language), do not contain as much as they are assumed to or imagined to?

Finally, language is the core 'skill' around which 'logic' has traditionally gathered itself. Language and speech are divine dispensations and are always portrayed as having 'descended' down to us. This level of logic is not available by the lower classes and so is 'mystified'. Yet too, most of the great achievements of culture come from the class who applies these logics, and these achievements are always beyond the reach of the unlettered.

I think that what I would like to suggest is that the use of logic, the application of logic, the faith in logic and the insistance on logic as the only viable means of discovering truth will always open up into a troubled territory. 'Logic' (and the skills and applications that derive from it) is used both 'creatively' and 'destructively'. To be 'logical' and to think 'logically' is not a guarantee of acting correctly or 'productively'.

All priestly classes hold a great deal of the Treasure, no doubt, but it is also true that these classes also weild control, and in a certain sense use their language and power-skill to uphold hierarchies, maintain power-relations, etc. I will say that I note in a good percentage of David's declarations about his own views a strong power-principal at work. This might be considered 'the elephant in the room'. Note that all the minor 'sris' always seem to demonstrate that it really does resolve to a power-issue. As in: I will tell you how it is and you will ACCEPT!
__________________________________________________

I used to eat at a lovely Vietnamese restaurant down on Colfax in Denver. The ancient matriarch who ran the place, wordlessly mostly from the corner through commands given with her eyes, once smiled at me and said: "Vật nuôi một con lừa và biết sự thật." I never understood her until I myself emerged into my true Selfhood and became what I really am.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

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

Postby Kunga » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:33 am

Talking Ass wrote:one can take a look at any specific peasant-class from Alabama to rural Vietnam, who are unsophisticated, unlettered and 'ignorant', and understand why the superior class with education, command of language, ability to handle and to 'control' meaning, and which is also the administrative class, has 'reasons/origin and methods/discipline' that people 'do not understand', and so that Brahminic classman correctly views himself as being 'the rare treasure'.


To me this stinks of selfish/greed.

Of all people....it's the ignorant/uneducated, that need to learn these precious treasures the most. The rich are always hoarding for themselves.

People should not be controlled [like slaves], just because they are ignorant or uneducated.

No one should be controlled/manipulated.....but freed of ignorance & slavery.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

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

Postby Talking Ass » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:22 am

Kunga wrote: "To me this stinks of selfish/greed. Of all people....it's the ignorant/uneducated, that need to learn these precious treasures the most. The rich are always hoarding for themselves. People should not be controlled [like slaves], just because they are ignorant or uneducated. No one should be controlled/manipulated.....but freed of ignorance & slavery."
Except that this has been, and still largely is, how Power functions. The point I am trying to make, putting old LaoTsu under the microscope, is how any priestly plan and system is tied into a hierarchical dynamic. I only bring it up because, in the translation offered by Mr Liberty Sea, the power dynamic seemed rather stark. Or am I (sinner, infidel, 'non-rationalist') seeing wrong? I suggest: David (and others) give evidence in an 'indulgence in' a form of power dynamic that is relational: I.e. "We have the Truth. We tell you what it is. You ACCEPT!"

Still, humbly and generously, I say: "Tuy nhiên, tôi sẽ cho phép bạn dọn dẹp gian hàng của tôi."
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

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

Postby Kunga » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:44 am

Talking Ass wrote:Still, humbly and generously, I say: "Tuy nhiên, tôi sẽ cho phép bạn dọn dẹp gian hàng của tôi."


bạn có nghĩ rằng bạn là thông minh?
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

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

Postby Talking Ass » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:00 am

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!
Last edited by Talking Ass on Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

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

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:15 am

Or am I (sinner, infidel, 'non-rationalist') seeing wrong? I suggest: David (and others) give evidence in an 'indulgence in' a form of power dynamic that is relational:


You 'see' a power dynamic.
As you 'saw' your parents as a power dynamic.

You keep yourself on the outer looking in.

It's all in your head.

Can't get in, can't look away, can't go away.

Throwing mud is your 'emotional rescue'.

empty and meaningless.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

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

Postby Talking Ass » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:25 am

Dennis, mijn kind, heb ik nog steeds je op 'negeren'. Hoewel ik kan uw bericht klikken en zien wat je hebt geschreven, heb ik nog onthouden van het. Het is 'been there, done that' of 'leeg en zinloos', ben ik goed?
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

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

Postby Kunga » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:06 am

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!


nici o alegere .... eu locuiesc cu fraţii Marx!



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!




Eu nu va fi niciodată un yoghin, din cauza că iniţierea de trecere a liniei nu linii
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

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

Postby Talking Ass » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:25 am

A couple of Kierkegaard quotes. I related these to elements of Laird's sense about aspects of 'reality'. I am surprised at times that what was so fundamental to Kierkegaard, and evidently accepted and understood, is 'not allowed' in other people:

    "All existence makes me anxious, from the smallest fly to the mysteries of the Incarnation; the whole thing is inexplicable, I most of all; to me all existence is infected, I most of all. My distress is enormous, boundless; no one knows it except God in heaven, and he will not console me…."

    "Deep within every human being there still lives the anxiety over the possibility of being alone in the world, forgotten by God, overlooked among the millions and millions in this enormous household. A person keeps this anxiety at a distance by looking at the many round about who are related to him as kin and friends, but the anxiety is still there."

    "Whoever has learned to be anxious in the right way has learned the ultimate."
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

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

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:54 am

You are alone with access to a few thousand quotes that get thrown around like confetti.

What are they for?
What are they meant to prove?

Do they act as weapons in a power play?

What is their point?

So, we're alone and it seems insufficient.
We need stuff.

Isn't the conversation about good and evil a concern about Supply?
Evil takes away from me.
Good supplies me with goodies.

Goodness and niceness are strategies to get supply.
Last edited by Dennis Mahar on Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

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

Postby Kunga » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:20 am

Talking Ass wrote:"Deep within every human being there still lives the anxiety over the possibility of being alone in the world, forgotten by God, overlooked among the millions and millions in this enormous household. A person keeps this anxiety at a distance by looking at the many round about who are related to him as kin and friends, but the anxiety is still there."

"Whoever has learned to be anxious in the right way has learned the ultimate."[/list]



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 !
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

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

Postby Tomas » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:26 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:Goodness and niceness are strategies to get supply.

Works for me.

Keeps the enemy at bay.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

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

Postby David Quinn » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:33 am

guest_of_logic wrote:David,

Your analysis is, as usual, distorted and twisted beyond recognition.

On the contrary, it is spot on the mark. But it does depict realities inside you that you are very reluctant to see.


Faith in God does not entail failure to introspect.
Recognition of external predatory psychic forces doesn't relieve one of the need to recognise and overcome personal shortcomings.

I agree there is a level of introspection inside you, but it just doesn't go very deep. In particular, you don't want to even begin to question your core values and desires, such as your desire for faith in God in the first place. You don't want to entertain the possibility that these desires and values could themselves be undesirable or evil.

In a way, that's understandable. You're locked in a fierce battle of good vs evil inside your head, and so you can't afford to destabilize yourself by questioning your notion of good. Your notion of good needs to be gripped onto tightly, as though it were a life-raft bobbing about in a stormy sea. It is like when a nation is at war with a neighbouring enemy; it can't afford to undergo the level of introspection that would more easily occur in peaceful times. All focus must be directed towards vanquishing the enemy.



As for "the path to truth": it's typical of you to refer to your own philosophy as "the" truth, when, even to the extent its abstractions are true, it leaves out so much that's of relevance: there is so much more to truth than (to the extent they even are true) "every thing is caused" and "no thing exists inherently"; there is so much more to spirituality than rejecting the ego and the emotions. Your "truth" is in many ways a caricature.

You turn it into a caricature by mentally shying away from the amazing living reality these abstractions point to.

It is like I have discovered a fantastic jeweled city and I want to say to the world, "Hey everyone, come check out this amazing city!" But alas, I can only alert people to the existence and whereabouts of this city by way of maps and black-and-white photos (i.e. abstractions). And then Laird comes along, looks at the maps and photos, sniffs them, chews them, throws them about - and decides: there is nothing of value here.


As for a "medieval" view of good versus evil: my view is not as stark and black and white as you might be implying. I recognise that it is not always useful to view human affairs through the dichotomy of good and evil (even though that dichotomy could always be applied). Life is nuanced, and human motivations are complex; I recognise this.

That's good. So the more rational part of you realizes that the behaviourisms that are usually umbrella-ed under the term "evil" are in fact multi-complex processes that involve many different factors, nuances and psychological attitudes - and that in fact the term "evil" is such a broad, unscientific term as to be meaningless. But then the battle between good and evil kicks off again inside your head, all rationality is forgotten, and you're squarely back inside the medieval world again.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

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

Postby David Quinn » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:05 am

Talking Ass wrote: I think that what I would like to suggest is that the use of logic, the application of logic, the faith in logic and the insistance on logic as the only viable means of discovering truth will always open up into a troubled territory. 'Logic' (and the skills and applications that derive from it) is used both 'creatively' and 'destructively'. To be 'logical' and to think 'logically' is not a guarantee of acting correctly or 'productively'.

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".


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.

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.


All priestly classes hold a great deal of the Treasure, no doubt, but it is also true that these classes also weild control, and in a certain sense use their language and power-skill to uphold hierarchies, maintain power-relations, etc. I will say that I note in a good percentage of David's declarations about his own views a strong power-principal at work. This might be considered 'the elephant in the room'. Note that all the minor 'sris' always seem to demonstrate that it really does resolve to a power-issue. As in: I will tell you how it is and you will ACCEPT!

Stop being such a wimp, Alex. I'm not interfering with your life in any way. I'm not trying to control it. I just present my views and people can either take them or leave them.

I find it amusing that your interest in truth can be so easily stifled by the merest whiff of paranoia. And a most tantalizing whiff it is, I'm sure!


A couple of Kierkegaard quotes. I related these to elements of Laird's sense about aspects of 'reality'. I am surprised at times that what was so fundamental to Kierkegaard, and evidently accepted and understood, is 'not allowed' in other people:

"All existence makes me anxious, from the smallest fly to the mysteries of the Incarnation; the whole thing is inexplicable, I most of all; to me all existence is infected, I most of all. My distress is enormous, boundless; no one knows it except God in heaven, and he will not console me…."

"Deep within every human being there still lives the anxiety over the possibility of being alone in the world, forgotten by God, overlooked among the millions and millions in this enormous household. A person keeps this anxiety at a distance by looking at the many round about who are related to him as kin and friends, but the anxiety is still there."

"Whoever has learned to be anxious in the right way has learned the ultimate."

Yes, unfortunately, Kierkegaard suffered from bouts of "melancholia" - which, in today's language, means depression and anxiety. The entries above, taken from his personal journals, reflect the struggle he was having with it.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

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

Postby Talking Ass » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:44 am

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

Yes!

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'.

It also seems that you are down-playing or explaining away K's core position of 'existential 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...
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests