GENIUS FORUMS

Of course technology is mindlessly indifferent to human welfare. All the more reason to oppose it.

Ah, bless him. Another flippen romantic.

So, you'd like to go back to the Middle Ages then, eh?

Back from the frontier …

Hyperbolic dualism, to experience blame as motive force.

“Love them all. Feed them all. Remember God. Speak only the truth.”
Neeb Karori Baba

A little something for everyone.

An important point on the nature of 'belief' in religions:

"From the viewpoint of Islam, a man is damned because he does not believe that God is One; one may well wonder what interest God has in our believing that He is One rather than manifold. In fact, He has no such interest, but the idea of Unity introduces a saving attitude of coherence and interiorization which detaches man from the hypnosis of the outward and manifold world; it is man, and not God, who has an interest in believing that God is One. (...) After the Fall, man is given over to the exteriorizing and imprisoning powers of the lower māyā, so that the only means of saving him is a key‑idea which opposes this māyā. Man is not damned for not believing that God is One, or that Christ saves or that the world is illusory; he becomes lost because, not believing it, he remains at the mercy of the dehumanizing powers of centrifugal māyā." Schuon

The dream of being a person is quite a lovely and innocent enterprise and is the meaning of spiritual.

Why do you pour guilt and shame on project?

of course it is ultimately 'in vain' because without form and void.

So what?
Sue me.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Of course technology is mindlessly indifferent to human welfare. All the more reason to oppose it.

Ah, bless him. Another flippen romantic.

So, you'd like to go back to the Middle Ages then, eh?

O-MY,

That is the perfect scenario...for a park fix-it.

Brunch?

Oops!

Shortage of X-wire.

Urizen,

We-don't talke about Islam...here.

Go in to a wilderness area on your own for at least 6 months.

some nights, whilst tent-bound, abed, an undifferentiated sound nearby fills the body-mind with dread,
listening straining for next sound,
mind racing for associations, trying to bring order to chaos,
tingling up and down the spine,
hair standing on end.
Red alert.

Morning comes.
strategies for security
looking for more secure campsite
collecting objects having the possibility of 'weapon'

the 'given' of human being.

out of that context
the dread of annihilation
the survival imperative

Urizen: Of course technology is mindlessly indifferent to human welfare. All the more reason to oppose it.

And yet, here you are, mindfully (as you understand it to be) using your computer to oppose technology.

When man tries to separate God from concepts as you are trying to do, to place Him or It "up there" above "dirty, bad, evil, conceptual, human being" he comes to a dark place because he is trying to do the impossible - divorce God from being the cause of all things. Of my own experience, this dark place is a necessary evil (suffering bringer) as it brings one to the farthest point on the spectrum of understanding just how absolute (total) is God's causal reach. You oppose technology. Is not God the cause of this opposition? Many others embrace technology. Is not God the cause of this embrace? Put quite simply it is madness to divorce God from any thought, good, bad or indifferent.

Which brings one to the revelation that man is the manifestation of God's conscience. Moment by moment, the (metaphorical) Son of God has no choice but to conceptualize by way of philosophical/intuitive reasoning what is the right thing to say or the right thing to do. In the case of technology, for the God conscience in you, it is to oppose technology and to provide (God's) reasons why It is opposed. Of course, the same principle applies for the God conscience in everyone who opposes your opposition.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

No belief required, Schuon.
Since infinite is defined as that which has no limitations,
and since each form has limitations,
logic rather than belief
indicates that infinite must be that which is formless.
Though identity may attach to form,
Identity is actually the formless which makes form known.

Genesis 1.2
'without form and void'

Buddha
'form is void, void is form'

Aristotle's law of identity fucks up absolutely.

Since qualities can be named
and what can be named has form
called a thing when the form is uncertain,
a quality of formless,
since formless has no qualities,
is to have no qualities not even as no qualities,
effectively removing identity
from the realm of is
and the limitations of Arist.


Malcolm X (1992) Dictionary Scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE84dHl5Nr0

Who wrote this book, anyway?

We can talk about what it means to be human.

Innate characteristics like thinking, feeling, walking, talking, sitting, eating, fucking, sleeping, desiring, fighting, abiding calmly, mind on fire, meaning making etc..
these innate characteristics by no means exist inherently.
innate does not mean inherent.

like 'the Immanent' guy discloses, causality appears conventionally,
ultimately, the notion of creation and destruction is an error in thinking.

This, assortment sucks!!! I'm leaving!

Cahoot wrote:Since qualities can be named
and what can be named has form
called a thing when the form is uncertain,
a quality of formless,
since formless has no qualities,
is to have no qualities not even as no qualities,
effectively removing identity
from the realm of is
and the limitations of Arist.


Malcolm X (1992) Dictionary Scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE84dHl5Nr0

Who wrote this book, anyway?

Malcom X was a dousche on sterol. needles. Needless, to say....I qoute. John Lennon.

"To flee God as do the worldly is far more senseless and irresponsible than fleeing the world. To run away from God is at the same time to run away from oneself, for when a man is alone with himself—even though he may be surrounded by others—he is always with his Creator, whom he encounters at the very root of his being." Schuon

"To see God everywhere is essentially this: to see that we are not, that He alone is. If humility can be called the greatest of the virtues this is because it implies the cessation of egoity. One could say as much of each fundamental virtue: perfect charity is to lose oneself for God, for one cannot be lost in God without giving oneself, in addition, to men. If love of one's neighbor is fundamental, it is not only because the ‘neighbor’ is in the final analysis ‘Self', but also because this human charity is the sole means possible, for the majority of men, of being detached from the ‘I’; it is less difficult to project the ego into ‘the other’ than to lose it for God, although the two things are indissolubly linked." Schuon

Without wisdom, life has no meaning,
And without beauty, we cannot live;
So let us strive to obtain the clear water of Truth,
Together with the wine of Beauty.
Schuon

“Patanjali is the greatest scientist of the inner. His approach is that of a scientific mind: he is not a poet. And in that way he is very rare, because those who enter into the inner world are almost always poets, those who enter into the outer world are always almost scientists.”

- Osho

Quoting Osho (Rajneesh) hmmm.

• His first English hardcover book was The Silent Explosion, which was a collection of lectures that I hand picked and combined into a single book. I came up with the title and wrote the introduction for the first edition. Much of Rajneesh's best material came from other authors, as was the theme and title for my favorite lecture, Flight of the Alone to the Alone. Rajneesh did a excellent job of combining words and information from other authors, which is a common and accepted practice. The issue I have with his teachings is that he often pretended to have first hand knowledge of facts he obtained second hand, and he taught many things that he knew were false just to gain attention and expand his guru business. Rajneesh used words to manipulate people, not to tell the truth. -- Sw. Krishna Christ (C. Calder).

Now I do think there's brilliance in Osho's combinations at times. But lets not forget 25 years after, truth spills out:

• With first-ever access to government files, and some participants willing to talk for the first time, it's clear things were far worse than we realized. What follows is an inside look -- based on witness statements, grand jury transcripts, police reports, court records and fresh interviews -- at how Rajneesh leaders tried to skirt land-use and immigration laws only to have their schemes collapse to the point they decided killing Oregonians was the only way to save their religious utopia.

"Consider the fruits and realize the tree must has been pretty sick overall" -- anonymous

"Patanjali is not a speculator. He is not an airy, fairy philosopher; he is very down to earth. He means business, as I mean business. His approach is scientific. The very approach makes him totally different from others. Others have been thinking about the truth. He is not thinking about the truth; he simply prepares you how to receive the truth."

Osho
The Alpha and the Omega, Vol 8

"Sensitivity in its highest form is intelligence. Without sensitivity to everything - to one's own sorrows; to the sorrow of a group of people, of a race; to the sorrow of everything that is - unless one feels and has the feeling highly sensitized, one cannot possibly solve any problem. And we have many problems, not only at the physical level, the economic level, the social level, but also at the deeper levels of one's own being - problems that apparently we are not capable of solving. I am not talking of the mathematical problems, or the problems of mechanical inventions, but of human problems: of our sorrows, of despair, of the narrow spirit of the mind, of the shallowness of one's thinking, of the constant repetitive boredom of life, the routine of going to office every day for forty or thirty years. And the many problems that exist, both consciously and unconsciously, make the mind dull, and therefore the mind loses this extraordinary sensitivity. And when we lose sensitivity, we lose intelligence."
- J. Krishnamurti

*

To be too intelligent is not possible; to be too sensitive is not possible. What is called “too sensitive,” is actually the repercussions of attachment. Dulled sensitivity is not evidence of detachment.

Cahoot wrote:To be too intelligent is not possible; to be too sensitive is not possible. What is called “too sensitive,” is actually the repercussions of attachment. Dulled sensitivity is not evidence of detachment.

But anyone who actually would have read Krishnamurti books would know he used the word "intelligence" and "sensitivity" to mean various inconclusive things like "learning" , "proper balance" and even "enlightenment". He redefines the common meaning of these words which is fine as long as one reads it in that context. But in the rest of the world people continue being too intellectual or too sensitive often because of an underdeveloped coping mechanism. Like a baby skin is sensitive not because of some error but because it needs to develop by proper exposure and natural processes. Or for example a body with a confused immune system becomes too sensitive. This is the same for the mind and our impressions: somebody confused about what and who they are, like having a weakened self-esteem will become overly sensitive without necessarily being overly attached to anything in particular.

Such superficial interpretations are the result of a habituation to conflict. Conflict can be a tool leading to understanding and liberation from the inner violence of conflict, but a persistent attachment to conflict mires one in a swamp of ego that often leads to an arrogance of ego, as is so often aptly demonstrated. ;)

"Sensitivity in its highest form is intelligence. Without sensitivity to everything - to one's own sorrows; to the sorrow of a group of people, of a race; to the sorrow of everything that is - unless one feels and has the feeling highly sensitized, one cannot possibly solve any problem. And we have many problems, not only at the physical level, the economic level, the social level, but also at the deeper levels of one's own being - problems that apparently we are not capable of solving. I am not talking of the mathematical problems, or the problems of mechanical inventions, but of human problems: of our sorrows, of despair, of the narrow spirit of the mind, of the shallowness of one's thinking, of the constant repetitive boredom of life, the routine of going to office every day for forty or thirty years. And the many problems that exist, both consciously and unconsciously, make the mind dull, and therefore the mind loses this extraordinary sensitivity. And when we lose sensitivity, we lose intelligence."
- J. Krishnamurti

It is true that one cannot be a beneficial (to the whole) causal spirit without first being deeply sensitive to the sufferings of causality. Why? Because sensitivity to suffering ensures that the wise causal spirit will create a reality that is dedicated to ending suffering. Is such a spirit intelligent? In varying degrees, yes. However, intelligence does not guarantee sensitivity. We need look no further than the psychopathic consciousness, i.e., Ted Bundy, to see the truth in this assertion.

A different point, but related: all too often the sensitive-intelligent spirit drowns in its sensitivity, having breakdowns or committing suicide because it cannot find the way (the will) to use this knowledge wisely.