The Century of the Self

[Tomas]

Tomas,

when you push his buttons he fires up like a grizzly bear.
somehow its not a dream/illusion any more.

he's comfortable giving the advice he can't manage himself.

I hear ya. Thanks (insert happy face)

PS - The more he (she) opens her trap the more I think he is a she.

[Dennis Mahar]

looks like a 'soap opera'.
keep the tissues handy.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It's always an illusion, and I'm simply pointing out to Tomas how idiotic he is to be berating someone who is apparently beneath him. What happened to having such important things to do? Not to mention always making ridiculous guesses about people's motivations, you sure I'm not actually a deer with a keyboard?

[Dennis Mahar]

looking at this!
and asking what,
we can make an account of One and multiplicity.

The multiplicity is an Absolute Unity ceasing to be an absolute unity for the time being.
always moving, fluctuating, changing into a universe of possibilities. An infinite array of causes coalescing conditions.
are these possibilities illusions?
why throw out the content of life (relative) as some inferior illusion or grand deception.

The illusion is inherent existence,
that phenomena exists from its own side independent of the mind conceiving it to be that way.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I have been curious for a while, do we mean the same thing when we talk about this? I know you are referring to dependent origination and impermanence a lot of the time when we speak of appearances, I recognize these as properties of our experience, but I do not think you take it to the same degree that I do, whether that is the smarter thing or not, I am fully convinced that the concept of a physical world which is the source of the impressions which enter our minds is a delusion due to the general lack of understanding that "out there" is all actually happening "in here" and that "out there" never really existed. To me, these forms are not impressions, the sensory experience covers the full existence of the objects/universe. Also, I have repeated this, although I am often ignored for whatever reasons...start chatting as if you were talking with yourself, not because of the similarity of people, but because some people are simply "further ahead", or behind, than others. I find it a very slow process to be spoken to as a beginner still wrestling with concepts about the atoms that make up their body or as one who is unaware of their own thoughts/egotistical delusions based in emotion .. I can imagine that even the small statement of being "further ahead" will be construed as too much self righteousness not to be picked at for, which is why speaking is so futile with whoever is intentionally contending.

[Dennis Mahar]

The conditions are such we experience individuality.
We are enabled to think, remember, reflect, and act wisely or unwisely as possibilities.

we are embodied, encultured, enactive, affective and extended environmentally.

we are meaning makers.
generating forms of culture.
politics, law, philosophy, art.
we are in relationship.

[Dan Rowden]

I have been curious for a while, do we mean the same thing when we talk about this? I know you are referring to dependent origination and impermanence a lot of the time when we speak of appearances, I recognize these as properties of our experience, but I do not think you take it to the same degree that I do, whether that is the smarter thing or not, I am fully convinced that the concept of a physical world which is the source of the impressions which enter our minds is a delusion due to the general lack of understanding that "out there" is all actually happening "in here" and that "out there" never really existed. To me, these forms are not impressions, the sensory experience covers the full existence of the objects/universe. Also, I have repeated this, although I am often ignored for whatever reasons...start chatting as if you were talking with yourself, not because of the similarity of people, but because some people are simply "further ahead", or behind, than others. I find it a very slow process to be spoken to as a beginner still wrestling with concepts about the atoms that make up their body or as one who is unaware of their own thoughts/egotistical delusions based in emotion .. I can imagine that even the small statement of being "further ahead" will be construed as too much self righteousness not to be picked at for, which is why speaking is so futile with whoever is intentionally contending.

There is no "out there" or "in here". You're stuck in an "in here" mode (or your words seem to suggest it) which is as wrong as the everyday "out there" mode that most people operate within. Subjective/objective is a duality that is conventially, but not ultimately real. Mind you, the difference between conventional and ultimate reality isn't real either, but that's a step beyond ....

[Diebert van Rhijn]

.... all actually happening "in here" ... these forms are not impressions, the sensory experience covers the full existence of the objects/universe.

So here we are distinguishing "happenings", "impressions", "forms" and especially something named "sensory experience". The problem I had from the beginning with this word game was that some vague notion like "sensory experience" is meaningless, by definition really! There is no "meaning", "logic", "reason", "truth" or "false" when it comes to a some stimulus. But like we never really capture a moment, there's not really any "direct" access to any supposed stimulus. What we're accessing in our awareness is already taking place in the universe of meaning, fractions of meaning, reactions, objectifications, memories, this whole cloud of "things" to describe, refer to, even to be aware of an itch it's in relation to several complex notions being processed.

All we get here at best is the insight that "there is existence" or "there is stuff happening" (but don't ask what) and not "nothing" whatever this nothing would taste like. It's not unimportant to understand that there is something, which I guess could be called sensory experience even if at that level we cannot tell what a "sense" is and what other kinds of experiences there would be and why it would be then called "sensory experience".

Here we are at ground level: there is existence going on somehow, somewhere, nowhere, everywhere. The idea of this being "beginner" like is that everyone should already know this fact of existence or at least is living from that fact or cannot help but assuming it as fact at some level. The philosophy starts when reasoning from this as starting point and not stick with it as if it was everything what was possible to say about it. So perhaps at least try to make everything else reflect consistently this discovery of ultimate existence, to let nothing contradict it or cloud ones awareness of it. Easier said than done!

[Russell Parr]

It's obvious that Seeker stumbled upon this profound perspective of "sense experience," while discovering that normal physical experience is no more valid from it. It's an accomplishment that not many people reach. However, it excited him to the degree that that perspective alone trumps all other possible perspectives. Can he become aware that all perspectives, including his own, are illusionary in the ultimate sense?

Has anyone come here, posted 1000 times about a singular, slightly advanced but still deluded idea, and was still able to overcome their egotistical attachment to it publicly to the forum? I feel like he might have reinforced his ego of this idea to the point where no further advanced truths can seep into his mind, at least for now, considering his current pace of repetition. But of course, if he speaks openly about his ideas here, I guess there is always a chance..

[Talking Ass]

Has anyone come here, posted 1000 times about a singular, slightly advanced but still deluded idea, and was still able to overcome their egotistical attachment to it publicly to the forum?

Hmmm. That's a good point. No one that I am aware of! But, most don't have our discriminating capabilities!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Has anyone come here, posted 1000 times about a singular, slightly advanced but still deluded idea, and was still able to overcome their egotistical attachment to it publicly to the forum? I feel like he might have reinforced his ego of this idea to the point where no further advanced truths can seep into his mind, at least for now, considering his current pace of repetition. But of course, if he speaks openly about his ideas here, I guess there is always a chance..

The forum attracts the type, for sure and in cases I've seen some overcoming slowly taking place. But in my view it starts with first dropping the multiple persona, all the silly names as well as dropping the idea that something that is rare does not mean someone is the one and only seeing or understanding it. And this sense of someone being "victimized", like "you are not listening to me" or "you are all fundamentally wrong in nearly everything" or "there's a group effort against me" should be examined as projections, more as personal need for it to be so and of course the reason to continue posting in face of such a serious differences. It's the familiar drama again of quickly cycling through victim (being wronged or ignored), persecutor (something wrong with you) and redeemer (I've got something better for you in my pocket). It's the fast change through these sentiments which shows a serious drama addiction or in QRS terms femininity on display. It also means any insight, no matter how fundamental, ends up being superficial.

[Alex Jacob]

But there are other possible angles. Just a few off the cuff:

One, is that the 'masculinity' touted here is in itself defective, or perhaps incomplete. And IF that is so it leads to some deep questions about what exactly is being attacked in 'femininity' and in the female. But to investigate THAT is ruled out from the start by the initial presupposition. It is inconsiderable right from the start.

What if the 'overcoming' required, or one, say, 'presaged', were to occur in those who invented and managed the System? This is a really radical idea, and is in fact as radical as that of suggesting a 'flawed masculinity'.

What if 'real growth' in a person were not in merely accepting the tenets that are offered by those who assume they have arrived at some final platform of understanding, but in seeing through certain aspects of those tenets that are falsely constructed or constructed on 'defective' (or even delusional) ground? Whoa! That just changes the whole motherfucking thing, doesn't it?

• "But that is not possible! It couldn't be that way!"

And what if the façade---the pompous façade of a 'false enlightenment' or an 'unenlightened enlightenment'---were confronted continually with sarcasm and ridicule but through a high-handed humor which expressed the capability of laughing at oneself, ourself and all our selves, that is simply beyond the ability of some people who take their own selves, and the neurosis they have established as 'religious facts', far far too seriously? What if THAT were actually an indication of the problem or some part of the problem?

What if real understanding, to become more than superficial, had to grow in ways that it cannot and does not WANT TO?

Trippy, huh?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

One, is that the 'masculinity' touted here is in itself defective, or perhaps incomplete. And IF that is so it leads to some deep questions about what exactly is being attacked in 'femininity' and in the female. But to investigate THAT is ruled out from the start by the initial presupposition. It is inconsiderable right from the start.

Obviously the masculine is all about defectiveness and the defects are being attacked and the attacking is also part of the defect. But nothing to do with attacking femininity, which would be clear for anyone investigating the matter before signing up and yammer for years about plain wrong presuppositions.

What if 'real growth' in a person were not in merely accepting the tenets that are offered by those who assume they have arrived at some final platform of understanding, but in seeing through certain aspects of those tenets that are falsely constructed or constructed on 'defective' (or even delusional) ground?

Yawn. One can only hope some mature level of thought and investigating power is in place. Certainly not all forum members are born that way, some are drifting mainly in some emotional response mode and just use intellectual, spiritual or religious imagery to pretend they have some role to play. The biggest hurdle is to accept the utter irrelevance. Your life. Your death.

[Alex Jacob]

It's of course just a minor almost silly detail but it was meant as demonstration in the utter factual as far as the textual can go. The point is, you are doing this nearly every post, on every topic, textually, logically, interpretatively, half jokingly and so on. The same problem of not being able to keep your thoughts, your reading and your argument straight for more than two sentences. That's why our two sentence conversations have been great. Or in every situation where you didn't feel pressured perhaps since it must have an emotional origin. But as for on-line, more focused and truth oriented "inquiries" like this, it has been enough. It's just a bit of pointless for me to expect much of this anymore. Not even to challenge myself. Please let this rest, okay?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It shows how bad you are reading again since I wrote there very specifically about focused and truth oriented inquiries. Nothing about stopping any "two sentence conversations" which are perhaps just within your ability to comprehend as they contain only little focus and not contain any too complex of a topic.

[Alex Jacob]

Please let this rest, okay?

Diebert, what I desire to bring to your attention is a fact that you are not able to look at, apparently. You have for a number of years---years, son!---had an obsession with me. You have called it by every other name except what it actually is. This did not crystallize, in my mind anyway, since I generally have enjoyed and benefitted (if that is the word) from our exchanges and sincerely like you as a person, until you recently had a hissy-fit and bugged off. Suddenly there was no Diebert interposing himself at every turn and in relation to a philosophy that is not his and which he does not even subscribe to exactly! It is evidence of your obsession that you constantly do this and so---'for your own benefit'---I am cutting you off.

Tangential commentary is I think the better route.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

There is no "out there" or "in here". You're stuck in an "in here" mode (or your words seem to suggest it) which is as wrong as the everyday "out there" mode that most people operate within. Subjective/objective is a duality that is conventially, but not ultimately real. Mind you, the difference between conventional and ultimate reality isn't real either, but that's a step beyond ....

Dan, what I am referring to is that when we are looking at the world, all the things we see and do are actually on going within our own consciousness. A very simple statement that a lot of people are unaware of. That is what "in here" means... of the mind.

Diebert, bluerap, you are both doing it again. There is no persecution being felt, only the annoyance of constant "psychological guessing" of the type that Alex constantly partakes in, how often is he wrong?

If only there were some people on the forum that didn't spend their time putting the other person beneath them and then complaining about the other persons ego.

I wonder if you've noticed, but there is a major problem on this forum... everyone is contending to the point that almost every single comment resembles a childish argument.

I have no problem chatting as equals, or even friends who would rather believe there is a lack of communication rather than a lack of understanding on the other persons part, why can't you try this out?

The point is, don't come in with what I would now call "an Alex attitude", and then expect any real conversation.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

So if it is true that you guys enjoy philosophy, I'm happy to talk about a whole range of topics; Consciousness, Enlightenment, non-attachment, meditation, ego and self-clinging, the practical path we ought to be on, and whatever else you may have on your minds, even if that is psychology, suffering, desire, whatever, "moving on" from the slow and mind-numbing arguments is my only pre-requisite, I will even attempt to do the whole detailed and accurate debate thing if I must.

[Alex Jacob]

If only there were some people on the forum that didn't spend their time putting the other person beneath them and then complaining about the other persons ego.

i never complain about people's egos!

You've done two great things that will dramatically shift your status: one is to have taken your first baby-step toward reconcilement with 'the forum', and the second is cast the faults or defects of 'the forum' on poor, misunderstood, and abused Alex!

[Tomas]

If only there were some people on the forum that didn't spend their time putting the other person beneath them and then complaining about the other persons ego.

i never complain about people's egos!

You've done two great things that will dramatically shift your status: one is to have taken your first baby-step toward reconcilement with 'the forum', and the second is cast the faults or defects of 'the forum' on poor, misunderstood, and abused Alex!

The more this guy (actually a girl) talks the more girly she sounds.....

Thanks, Alex (insert happy face) and a cookie of your choice!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Nice insult again Tomas, this guy sounds girly by asking not to constantly argue as if we were little girls with grudges.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Alex, I said you cause a lot of arguements by taunting people, I personally believe that if we were all like you it would go smoother, but it doesn't work when your dealing with the "grumpy" ones, they hold grudges far too easily and think much too highly of themselves to have a chance for this reconciliation you speak of.

[Russell Parr]

It's funny to see Seeker sometimes side with Alex, since Alex's writing style has a 'fun' appeal to it, though completely lacking substance. While Seeker at least adheres to a form of tangible substance (delusional nonetheless), in the end it's still a postmodernist standpoint, as with Alex. He wishes to experience no conflict with his philosophy. In feeling victimized he sees Alex's style as a relief in which he can ridicule those who try to correct him, even while not agreeing with him (Alex).

I've come see Alex as more of a Jester than anything on this forum, clowning around with interesting literary styles, singing an endless amount of songs (youtube links), and supplies smiles and winks for everyone. But when he ventures into the real matters in which he has no business getting into, he fails miserably in following the logic. It often doesn't take more than the first few sentences of his essays-of-posts before the contradictions and lack of understanding arise. He cannot remove the clown makeup, so to speak. It is utterly beyond his abilities.

But what does it matter? When you are as creative as the Jester is, the fun to be had is more than enough to satisfy himself.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Bluerap, indeed and there's all in all enough reason to see them as characters growing out of the same stem, being it literary or literally.

The commonality, the stem, lies in the way that major contradictions in any formulated viewpoint are explained away by a subtle shifting of the base for any stipulated reality, a consistency, even the temporary ones where one can build some philosophical conversation around. Also known as "shifting the goal posts" but out of sight, to whatever suits a conclusion already drawn from the start. It has something autistic, some kind of intellectual masturbation if you will.

This stem, which is a general type coming and going here and therefore remains instructive, has nearly constantly the ego/emotional center dominating all interactions but all the while actually believing that some intellect/transcendent function is instead. When challenged enough a more nastier, bitter, sadistic, manipulating and evading personage suddenly briefly appears. Always like clockwork!

The remaining problem is that all conversations will only fuel the balloon and its goal is the preservation in whatever shape or form of what's already happening. And yet it can be good for a while to study this subject in such high dosage because in life it's swarming with the type but as long "the topics" are not on the table, these issues do almost never arise with them to such identifiable extent as here.

[Tomas]

But what does it matter? When you are as creative as the Jester is, the fun to be had is more than enough to satisfy himself.

He's done well in the financial field of life so he has extra time to explore some meanings he holds dear besides the streets and avenues he finds himself on. The alley-ways are theater, too.

I find myself in somewhat the same situation. We've done well financially that we don't have to concentrate on putting food on the table and a roof over our heads anymore but still we are wary of the next bend in the road of life, the last child (of our seven) is still at home and we are training in a responsible way. Our grandchildren (and many that are parents in their own right) and great-grand children come to visit. Life is good at our age of sixty.

This leaves time to muse and ponder the meaning of.................... ?