The Metaphysical Dream of the World

[guest_of_logic]

"Conservatism as I meant it is to be concerned with First Principals and to be grounded in this reality through adherence to them". --Alex

I think, then, that the better word is the one that you broached in your later post - and it's been used before in this context: "fundamentalism". In any case, I do understand what you mean.

"I think you are wrong that 'there isn't much of a precedent' in our culture if you accept my assertion that QRStianity is a form, and expression of, 'radical Christianity'." --Alex

I'm not sure I accept it, but I'm willing to explore how an argument might be made - a few similarities are that:

• QRS affirm Jesus' declaration that he has come not in peace but to stoke war, even within households,
• the QRS promotion of egolessness has some parallels with Jesus' admonitions to selfless thought and behaviour - to love one's neighbour as oneself, to turn the other cheek, etc,
• QRStians are anti-materialist (in the sense of worldly wealth), as was Christ - it being harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle,
• the QRS see Jesus as a highly spiritual figure - a "prophet of enlightenment", even though not a "saviour of the world",
• QRStians are proselytisers of their thought system, just as Christians are of their faith.

In the second-last point, I think, the main argument against the house philosophy being 'radical Christianity' might be made: QRS don't even recognise the core Christian event (the resurrection). Perhaps that is where the "radical" aspect comes in?

Then again, I put this list to a former GF poster whose comment was that most of those can be said for most religions - so I'm not sure how definitively Christian QRS can be painted as. Right now, then, I'm somewhat sceptical of the comparison, but perhaps you can shed further light on it.

"I also think their notions about women and femininity are conservative" --Alex

Certainly, I grant you that!

Diebert, you've been generous of late - to me but not to Alex! And, in Alex's defence, I see his position as being that the specifics of the QRS system are not so important to challenge as the fervour and determination with which they are promoted; that he wishes to challenge, more so than the contents of that philosophy, the dogmatism and rigidity with which it is defended. He might say (and indeed I think he has said something to this effect) that you can judge the worth of a system by the fruits in its believers; along similar lines: he is more interested in the limitations of the system than in its accuracy. I think he asks the question, "How is this system conducive to a worthwhile life?", and he leaves it to myself and others to challenge the system with the question, "How true is it?". In some (many?) respects, he admits anyway to a certain level of truth to "the Edifice", I think he just sees that what truth there is in it is being valued to the wrong degree; that there are other truths that ought to be more highly valued.

In other words, I think it really boils down to a difference in values. I also think that this is something that Alex would find easy to agree with, whereas it might perhaps be harder for QRS or even yourself to agree with. What do you think? I suspect that a house philosopher would prefer to frame it in terms of "ultimate truth" than "my [his/her] personal values". I see this, for example, in the "truth" of "emptiness", which, it seems, has significance only to those with a certain predisposition to value that concept and attach philosophical implications to it, whereas, for me, I recognise what is being said, yet it doesn't hold the same value to me (i.e. the same ability to affect my thoughts and behaviour) as it seems to hold for those on this board. Does that make sense?

Also, perhaps because of the way he goes about it - referring to "true believers" as "boyish" - and knowing your dislike of insults (hey, me too), I suspect that you shut your door to Alex's critiques before giving them full consideration, and tend to respond by attacking him (personally) as you see him attacking the house philosophers (personally). And I accept that it is personal, and that Alex has made it that way - there's no question about that: in looking at "fruits", one looks at the person. But it is not solely with Alex that the personal aspect is made manifest: David, too, is not shy to appraise people's potential for enlightenment, or at least what stage they're at. Perhaps this is even what gave Alex the incentive to look in that direction in the first place.

And in all of this, I find your own approach unique, because whilst you seem to generally adhere to the house philosophy, you don't go about defending it with the same dogmatism and rigidity that others do - you avoid, for example, the ad nauseam repetition of core doctrines and arguments - and so, at least in my eyes, you have a certain amount of character - or perhaps "individuation" is a better way of putting it.

I also feel though that in this you are at a disadvantage: that rather than being able to respond to challengers with the usual "solid" (in the sense of "plain and straightforward") doctrines and arguments, you are "forced" to (you tend to) respond in your own more abstruse and idiosyncratic manner. Whilst this differentiates you, it also makes exchanges with you more... challenging! Or it could simply be that, sometimes, what you say goes right over my head. ;-)

Anyhow, much more could be written on the dynamic between you and Alex, and between the QRStians and the Alexians in general, but this post is long enough. That's me for now. Peace out, peoples. :-)

[Dennis Mahar]

I suspect that a house philosopher would prefer to frame it in terms of "ultimate truth" than "my [his/her] personal values". I see this, for example, in the "truth" of "emptiness", which, it seems, has significance only to those with a certain predisposition to value that concept and attach philosophical implications to it, whereas, for me, I recognise what is being said, yet it doesn't hold the same value to me

The truth of emptiness is not an idea.
It's a direct, profound experience of nature.

You haven't got a clue, nor has Alex.
Why do you bother with stoopid commentary.

You might recognise emptiness as a concept or word written but that's as far as you recognise it.
And you might think 'it's their value' and 'I don't value it much'.
That's just stoopid commentary.

You don't know what you don't know.
You could be honest and say 'I know that I don't know emptiness so I'll refrain from stoopid commentary'.

Alex admits he doesn't understand it and continues to submit stoopid commentary about what he doesn't understand and admits he doesn't want to understand anyway.
certifiably insane.

What gives lads?

Comprehension failure?

[guest_of_logic]

That's fine Dennis - to suggest that emptiness is an experience as much as a truth - but do you see that it doesn't change my point, which is that, whatever it is, it is valued differently by different people? That it is sought by some and not by others? That some, after experiencing it, might say, "This, I will base my future life on", and others might say instead, "This is an interesting experience, now on with the rest of my life"? And that there are different experiences to be had, which, likewise, might be valued by some and not by others? Alex, for example, has mentioned experiences of being "spoken to" in omens - perhaps, there, is a contrasting spiritual experience which he values and yet you would not?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I can't understand how it is incomprehensible to anybody.

The fact is, and every one should instantly agree, that everything ever seen of universe/knowledge/concept/thought is summed up in experience of consciousness.

What else is there but experience of the mind? nothing. You could spend a million years trying to even hint at something that wasn't this and would fail.

Like Dennis said, it isn't an idea, it's the absence of clinging to ideas, it's about the very nature of concepts and conceptual experience - how they arise. How could one argue against it.

It's not a matter of value Laird, value doesn't affect that there are appearances the end.

[Leyla Shen]

It would be better, and more interesting, for you to do some of the work, Leyla.

I only wrestle with the best of them, my dear.

[guest_of_logic]

It's not a matter of value Laird, value doesn't affect that there are appearances the end.

Well, value doesn't affect the content of an idea/experience, but it does affect the significance and meaningfulness you give to that idea/experience, and the consequences it has on your life. For example, your ideas have led you to drop out of university - that's due to the value you see in those ideas, isn't it?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Just said it isn't an idea, it's about how ideas arise.

[Alex Jacob]

I deliberately chose the Carlyle quote (it is quoted in Weaver's book 'Ideas Have Consequences' which I have been reading) because it represents the most important aspect of what becomes for each person 'the religious question'. It is as a result of our perception of the world---but I would extend this beyond and 'below' conscious perception to some sort of psycho-ontological understanding that may not be fully conscious and may indeed be pre-rational, or connect with the pre-rational---that we orient ourselves within this reality. I do not see this whole sense of orientation as a mere 'description', i.e. a picture that could be communicated, but rather as an unspecified, inner arrangement of both unconscious and conscious 'ideas' about this place where we find ourselves. What I note, at least so far, is that the Great Minds that lunge about with such awesome force here, are simply not able to wrap their heads around such an idea. This sounds like an insult but in truth it is related to my idea that in order to bring a cure to benighted individuals you have to present them with difficult ideas, or force them to confront aspects of their own 'self-definition' that they likely cannot see directly. The terrible irony is that one is forced to do this to a whole group of persons---head-strong, truculent, filled with self, captured by arrogance and the 180 degree opposite of 'humble'---on a forum that bases itself and establishes itself, a priori, in 'wisdom' and 'emptiness'. The damnedest and the really most funniest thing ever is to watch the Highly Spiritual and the Vastly Wise reveal themselves as head-strong children. Mark this: There is no way to confront such entrenched ego-systems except by direct assault. You can't negotiate, you can't plead, and you certainly cannot rely on good-faith 'debate'.

The modality of arrogant, overweening egos professing 'truths' to everyone else in the whole world and setting themselves up as prophets of the Absolute is quite likely the core 'hamartia' that was established by and through our Beloved Founders. Time and time again this flawed internal stance is repeated and demonstrated and represents an 'infection' that will only be cured when the core, determining attitude is challenged and defeated. Certain people---you know them well!---respond to the possibility offered by this 'tragic flaw' and arrive in this space to preach, to fight, to assert, to conquer, and one notes---one notes it right at the beginning in fact---a basic and prevalent dysfunction. It inflicts all conversation and all exchange of ideas. It is the perfect and desired platform for a species of child-narcissist; often pretty intelligent in the sense of having good hardware, but more often than not outright 'moral dunces'.

Well, be that as it may. But I think that almost everyone recognizes this dysfunction. They perhaps don't quite know what to do about it, or perhaps are unconscious of what their own relationship is to it and why they remain in such a brutalizing space. But I offer this theory about the nature of the disease, and I have been doing this for a long time now, because it is only by recognition of the problem---the stating of it, the making conscious of it---that an inner change might occur. One can only offer such a bold, declarative statement as mine as a 'suggestion', and then step away and allow vis medicatrix naturae to take its own course---or not as the case may be.

And it is with all this that I have become fascinated. How did this come about? What produces this 'inner configuration' in people? What structure of emotional forces and ideas becomes the 'edifice' in which some people live their lives? Deal with this 'reality'? Confront the world?

The thing about it is that all of us are in a particular sort of 'boat'. We all have 'relations' with both unconscious internal complexes or knots that determine ourselves, as well as to exterior idea-structures that form both a foundation to 'self' but also are accreted around us, like some sea-creature that constructs its housing out of elements it gathers. There is a sort of 'resonance' or 'correspondence' between those specific elements we are drawn to grab and attach to ourselves and our own inner organization. A sort of existential symbiosis.

Getting to the bottom of why this happens, and how this happens, is to my mind the 'most important task' and is part-and-parcel of 'spiritual life'.

I always try to make statements such as this one in order to clarify intention, so there is no doubt at all where I am coming from. I approach this forum and most all of the conversations that occur here from this position. I know that saying this is 'intolerable' and I know too that it will only produce heat and conflict in those who are stuck within these modalities. And that is as it should be. I always assume there is another, mature and self-possessed reader who 'get' (as in 'geddit?) what is communicated.

[Alex Jacob]

The truth of emptiness is not an idea. It's a direct, profound experience of nature.

This is actually, I am beginning to understand, one of the roots of the tremendous divisions between one faction that appears on these pages and another faction. We keep speaking to each other but neither side can really understand the other. There is a wall that separates one view-structure from the other and it seems irreconcilable. In another post I will try to flesh it out.

[Dennis Mahar]

That's fine Dennis - to suggest that emptiness is an experience as much as a truth - but do you see that it doesn't change my point, which is that, whatever it is, it is valued differently by different people? That it is sought by some and not by others? That some, after experiencing it, might say, "This, I will base my future life on", and others might say instead, "This is an interesting experience, now on with the rest of my life"? And that there are different experiences to be had, which, likewise, might be valued by some and not by others? Alex, for example, has mentioned experiences of being "spoken to" in omens - perhaps, there, is a contrasting spiritual experience which he values and yet you would not?

You can't live without emptiness Laird even if you fail to recognise it.
It means 'play of causality'.

You have a nuts and seeds diet project ongoing.

I assume it is about animals.
Many people think about animal relations, many people talk about animal relations, few people act on animal relations.
a thought is less than a word and a word is less than a deed.
to be your word is to act on your word.

In order to act, what is required is a direct, profound, personal experience or realisation of the suffering of animals.
what is directly realised is:
the suffering of animals
the cause of the suffering of animals (ignorance)
a way out of the suffering of animals.

a play of causality which is very much alive and throbbing with possibility.

Quinn has mentioned that you haven't taken causality far enough.
Take a look at that.

exiting a world of pain isn't a value,
its a way of being.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

--respond to the possibility offered by this 'tragic flaw' and arrive in this space to preach, to fight, to assert, to conquer,.

Look at our posts then look at yours. Your caring is your issue, you care and hence assert these motives onto us when they are a complete non-reality.

[Dennis Mahar]

Alex's logic is that he wishes to rescue invisible lurkers from something he doesn't understand and doesn't wish to understand.

how does that work out seeker?

all together now,

here we go gathering nuts in may

[SeekerOfWisdom]

If what you said doesn't have a hidden meaning, you pointed out yourself how it works out, 1 post x 6000, the only really bad indicator here is that each post goes for an hour.

[Alex Jacob]

John, I personally do not think, based on what you write and also resulting from conversation with you, that you understand even vaguely what I write and why I write it. Comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit! So, you can only take it as an attack on your person, and then to defend yourself accordingly. You seem to have almost no orientation within the world of ideas and no desire to orient yourself there. But this is just the tip of an iceberg.

As Dennis writes: I do not understand where you-plural are coming from nor do I desire to understand! The reason: whatever it is you are 'doing' leads to the dissolution of the person. I am interested in the exact opposite. The building of persons. The valuation of ideas. The holding to valuation. The history of ideas and knowledge of the men who held the ideas. The definition of life within life. It changes the way I value existence, the mind, the world of ideas, books and stored knowledge, memory--everything! It is a radically different orientation.

But even though you will not be able to understand, it is 'fun and interesting' to write it out. I look forward to exploring the difference between the 'naturalism' that Dennis defines and the 'transcendentalism' that I think largely defines my orientation.

There is indeed a cause (causes) for such stark differences in understanding of reality! At the very least understanding that difference might help us all to tolerate the other.

[guest_of_logic]

"Just said it isn't an idea, it's about how ideas arise." --John

Which makes it an idea (concept) about how ideas (concepts) arise. Wouldn't you say, John?

"You can't live without emptiness Laird even if you fail to recognise it.
It means 'play of causality'." -- Dennis

We can't live without gravity either, but we don't place the same value on gravity that you place on emptiness. Why do you think that is?

"exiting a world of pain isn't a value,
its a way of being." --Dennis

Sure, pain-free living itself is a way of being, but to want to exit a world of pain is to value pain-free living.

Why are you two so averse to admitting that you have values which influence your philosophising?

[Alex Jacob]

"I think you are wrong that 'there isn't much of a precedent' in our culture if you accept my assertion that QRStianity is a form, and expression of, 'radical Christianity'." --Alex

Laird, the way to understand what I mean by 'radical Christian (sect)' is to understand other radical Christian sects that have arisen historically. I think there is an underlying organizational tendency which is, perhaps one could say, a response to the 'Christian possibility'. For example in the US: Mormonism, Pentecostalism, Seventh Day Adventism and Christian Science are all 'radical Christian projects' in the sense that they arise from that structure within culture, and yet they do not fit your list of bulleted items and may deviate even 'radically' from them. Overall, in tendency and 'mood' (if you will accept this term), QRStianity arises in a Christian or post-Christian context, is also very strongly influenced by Christian and/or post-Christian thinkers such as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (with Wee Weininger thrown in to that mix), to form a stance that takes a radical position in relation to secular culture. Put another way it is 'radically Christian' more than it is anything else, including Zen or Buddhism which, more than anything, it mocks. (This is my impression of its relationship to Buddhism in any case. Not a popular opinion by any means!)

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis: exiting a world of pain isn't a value,
its a way of being.

Causation is THE way of being. Which means that for those who are causing the exit of the world of pain, there is absolute certainty that pain will be exited.

Thy will be done.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And, in Alex's defence, I see his position as being that the specifics of the QRS system are not so important to challenge as the fervour and determination with which they are promoted; that he wishes to challenge, more so than the contents of that philosophy, the dogmatism and rigidity with which it is defended.

Surely enough it's more like some emotional response to perceived rigid and authoritative stands. That's why I referred to daddy complexes more than once. In another discussion I challenged extensively his notion of rigidness and dogma. It's weird, you know, the same mouth would protest against nihilism and lack of structure when the wind would happen to blow from that direction. The platform of discussion -- this board -- is perhaps unprecedented in philosophical forum history in being open to any type of challenge or strong expression of disagreement in all kinds of flavors. And something is not rigid because one cannot define all the terms all the time and control the conversation. Which is an accusation I received from a rather controlling Alex at times. He only wants it to go his way but his ways are not that easy to keep track of for us mortals!

I think he asks the question, "How is this system conducive to a worthwhile life?"

Yes, we went over that in the past a few times. But first one has to agree on the way to value worth, health, prosperity and such. Otherwise the question becomes: what's in it for me, me, me.

suspect that a house philosopher would prefer to frame it in terms of "ultimate truth" than "my [his/her] personal values".

Because ultimate truths just mean trans-personal facts about truth and value. It cannot just be another personal opinion or just another debatable fact. But at the same time is the realization that the discovery and affirmation is indeed a personal, individual act. Thereby transcending the individual world in pure experimental and existential fashion. But that does not make it completely subjective and up for grabs! In a structured conversation a lot of approach can happen. WIth Alex it hardly happens and he blames mostly the other end for failing conversations. It doesn't have to be that way, really.

I suspect that you shut your door to Alex's critiques before giving them full consideration, and tend to respond by attacking him (personally) as you see him attacking the house philosophers (personally).

I think such assessment is not fair if you'd trace back all my various and long discussions with him. Perhaps nobody in the world (I've read way more hostile responses to him at other forums in the past) has put so much thoughtful response in posts and in PM and mail to him. But all I hear is how I attack him personally and defend a forum dogma. What I currently think is that such critique is nothing but a red herring, an attempt to divert the attention away by focusing on just a brief moment where I indeed focus on Alex the person or use the "house philosophers" as nomenclature to work with. But in the sea of exchanges which actually happened over the years, that ends up being but a fraction of what is being discussed. It becomes cherry picking!

you have a certain amount of character - or perhaps "individuation" is a better way of putting it.

It should be like that. But to have meaningful dialog, people have to find a shared base, a context to work with. That's the whole value of having a loose collection of documents and articles, some references to former teachers and religious teachings to be able to exchange meaning. But what Alex is often doing is introducing loads of references only meaningful to him and then complain how little is understood, how little interest there is in "broadening horizons" etc etc. Without knowing one thing about what other people are reading or learning. To me, that's a very dishonest and self-centered tactic. I could introduce hundreds of books and ideas every year here but what's the point? For dialog something else is needed.

Anyhow, much more could be written on the dynamic between you and Alex, and between the QRStians and the Alexians in general, but this post is long enough.

It's way more than enough already! Alex likes to dominate the conversation and define the terms, then play the victim, being the One others are defending themselves or their ideas against. But I think this is a fictional construct, something raised to frame the discussion in yet another infertile mode. I've had many wonderful dialogs over the years here and everywhere else in life about these very topics. As has for example David Quinn and other people here. What I think Alex tries to do is changing the narrative in one of the dysfunctional where there's no real evidence for that at all but in his perspective. That really opens up many other questions only he can answer.

[Dennis Mahar]

Why are you two so averse to admitting that you have values which influence your philosophising?

You don't have values, that's ridiculous.
You ARE that.
You don't have a philosophy.
You ARE that.

causes/conditions.

[Dennis Mahar]

Causation is THE way of being. Which means that for those who are causing the exit of the world of pain, there is absolute certainty that pain will be exited.

Thy will be done.

You can see it.

[Alex Jacob]

The truth of emptiness is not an idea. It's a direct, profound experience of nature.
______________________________________

As I have described, I am attempting to locate and expose the 'core' ideas, the core 'perceptions' which I wrote about in post 10:17 PM, that separate certain factions here from other factions. I am very aware that I have and define sharp oppositions to the QRS system of defining reality, and certainly the ethics and praxes that are proposed by 'it'. This is my basic position. Additionally, I am aware of areas of agreement but it is the differences that make all the difference.

I see Dennis's statement as a possible crux here and am interested in looking into it. To have a 'profound and direct experience of nature' seems to be what David and others recommend, insofar as they cannot 'see' or recognize any other possibility for man's experience. So, the revelation, Dennis's revelation, is one from 'the facts of experience'.

But there is another level of experience possible though disfavored, and if I am not mistaken very much so on this forum. One can call this 'the truth of intellect'. This corresponds with 'a world of higher mind' in philosophy and metaphysics, and historically to contact with and relationship with a realm of pure mental being or an angelic world of consciousness. I mention this because the notion of such a world of 'higher mind' and an angelic world of consciousness was an operational aspect of Elizabethan cosmology, and this interests me insofar as we are all 'outcomes' of that world.

A relationship with transcendental ideas---or personality if one accepts the possibility of a 'higher-mind God': a god composed, to put it colloquially, of altogether different, non-material, unintelligible potency beyond possibility of description---is the essence and if you will the extreme of a transcendent possibility in our world.

But as a self-referential man---homo scientificus---comes on the scene, the simplistic story-line that defines a living, personal god-force that is the base of all life and existence, is slowly undermined. Since the simplistic narratives no longer function (all previous narratives and myth-descriptions or miracle stories about transcendental facts), another means of viewing and describing reality gains power: naturalism let us say, and the same nature that allows for Dennis's statement and experience (in the sense that Carlyle wrote).

Within 'naturalism' (which Weaver refers to more specifically as 'nominalism'), man is no longer, say, 'fallen angel (or fallen ally of angel and being with angelic potential), but mere 'ascending animal'---an evolving ape-oid totally beholden, if you will, to the earth and to Nature. As the 'transcendental' view-structure is deemphasized the other gains power and asserts itself universally.

One effect: all knowledge that arose from the anterior 'transcendental vision or description of reality and existence' (location, destiny, etc.) has all to be reconsidered, or rejected. Since the veracity of such a Vision is questioned, because all its tenets had been undermined, it can no longer be reasonably upheld and begins to be seen as untrue. At that point, a sense-experience derived view-structure gains more foothold and any 'transcendent' view-structure is seen as archaic, idiotic even. In the face of apparent truth one recoils from transcendentalism in all its forms into an 'enlightened rationalism' or strict materialism.

When we attempt to recover the transcendental vision or description of reality and existence (and fate), we are forced to pull supporting material from undermined and collapsed narratives that arose in pre-scientific circumstances. These hardly function and cannot compete with materialistic and rationalistic description. No one quite 'believes' them. This leads to an impasse: retrograde religionists defending transcendentalism with dead language and reference structures, but which yet (in my understanding) still contain 'living' transcendental material which are in the domain of 'unintelligible knowledge', transcendental knowledge, that is simply inexplicable, insofar as the existence of existence is now and forever inexplicable.

We have no language except poetic language or mystical utterance that can succeed to express, imperfectly but sometimes stunningly, what is beyond reference, beyond language. And this language can, and does, dissolve or 'evaporate' upward into unintelligible abstraction, but yet: it is the only way to conceptually approach the Ineffable (defined as the transcendentally unintelligible) and to have a relationship to 'it'.

But, on the earth-plane, in the mind of many, the only 'reality' is that of non-dual sense perception: naturalism. The valuation of a sensory relationship to the manifest world. But it is essentially, and necessarily, 'non-intellectual' if we take 'intellect' to mean pure idea, transcendent idea, or god-idea of an unintelligible sort: beyond and outside of material manifestation and yet 'mystically real'. This would also include service to transcendental ideals which is a very large and important part. With transcendent ideals the psyche can and does do wonders in this plane of existence!

A process of 'brutalization'---ever-increasing enclosure within material confines becomes the modern process and fate even as the materia is ever-successfully dominated!

The story of 'the earth' is now just such a story of penetration and control of matter and space. The sophistication of systems for domination of matter and space---and physical entities within it---is ever-increasing. This represents the supreme assault on 'private property' which is in very truth man's literal body, the ground under his feet, the right to possess and direct his own self, his person, his personality. To define spirituality, now, in my view, must be to define a relationship to a transcendent force, existence and truth that empowers living man in incarnated circumstances. Hence the relevance and importance of challenging and defeating all arguments that enclose man within matter, an imprisonment within a naturalistic defining structure.

I think this is the platform for my core opposition with numerous aspects of the QRStian philosophy and certainly with certain of its 'minor preachers' of it.

I am eager to hear your thoughts!

[Alex Jacob]

It's way more than enough already!

Then why in the fuck don't you just SHUT UP then? Gawd! ;-)

[Pam Seeback]

Alex: And it is with all this that I have become fascinated. How did this come about? What produces this 'inner configuration' in people? What structure of emotional forces and ideas becomes the 'edifice' in which some people live their lives? Deal with this 'reality'? Confront the world?....Getting to the bottom of why this happens, and how this happens, is to my mind the 'most important task' and is part-and-parcel of 'spiritual life'.

When one gets to the bottom of why this happens by way of reasoning "infinite", they come face to face with causality. Not as a thing, but as the way things appear or come into being. This is what Jesus meant when he said "ye shall say unto this mountain, remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible unto him." Which when understood in the deepest regions of one's being allows us to become conscious (wholly responsible) for whatever one causes. This is why reading another's story in the sense of using nouns, adjectives and adverbs of "how this came about" does not help one get in touch with the how to live their story of "I am causing this." Only the encouragement and wisdom of one who has reasoned themselves to come face to face with 'their own' causality can help another do the same.

[Pam Seeback]

Alex: We have no language except poetic language or mystical utterance that can succeed to express, imperfectly but sometimes stunningly, what is beyond reference, beyond language. And this language can, and does, dissolve or 'evaporate' upward into unintelligible abstraction, but yet: it is the only way to conceptually approach the Ineffable (defined as the transcendentally unintelligible) and to have a relationship to 'it'.

Mystical or poetic language does indeed provide an avenue to have a relationship to 'it', but if the goal is to be in conscious union with 'it', languaging a relationship to 'it' must cease.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways: Causation is THE way of being. Which means that for those who are causing the exit of the world of pain, there is absolute certainty that pain will be exited.

Thy will be done.

You can see it.

Its experiential evidence ensures its continuance.