Core Dysfunction and what it does

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:03 pm

And you've discerned this from all the essays and pieces we've been working on to present.

How could we be the clueless ones when there's almost no one else actually posting or having their own discussions. Wouldn't that make everyone else clueless mutes, like you?

Anyway, who reads verbal sewage and judges its merit on a forum they'd prefer was closed?

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:49 pm

Gosh, Jupi, I feel I must thank you. You gave a little!
Alex, it seems to me, has gradually come to realise the uncompromising, almost brutal dedication to reason that is required to gain even a foothold on the Way. And it has scared the pants off of him. Perhaps that's what his new "barbarian" or "mass-man" label is all about.
I think I see where you are coming from. If I understand correctly you have discerned a special path that leads out of the world of Samsara through a special knowledge with provides liberation, true understanding of things, and going further, to the most profound knowledge of the nature of reality. This is Buddha-level knowledge and if I have understood what I have read on this forum and in the essays of the Founders, an attainment of Buddha-status that no one else on the planet right now has gained. If I have observed correctly, Q and R and S shoot down all Buddhists and Christians and Atheists and in fact everyone and anyone, and refer to no other (living) authority who knows of The Way as y'all define it. Literally, in this Forum, we come into spiritual contact with what can only be described as the three (or 4 or 5) most important people on the surface of our planet right now who understand this special knowledge and this special path to The Way. Whew!

Once this position has been gained, once one is inside this special knowledge, one turns around to look at human creations, human life, society and civilization, all attainments of man, with new eyes as it were. One is now able to adjudicate if you will the value and non-value of all things under the sun. You seem to gain some special terms such as those Dennis uses with frequency---he uses them overtly---but yet which are a backdrop to all the thinking and analysis even of the real Masters. Q and R and S, obviously, but also some others such as Robert, Diebert, Ryan, Sue, Kelly. One might mention a handful of Sanskrit terms that define elements of this special thinking, special viewing.

What I have done here, I ask, is this a fair description? Because this is basically what I see going on here. Is it not enough 'philosophical' my description of it? Am I not philosophizing because I am not debating, say, from the list of Buddhist terms? Dan spoke of incapacity in stepping into another, unfamiliar paradigm a few posts back. This is in some sense true. But the reason is because, generally speaking, I do not at all see the Manoeuvre---this radical, 'brutal', 'poisonous' manoeuvre ---as being a healthy one. One might leave it at that: Alright, these folks have chosen this radically strange and 'brutal' path and they seek to communicate the value of it to others. But it is more complex than just that, Jupi, and it is in this that you-all have such a hard time seeing and understanding. I could refer you to a quite good book where the destructive aspect of The Way you describe is examined: 'Zen: A Rational Critique' by Ernst Becker. It pulls up the sheet as it were to examine the psychological underpinning of a culture-wide draw to zennish mind practices. Here is a sample:
The negation of mind in Buddhist thought is rather generally known, and undoubtedly many Westerners find Zen attractive because of it. Many in the West revolt both against reasons's obviously majestic creations for the good life, as well as its utter failure to solve problems of personal contentment and creativity. But less well known than the negation of mind, and fundamental to any appraisal of it, is the method Zen uses to proselytize. Zen is basically a technique by which to achieve a mental breakdown of people so that they can be made to accept a new ideology. Its resemblance here to Chinese thought reform can be conclusively demonstrated. Also not widely enough recognized is that Zen's propensities for ideological conversion and reform are also inherent in many forms of psychotherapy practiced in the West. There is a basic identity in the coercive and regressive processes which Zen, thought reform, and various Western psychotherapies use to achieve reform and conversion goals.
Now, if this is true, it certainly indicates an area where there is a probable problem. In any case it is something that can be looked into. But it has to be looked willingly and cannot be forced on another person. In my view, here, one comes up against a sheer wall of opposition even to the possibility of considering a 'destructive' aspect to a thinking system. One cannot even get the door opened a crack. But that is just one part, really, of the magnitude of the problem.

Another aspect is that those who embrace this zennish Way (though there is a really interesting and notable variant of zennishness insofar as here a so-called 'reasoning' is given a markedly privileged place, but that is another issue) is that it is carried out by Westerners, and by a quite distinct and uniquely characterizable group of (often) young men who take a combative, challenging stance against a range of 'our own' cultural values and achievements. It seems to induce certain people to abandon with radical dismissal a basic connection with the idea-movements that have informed Western civilization. You can observe this functioning very clearly in the more blatant and 'severe' cases of dysfunction (as I use the term) such as in Dennis and John-Seeker. They are literally possessed by certain idea-view-sensations. I think it is a sort of self-engineered coercion but frankly I haven't worked out the language yet. But though Dan will and has noted that 'you cannot make an analysis of us through the mistakes of some followers' I have disregarded that instruction and have taken it, in fact, as a clue to hone-in more strongly on the core declarations of the Founders. I have spelled this out in clear prose dozens and dozens of times.

My area of concern has become essentially the following: To focus on this 'radical rebellion' against very important elements and aspects, gained by incredible sacrifice, by generations of men within our own intellectual traditions. To note and to point out how it occurs that young, arrogant men, though I am not only referring to physical age, stoned and intoxicated or perhaps 'poisoned' by an attraction to zennish practices (I use this term in a far more wide sense and have at other times referred to 'cult-like thinking processes') of a dubious sort, lose their capacity to recognize value; sever themselves off from and away from very important and hard-won value-defintions and achievements that come to us through our own traditions, and in this particular sense come to act as 'vertically invading barbarians' (and here is the tie to Ortega y Gasset which, naturally, you are unable to fathom): not invaders coming from outside but willful men arising up from within the structure itself. For humor purposes I repost the following:
  • "The city was under seige. Everyone was busy fortifying the walls - some were carrying stones, others were patching the walls, yet others were building battlements. Diogenes, not wanting to appear idle while everyone around him was working so frantically, diligently rolled his barrel back and forth along the battlements. The city fell."
The cynic, a parasite of civilisation, lives by denying it, for the very reason that he is convinced that it will not fail. What would become of the cynic among a savage people where everyone, naturally and quite seriously, fulfils what the cynic farcically considers to be his personal role?
This is the point where I begin to describe aspects of processes noted *here* as destructive. Now, I have just explained this all extremely clearly. I have offered a view, a proposition, and have sketched some supporting arguments and also noted some of the potential damage that can result. This is 'philosophy' unless I am very mistaken. But not in 'your' eyes. It is 'psycho-babble', samsaric blather and heaven knows what else! But the fact seems to be: you cannot and will not consider what I am saying. If it is 'philosophy' it is 'aesthetic pilosophy' whis is to say effete philosophy: the philosophy of 'girls' perhaps? ;-)

The only think I can do though is to point in a certain direction and hope that someone gets my message. If there were some receptivity some more work could be done in expanding on a definition of 'the problem', how and why it has come to us, and what the solution might be. But this very rarely happens. And the True Believers who have internalized a thought-control system circle the wagons and raise holy hell when such things are enunciated.

Another thing which has indeed become of vital interest, to me personally, is a defense of Christianity (what I mean here is quite broad since Christian ideology is totally wedded with our idea-system and our language symbols and indeed is the woof and weave of 'our very selves')(which usage no one hear to my knowledge actually gets, not even the Fourth Genius). I really did not know how to conduct myself in this, raised in a very loose Reform Judaism (and I mean loose, really a simple 'cultural Judaism'), and yet I noted a 'brutal', as you say, attack on Christianity (such a broad term, too broad) but of course on the 'personalist self'---as in Personalism---that is defined through it. This is a very wide subject and there is effectively no reader now here who has enough background to grasp what I am saying). But as I began to investigate the 'forbidden territory' of Christianity I realized that as a means of approaching a transcendent sphere or of giving expression to impulses that flow into the human world from what can be called a transcendent sphere (problematic term) this Christianity is a very very high thing in our world. It is absolutely worthy of being preserved if it is understood at a high(er) level.

And since this is a pathway that is brutally and visciously attacked by our Stunning Sages (who see right into Reality with their ever-truthful eyes), instead of following their lead and the hysterical stampede by small-minded men who cannot think correctly, I stopped in my tracks and realized that it is likely that Q and R and S, in their brutal assaults, had failed to see and to understand something very important, which is of course quite accurate. True, David has a sort of fixation on Kierkegaard but ONLY if he is seen as some lateral Zen Sage who popped up like a mushroom in Denmark. Kierkegaard cannot be seen contextually with Christianity itself because, well, David is completely outside of any comprehension of the whole Jewish-Christian manifestation and has no grasp whatever of what it is about, except only at a very low level,a nd his resistance there is of course sensible at least in some degree (and one many others share). But it is not at all easy stuff to sort through, not at all. It requires largeness of spirit, preparation, deep reading, reflection. And it also requires heart, another term that is incomprehensible *here*.

That does lead of course to the other problem: the murder of sentiment. Not 'emotionalism' and not 'sentimentality' but genuine sentiment. The capacity to feel with the mind and think with the heart to put it a little cheesily. In 'our traditions' (I assert) these capabilities---the Greek if you will and the Judaic---are literally part of the structure within which we have come into existence. 'Sentiment' as a term is also quite large and, because of this, beyond the grasp of almost everyone now on this forum.

Anyway, Jupi, you gave me a little credit and I have made a small effort to repay your effort. All I can do is make the effort to point in certain directions since I am of the belief that as we mature---if we are not totally frozen and blocked---we do tend to grow. And of course I am motivated by my sense of what growth is. I know it is not your sense.

Someone might say that with this long focus of mine I reveal some obsessive tendencies? Why in the name of Lao Tsu would anyone remain in such a place, working hard (if badly) to make counter arguments? The answer is only that all of this is indeed of transcendental importance. It is truly and definitely important. But how could I possibly communicate that to *you* through the veils of concrete? The only means is through perseverance that does not let up. Damn! I really should have been a preacher of the Dharma! ;-)
Last edited by Alex Jacob on Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ni ange, ni bête

deceit
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:04 am

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by deceit » Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:02 am

Tomas wrote:
Alex Jacob wrote:This is from a broadcast called The Hour of Judgment, 1995. The title you have to admit is a little clever.
But then 18 years ago is like ages ago Alex.

They were in their early thirties and Australia was partying to INXS.

Eighteen years. What's changed?
Bahahahahaha. The real Truth :)

I knew a "Sage", that was his name, who used to give out special natural chocolate hippy high condiments to people. Turns out there was a secret ingredient of Semen! Certainly changed my view of what a name suggests.

BTW Alex why waste your time throwing together all this information you've learnt and then attacked other bits of information someone else has learnt. In this case your Master(s) who you have such a reverent dislike for.

Feels like you've got some Oedipus thing going on over the internets.

I only say this as clearly you have a great passion for knowledge and drive for discovery.

Please put that in some direction that would benefit you and others instead of drivel on the internet which you
are so clearly Addicted to. Go create and blossom. Or you can be some preacher to yet another forum. Like a cult like obsessive thing.

All this rambunctious fleeting conversation to some archetypal role you seem to personify.

It doesn't exist. Go watch a projection film and watch it project only the things it sees or has in its store.

Poof!

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:10 am

Ooooooh. The Oedipal is actually a very interesting subject and quite germane here. Since you broached it I would toss it with the 'rebellion against our own selves', or against 'our traditions'. But to have it as a term here means to accept the influence of unconscious factors and to admit Freudian analysis. I don't know how zennish that is.

Do the 'sages' do Freud?

;-)

Ernst Becker, Otto Rank (post-Freudians) certainly worked in those areas.
Ni ange, ni bête

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by jupiviv » Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:08 am

At least this is better than replying to Dennis, so what the hell.
Alex Jacob wrote:This is Buddha-level knowledge and if I have understood what I have read on this forum and in the essays of the Founders, an attainment of Buddha-status that no one else on the planet right now has gained.
1stly it doesn't matter how many people have gained such knowledge, but that it's there. 2ndly I don't remember any of the FF(Fantastic Few), including me, categorically rule out anyone else from such knowledge, nor proclaim ourselves Buddhas(perfectly enlightened men).
the three (or 4 or 5) most important people on the surface of our planet
According to whom? In what context? You don't hold their values. Why this pretense?
Once this position has been gained, once one is inside this special knowledge, one turns around to look at human creations, human life, society and civilization, all attainments of man, with new eyes as it were. One is now able to adjudicate if you will the value and non-value of all things under the sun. You seem to gain some special terms such as those Dennis uses with frequency---he uses them overtly---but yet which are a backdrop to all the thinking and analysis even of the real Masters. Q and R and S, obviously, but also some others such as Robert, Diebert, Ryan, Sue, Kelly. One might mention a handful of Sanskrit terms that define elements of this special thinking, special viewing.

All this is true of all positions. Whether it is rational or not depends on the position.
What I have done here, I ask, is this a fair description?
I suppose, but it isn't very *enlightening* is it? Anyone who's read some FF lit would rightly come to these conclusions. I would expect a veteran FF reader like you to have a bit more meat.
But it is more complex than just that, Jupi, and it is in this that you-all have such a hard time seeing and understanding.

And you did not disappoint!
But though Dan will and has noted that 'you cannot make an analysis of us through the mistakes of some followers' I have disregarded that instruction and have taken it, in fact, as a clue to hone-in more strongly on the core declarations of the Founders. I have spelled this out in clear prose dozens and dozens of times.
Well that's your business, but don't pretend that it has anything to do with reality.
My area of concern has become essentially the following: To focus on this 'radical rebellion' against very important elements and aspects, gained by incredible sacrifice, by generations of men within our own intellectual traditions.

This "radical rebellion"(if that is indeed what it is) is not a first in either western or eastern intellectual tradition. Besides as far as I'm concerned what you consider to be important elements of western culture is irrelevant since you have neither clearly defined them nor provided any reason for their being important.

Basically that's why people hate you here. You are irrelevant to us but you insist on being relevant. You've recognised our position, hated it and decided you'll not embrace it, yet kept broadcasting that hatred to us in a variety of ways. I would try to convince you otherwise but it is amply clear to me and the other FF that this is fruitless because you will not respond to reason. You have some valid insights into us/our views but even they are irrelevant because the larger context in which they are presented(your hatred of us) is irrelevant.
This is 'philosophy' unless I am very mistaken.
You expect us to accept your terms on blind faith. We don't, and since you're evidently incapable of agreeing to disagree, you enter ad-hominemville. This isn't philosophy.
Christianity (what I mean here is quite broad since Christian ideology is totally wedded with our idea-system and our language symbols and indeed is the woof and weave of 'our very selves'

Western thought can and has been separated from Christianity. You absolutely don't want to do so, we sometimes do. That's all there is to it. What you don't realise is that your idea of what Christianity is, and valuation of it, is irrelevant(to reiterate) to us unless you can provide some rationale for it, which you haven't.

No dorra, no boom-boom.

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:09 am

Can you, or can Dan, name one living person other than either of themselves or someone posting on this forum, who holds to and embodies the 'enlightened state of existence', the 'realization' that you admire or represent?
Jupiviv wrote:Firstly it doesn't matter how many people have gained such knowledge, but that it's there.
Yet it seems to me for it to be considered 'there' it has to be embodied in someone, somewhere. So in this sense it does matter 'how many'. There has to be at least *one* of whom one can say 'here is perfect knowledge', 'here is perfect attainment'. Because the System is predicated on gaining 'perfect view' and 'perfect understanding of Reality'. This cannot be merely an idea, merely a goal never to be attained. It is not 'rational' therefor to hold up a value of attainment that 1) one has not attained or 2) some living person has attained.
According to whom? In what context? You don't hold their values. Why this pretense?
No pretense. Q and R and S can only reference themselves and some long-dead individuals as 'attainers' of this fantastic knowledge. If it is true that insight into Reality is attainable, and if indeed they have attained to it, then such a thing should be owned. And if it is only themselves who are the examples of the attainment that should also be owned.
All this is true of all positions. Whether it is rational or not depends on the position.
I disagree. Any position is a group of selections and leads to certain biases, yes. But some positions allow more fluidity of analysis of other or indeed any idea structures. But what is 'rational' for you, and as you surely know I do not regard your use of reason as rational but rather 'rationalesque', I don't accept as proper. True, it is not at all easy to run this down and to prove it.
I suppose, but it isn't very *enlightening* is it? Anyone who's read some FF lit would rightly come to these conclusions. I would expect a veteran FF reader like you to have a bit more meat.
I am not sure what you mean by 'meat'. Jupi, you know that I reject the term 'enlightenment' or any notion of 'enlightened person' so it is impossible for me to participate with you or anyone using them, except in a negative sense. At the very least I am up-front with that.
Well that's your business, but don't pretend that it has anything to do with reality.
I can't make sense of this. You imply that there is some special, separate 'reality'? I note often that y'all have special access and special privileges within your metaphysic and that others are denied access.
This "radical rebellion" (if that is indeed what it is) is not a first in either western or eastern intellectual tradition. Besides as far as I'm concerned what you consider to be important elements of western culture is irrelevant since you have neither clearly defined them nor provided any reason for their being important.
You have not understood Ortega y Gasset's term then (rebellion of a mass man). It is his contention that it is only in our modern age and resulting from prior causes specific to Western culture that this 'mass man' has come on the scene. As to revealing to you what are the attainments of the West and as Becker said "reasons's obviously majestic creations for the good life", not to mention the whole possibility of experimental science, and so very much more: no, you will not get that from me. It is so substantially there and has been described in such detail that it should really be a general part of (our) knowledge. To gain that understanding falls to you. I can only allude to sources and point in their direction. But even though this is so, in so many posts, I have made quite substantial efforts to describe at the very least *elements of relevancy*. To no avail. At least with you and some others.
Basically that's why people hate you here. You are irrelevant to us but you insist on being relevant. You've recognised our position, hated it and decided you'll not embrace it, yet kept broadcasting that hatred to us in a variety of ways. I would try to convince you otherwise but it is amply clear to me and the other FF that this is fruitless because you will not respond to reason. You have some valid insights into us/our views but even they are irrelevant because the larger context in which they are presented(your hatred of us) is irrelevant.
I prefer to think of us as long-separated 'star-brothers'! ;-) Hate is no part of what I am about and it is not something I feel. I am surprised you'd use such a laden term, but then vis-a-vis QRS you are in your own way a bit of a loose canon.

I have described my activities or the result of them as what results from poking a wasp's nest. The swarm gets activated and goes into attack mode. But this is to be expected. But you fail to be able to grasp what is actually at stake in 'all this' which is larger than you and me or of argument. I accept what you say about 'irrelevancy', to 'you', but I am concerned for a larger picture and as I have said there is a wider readership here than those who actually write. I have a strong feeling that a large part of what I present is taken in and understood. It is important to me that it is. There are conceptual pathways that lead out of this 'chaos' and 'dysfunction', though conflict is a good thing and is always good in a forum, and I hope I have at least pointed to some material that can be considered.

Again, what you consider good use of reason and what I consider 'reason' as a valuable term---these are not the same. Even to define 'reason' must be done in a larger Western context and cannot be separated from it. You use the term 'reason' in a mathematical sense. For me 'reason' and the use of reason is an outcome of Western processes. In certain ways 'you' are destroying the ability to reason in these terms. But that thought, I imagine, must appear utterly impossible to you! Therefor it is rejected as 'inconsiderable'. But really, this is the very center of what I am attempting to speak about. I allude, I point. That is all I can do at least now.
You expect us to accept your terms on blind faith. We don't, and since you're evidently incapable of agreeing to disagree, you enter ad-hominemville. This isn't philosophy.
I would rather think that to understand what I allude to requires reasoning skills that are not quite in your grasp? I am certainly not proposing anything like 'blind faith' (unless you mean the band!), but I do think there is a very difficult area to even allude to and certainly to speak about: the transcendental and what that means, can mean. I think to consider such 'terms' or symbols requires a certain finesse or delicacy which is not in evidence for those who embrace a certain style of 'brutal' thinking or activity toward self. It is tough.

Ad hominem is, in truth, engaged in by all parties. In some sense it is built in to the founding philosophy. But I do recognize its problematic aspects. I personally think we should all be willing to allow 'to the man' argumentation but that we need always to keep it under control. The 'hominem' for me is essentially the psychological, and I cannot dismiss that. It is part and parcel of who we are, or how we operate.
Western thought can and has been separated from Christianity. You absolutely don't want to do so, we sometimes do. That's all there is to it. What you don't realise is that your idea of what Christianity is, and valuation of it, is irrelevant(to reiterate) to us unless you can provide some rationale for it, which you haven't.
Hmmm. I think you are very wrong. Well, I do not say that some have not made that effort, surely they have. But what I am saying is something beyond your grasp. The attainments by men in schools of thought borne out of the dual poles in Western thought (roughly Greece and Judea) have become the very stuff out of which we have been made. That is a rather different kind of statement. It implies a woof and warp of an entire possibility f existence. But a small minded mathematician of 'reasoning' would have a hard time understanding this, much less looking into it.

As to the relevancy of Christianity in the wide sense I am using it, all I can really do, now, is to point in the direction for sources you could investigate yourself. It is a bit like telling a fish about this thing called 'water' in which he has his being. And if that 'fish' happens to be a piraña who has woken up in a bad mood....

;-)
Ni ange, ni bête

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by jupiviv » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:18 am

Alex Jacob wrote:But what is 'rational' for you, and as you surely know I do not regard your use of reason as rational but rather 'rationalesque', I don't accept as proper. True, it is not at all easy to run this down and to prove it.

If you can't prove that something is the case then you shouldn't believe it is - that's my definition of reason.
I reject the term 'enlightenment' or any notion of 'enlightened person' so it is impossible for me to participate with you or anyone using them, except in a negative sense.
Which is precisely why you should agree to disagree with people for whom those words have meaning.
But though Dan will and has noted that 'you cannot make an analysis of us through the mistakes of some followers' I have disregarded that instruction and have taken it, in fact, as a clue to hone-in more strongly on the core declarations of the Founders. I have spelled this out in clear prose dozens and dozens of times.
Well that's your business, but don't pretend that it has anything to do with reality.
I can't make sense of this. You imply that there is some special, separate 'reality'? I note often that y'all have special access and special privileges within your metaphysic and that others are denied access.
No I'm implying you shouldn't pretend to be rational. A doctrine is not the same as its followers, and the followers of a doctrine are not the same as its founders. This should be obvious to anyone even mildly interested in studying any doctrine.
"reasons's obviously majestic creations for the good life", not to mention the whole possibility of experimental science
FF have never denied the validity and usefulness of modern science and technology which have sprung from the west.
Hate is no part of what I am about and it is not something I feel.
I think it is exactly what you feel, because it is the best explanation of your behaviour. Anyone who's faced so much animosity from almost an entire internet forum for so long would have gone away. *You* are the wasp Alex! You could just as easily plant your stake on some other forum of a similar nature, of which there are all too many, but you have remained.

The reason I believe is that you consider our ideas to be far more dangerous to your beloved "western context"/castle in the air than any other online group. You can't destroy them with actual reason, so you hate them. Then you invent ways of justifying your hatred of them and call that reason.

On the other hand, maybe you just don't have anything better to do.

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:37 am

Your ducking crazy Alex, I let the autocorrect slide.

For one main reason which dan pointed out and will probably ban you for: In the long time I've posted here I haven't seen one attempt at a philosophical discussion from you on these topics. They are just wrong, yet you can't say why, you can't even approach philosophy. All you do is pretend everything said is ridiculous, pretend we all are part of a little group with the same views, without realizing most of the people you refer to have never had a discussion with each other, let alone one with you that didn't involve the same unrelated post x6100 now.

The best part is that you'll remain insane until your obvious "narcissm" is dealt with. You might want to listen to some discussion about egotism. The related topic is suffering, btw.

And who ever said no one else is enlightened? Some old guy half of us have never spoken to? Enlightement is a word you don't comprehend, yet critique. Just a word, ijit.

User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Trevor Salyzyn » Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:05 am

Alex Jacob wrote: I personally think we should all be willing to allow 'to the man' argumentation but that we need always to keep it under control. The 'hominem' for me is essentially the psychological, and I cannot dismiss that. It is part and parcel of who we are, or how we operate.
Essentially, ad hominem is a problem because the truth or falsity of a proposition has nothing to do with who said it. It is intellectually lazy to dismiss arguments because you see problems with the speaker.
Alex Jacob wrote: The attainments by men in schools of thought borne out of the dual poles in Western thought (roughly Greece and Judea) have become the very stuff out of which we have been made. That is a rather different kind of statement. It implies a woof and warp of an entire possibility f existence. But a small minded mathematician of 'reasoning' would have a hard time understanding this, much less looking into it.
Notice the depth of the ad hominem here? You dismiss your interlocutor before he even makes an argument. This is lazy. If you don't think that what you are saying will be interpreted accurately and in good faith, you should strive to find a different way to say it, or drop it altogether. No need to call anyone "small-minded".

To quote Dan, "Clarity and brevity; those are your key words for decent communication." (True stuff)

Actually, I would like to hear more about the dual poles of Western thought. Does the example of someone who understands Eastern spirituality invalidate your thesis?
A mindful man needs few words.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6051
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:39 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Actually, I would like to hear more about the dual poles of Western thought. Does the example of someone who understands Eastern spirituality invalidate your thesis?
The work of Thomas McEvilley is interesting in this context, suggesting the roots of Western thinking through the ancient Greek is the same as the root of ancient Hindu thought, both stemming from Babylonian efforts. At the core the same ideas would have been worked out in different cultural conditions. Any thinker who starts digging starts to realize that philosophy has no poles. For example Judea-Christian religious philosophy is completely borrowed and generally confused with culture and history (the tragic error of a tragic people). In the Eastern branch you have the same mistakes of literally interpretation, for example reincarnation, cultural myths, worship of deities etc. Men at the core is pure spirit and the development of consciousness is still happening in the same way as always has been. Therefore, the question is not how our ideas are shaped by culture but how core understandings are distorted by all the contemporary flukes. The big unwinding.

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:59 pm

Politics rapidly enters into these scholarly investigations, I have noted. If there were no Thomas McEvilley he would need to be called forth to give some justification to ideas of 'connectivity' and one-source origin that, while it must be true in some senses (since we all originated in Africa and there must be some level of ur-language), and as someone said 'no philologer could examine Greek and Latin and Sanskrit without supposing they spring from a common source'. I was always interested in the implications of the title, which I have not been able to find except in insta-print form, of 'Comparative Studies in Vaishnavism and Christianity' by BN Seal. It has always seemed to me that early Christianity, as an ecstatic religion, mirrored on a 'lower' level, all the elements found in ancient worship of Vishnu. But I am not sure if 'real connections' were ever said to be found.

But in the end, though original influences may be shared, doesn't it depend on what people end up doing with the ideas that float into their brains? Isn't that effectively what separates the achieving West from (what has been described as) the 'passive East'?)

This sort of study can easily fall into the hands (to state it a little ironically) of people who simply need to see a connection made and will accept any level of speculative presentation. The 'diffusion hypothesis' certainly did not originate with The Shape of Ancient Thought and it may be that other scholars have done more 'thorough' research into the issue but have not come to make quite such 'outrageous' pronouncements, attempting to shake the very foundations of philosophy. One has to be careful, I suggest, about the 'psychological motivator' in (Oedipally!) seeking out speculative or imagination-driven conclusions to satisfy those fed-up with Eurocentrism (or I suppose Hinducentrism since it would also work that way too, right?)

He writes of 'a massive transfer of ideas and methods of thinking, first from India into Greece in the pre-Socratic period and again from Greece back into India in the Hellenic' but from what I have been able to determine there is not much substantive evidence for this transfer and it is heavily speculative, if enchanting.

It is one thing to be able to 'conclusively' point in the direction of tangible evidence, and another to launch into an enterprise based in a sort of romantic projection and wishful thinking.

But there are some compelling chapter titles:
  • Black Athena and Western Xenophobia
  • Neoplatonism and Tantra
  • Plato and Kundalini
  • Platonic Ethics and Indian Yoga
I'd imagine the notion of 'Nagarjuna as a Greco-Buddhist' would almost be a necessary conclusion for someone geared, a priori, in that direction. Myself I sort of like the notion of Socrates as a practitioner of a form of Kundalini Yoga! He always seemed a little dubious to me... ;-)
Ni ange, ni bête

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:10 am

Trevor, right at this moment I am more concerned to hear your thoughts on this small excerpt from Ernst Becker's 'Zen: A Rational Critique'. Have you located in your studies or in your observation of people a, say, 'negative use' of these doctrines? Do you think he is at all on some level of right track...or is it all paranoid imagining? (It is so easy to be paranoid these days).
The negation of mind in Buddhist thought is rather generally known, and undoubtedly many Westerners find Zen attractive because of it. Many in the West revolt both against reasons's obviously majestic creations for the good life, as well as its utter failure to solve problems of personal contentment and creativity. But less well known than the negation of mind, and fundamental to any appraisal of it, is the method Zen uses to proselytize. Zen is basically a technique by which to achieve a mental breakdown of people so that they can be made to accept a new ideology. Its resemblance here to Chinese thought reform can be conclusively demonstrated. Also not widely enough recognized is that Zen's propensities for ideological conversion and reform are also inherent in many forms of psychotherapy practiced in the West. There is a basic identity in the coercive and regressive processes which Zen, thought reform, and various Western psychotherapies use to achieve reform and conversion goals.
Ni ange, ni bête

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by jupiviv » Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:36 am

Alex Jacob wrote:But in the end, though original influences may be shared, doesn't it depend on what people end up doing with the ideas that float into their brains? Isn't that effectively what separates the achieving West from (what has been described as) the 'passive East'?)
That's a valid argument. The East has only used its profound philosophy to create authority and complex dogmatic systems. The West, with its relatively shallow philosophy has managed to surpass the east in terms of science, art, culture etc because it has used it more wisely. I'm almost tempted to say that the philosophy of the East is *too* profound for its own good. People can't handle Emptiness, so they short circuit and reduce it to the lowest common denominator. The Goldberg variations are quite close to the lcd, but at least they present a semblance of a genuine ideal. People can relate to that and build upon it.

However I can guarantee that if the people who produced that profound Eastern philosophy had more of a say in how things were done, then it'd be a whole different story.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6051
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 am

jupiviv wrote: The West, with its relatively shallow philosophy has managed to surpass the east in terms of science, art, culture etc because it has used it more wisely. I'm almost tempted to say that the philosophy of the East is *too* profound for its own good.
One could wonder if it's the passivity trap that emptiness always sets up or if for example the many wars of the Greeks, birthing the Roman conquests or the European endless wars were instrumental for the Enlightenment age. The Greeks clearly managed to link war to thought, with the result that things kept being continuously in motion as war tends to uproot profoundly. But the sudden flight European science and art took the last centuries seems more than anything else to be caused by a clever blend of ideas and cultures, bringing together a lots of influences from all over the world inside one melting pot. It's definitely not just thanks to the Church doctrines although they did preserve like a proverbial ark a lot of crucial libraries through the ages where in other cases they would have been burned once or twice a century.

This might be all too simplistic a view though. When reviewing history and civilizational theory, many more dynamics seem to be at play. Certain centuries the East was surpassing the West on each and every front. Take the long view and it might be just rising and falling of waves. When you're up high on the current wave it's tempting to think you're the pinnacle of history, standing on everyone's shoulder. But that might be illusive in the end: an error of distorted perspective!

User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Trevor Salyzyn » Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:42 am

Alex Jacob,
Alex Jacob wrote:Have you located in your studies or in your observation of people a, say, 'negative use' of these doctrines?
I see in Buddhist doctrine the potential for misuse: I recall a "meditation club" at university which involved a bunch of people sitting around a room trying not to do anything. It was too comical for me to go to more than a few meetings.

In Taoism, as well, the sage is urged to keep the people well-fed and stupid, because hunger and cleverness lead to the breakdown of society.
A mindful man needs few words.

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:17 pm

I have transfered elements from another thread here. I wish to confine myself to one thread where my basic intentions have been defined. A careful---even thoughtful!---virus I am.
Dan wrote:Haven't you seen my Youtube video on this subject? I seem to recall you saying you had. Enlightenment is simply the absence of all delusion regarding the nature of ultimately reality, of self/other. The meat of that is more complex to talk about because it involves uncovering the various ways in which we are in fact delusional. We have, of course, been doing that for 15 years, in case you hadn't noticed.
I am with you 100% on the importance of uncovering the ways which 'we' (humans) are 'delusional'. I support you-plural in this important endeavor. And if you have not noticed I have, for the last 6-7 years or so, dedicated a certain amount of my time and effort in pointing in the direction of a delusional understanding of 'enlightenment' on the part of the Founders of Genius Forum. It is really as simple, and as complex (as you say), as that.

So, I have here, now, clearly defined my project. David, Kevin and you have deluded concepts that function right at the very core of your definition of 'enlightenment' but which, being so very close and cherished, are invisible to you. They are part of the group of predicates about the 'nature of reality' which have not been universally agreed upon and are open for conversation. These predicates determine your actions from the small scale to the large and, from what I have been able to tell, originate in Kevin Solway's philosophical organization of ideas.

I have asserted---alluded is a word I am also fine with---that the erroneousness of the predicates produced, right at the very beginning, a dysfunctional outlook and relationship to life---to being alive. The first discordant note is one of hubris: a particularly virulent species of 'arrogance' that displays, in certain ways and at certain moment, attitudes which contain or express something that might be called 'delusions of grandeur'. I refer to the scholarly definition of hubris, and also to the undertones that underlie the sense of the word (a distortion of eroticism? a 'loss of contact with reality? But I think we must note the idea at least of 'infliction of punishment' at the very least, a kind of 'sadism')

At this level, and looked at in this way, the issue becomes one of a very strange form of 'spiritual ailment'. But we now make a full circle to the notion of 'delusion' and, if you wish, of 'samsara' or, as I would rather say, 'perdition'. (But not strictly in a Christian sense since, in truth, it is almost impossible to understand or to state what Christians mean by 'perdition'. However, 'perdition' functions as a term of discourse far better than 'samsara' which, as we all know or should know, is nearly completely wedded to a convoluted Eastern, Hinduesque metaphysic).

But I am with you Dan, 100%, that delusion in spiritual life should be examined and exposed. That in a nutshell is what I have been about and, as long as you don't hit the 'ban' button, will continue to elucidate.

;-)

Now, I am asked to present my case 'rationally' and in the above I have outlined, rationally and carefully and clearly, exactly what my proposition is.
Diebert wrote:In that sense the "meat" is the forum itself in its multiplicity, elaboration, opposition and certainly confusion. But the purpose of the forum is to discuss its nature. In that light, anyone asking "what does E mean to you" or "please define it" must be really retarded. How could there be a simple definition if the reason of the gathering is stated on top of the page: "discussing its nature". What's there to discuss if there would be an accepted, generic description of enlightenment's nature in place for all to use? And why even start it as a topic when each thread implicitly has this topic already?

More evidence some people just want conversation as a goal in itself here. Perhaps to labor a point creating boring social interaction just to have this labor, to feel busy, to extract meaning not from the topic but from the engagement itself, justified and overvalued by the pretentious sounding topic as garment to cover the shame?
You also wrote the following as a down and dirty definition of 'what enlightenment means to you':
A light burning so bright that others start to see more clearly when they're around.
Now, I have no problem whatever with this definition, in part because it has no relationship with the Eastern notion of 'enlightenment' and would function very nicely within a Hellenistic philosophical focus. I do not see it as being necessarily connected with the group of predicates that inform Kevin Solway and his construction of a definition of 'enlightenment'. It is typical, and predictable, on Diebert's part to fail to see what in truth is being critiqued because, in my understanding, he defends his personal notion of enlightenment as a sort of intellectual clarity. And Diebert 'interposes' himself, with his own concept, in between a critique of another, quite different and determinant group of concepts within which he does not base his own notion of 'enlightenment' (which he does not ever speak about). The term 'enlightenment' is not one that is used by him and, also, he rejects the notion of 'sage', et cetera:
There are no people with "clear energies", as these supposed people are always embedded as personalities in the whole circumstance, entourage and particular history which is just as part of the clarity which is taking place in that context. The ones still looking for sages or speculating about them are still nothing but rebels without a clue.
But for a second I wish to point something out for all to look at. If you attempt to locate the 'first level of ad hominem attack' (on other's view and ideas) I submit that you will locate it it, essentially and perhaps originally, in the discourse of the Founders. They come forward with an 'attack' and an 'assault' on persons who are described as deficient in intellectual capabilities, in the ability to 'reason', are called stupid, herd-animals, hysteriques, fems, and a litany of other terms. I suggest that this animus should be noted.

Be that as it may, Diebert seems to indicate that no definition of 'enlightenment' is required nor should it be asked for. I find this, in a philosophical context, literally astounding as well as thoroughly untenable. But remember: this peculiar and idiosyncratic notion of 'enlightenment' offered by the Founders is an outcome of a group of other predicates, and it is those predicates that, sequitur, must be the area of focus. But the point here is to note the animus: 'retarded'. It is exactly this highfalutin, hubristic standing over conversations, standing over people and their views, and the tendency, often displayed overtly and with tangible violence, of coming down on someone with both feet, that is in my view an extending element of the dysfunction that has been established at a core level in the forum through the philosophical tenets.

As I have said at least 100 times, it is this tendency, this almost erotic-sadistic pleasure that seems to attract a certain sort of person to these doctrines. It is at this point that, to examine those doctrines, requires an almost Freudian scalpel. To get to the bottom (heh heh, speaking of the Good Doktor things often get slippery!) of things here requires a whole plethora of tools.

Trippy, ain't it?
Diebert wrote:More evidence some people just want conversation as a goal in itself here. Perhaps to labor a point creating boring social interaction just to have this labor, to feel busy, to extract meaning not from the topic but from the engagement itself, justified and overvalued by the pretentious sounding topic as garment to cover the shame?
Related in kind to this one:
Such a sad waste of genuine effort. A neurosis of the Pincho variety! Pseudo-academic pedantry just to make himself feel like someone doing something. And needs this place like hell too. Fascination with ones own death? Pumping around of empty criticism just to have it increase value by itself? Self-referential resuscitation?
More spurious, insolent, contemptuous, self-selected 'evidence' and grandstanding and little more. Just a smidgen of the dreaded (but fun!) ad hominem. I won't speak for others who make their own declarations as to why they write here, but I write here and I involve myself in fairly serious study in my daily life, to be able to get to a genuine understanding of what philosophical living means and how it can and should function in a person's life. I also am involved in a project of attempting to organize ideas about how such formulations (as these of GF and QRS) can come into existence and why. As y'all know I take a critical stand as against this 'Zen' as a manifestation of a 'vertical invasion of the barbarian', which means as a trend that seems to have ambiguous results that can be looked at. I think it wise to point out that in respect to 'to extract meaning not from the topic but from the engagement itself, justified and overvalued by the pretentious sounding topic as garment to cover the shame?' is an unfair assault on clearly defined, if not widely accepted, intentions.

PS: Here is Dan's Enlightenment video.
Ni ange, ni bête

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Russell Parr » Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:06 am

Alex Jacob wrote:Be that as it may, Diebert seems to indicate that no definition of 'enlightenment' is required nor should it be asked for. I find this, in a philosophical context, literally astounding as well as thoroughly untenable.
When someone has been around for as long as 6 years, and still has to ask what this forum is about, it's safe to assume that, to this point, that person hasn't been here to actually participate and engage in the forum's purpose in any way whatsoever. The cloud of ignorance surrounding you, full of faulty and arrogant presumptions based on a premise that directly contrasts the founders' goal (that enlightenment is useless as a goal and even as a term), is so thick that you wouldn't be able to read the definition of enlightenment if it were written on your hand.

You're like a gluttoned kid in a ravaged candy store after sitting through and effectively ignoring a lesson on the dangers of sweets and tooth decay, blurting continuously about how good each candy tastes.

Do you really know why you're kept around? Not because you present what you may think to be reasonable arguments, faaar from it. It's simply because you have this gift, to test the egos of those of us that are actually serious about wisdom and enlightenment. In fact, I can barely stand to read you most of the time, half because your posts are essay length each, and half because of how chock-full of ignorance they are. Of course, my intolerance is my own demon to deal with.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6051
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:00 am

Russell wrote:
Alex Jacob wrote:Be that as it may, Diebert seems to indicate that no definition of 'enlightenment' is required nor should it be asked for. I find this, in a philosophical context, literally astounding as well as thoroughly untenable.
When someone has been around for as long as 6 years, and still has to ask what this forum is about, it's safe to assume that, to this point, that person hasn't been here to actually participate and engage in the forum's purpose in any way whatsoever. The cloud of ignorance surrounding you, full of faulty and arrogant presumptions based on a premise that directly contrasts the founders' goal (that enlightenment is useless as a goal and even as a term), is so thick that you wouldn't be able to read the definition of enlightenment if it were written on your hand.
Yeah, plus that he didn't bother to read carefully: my point was that if there would be a neatly packaged definition that would have no serious limitation, that we could just as well close the forum. So naturally there have been many given over time and it's still going on. It's never enough! So asking for another more satisfying, more "clear" one at this stage is just utterly dumb or more likely in this case more pretense after a lifetime of training and perfecting pretense as to become second nature.

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:53 am

W. R. Inge from an Essay on Religion in The Legacy of Greece wrote:"Faith in honest seeking (ζήτησις) is at the heart of the Greek view of life. 'Those who would rightly judge the truth', says Aristotle, 'must be arbitrators, not litigants'. 'Happy is he who has learnt the value of research (ίστορία,), says Euripides in a fragment. Curiosity, as the Greeks knew and the Middle Ages knew not, is a virtue, not a vice."
Diebert wrote:Yeah, plus that he didn't bother to read carefully: my point was that if there would be a neatly packaged definition that would have no serious limitation, that we could just as well close the forum. So naturally there have been many given over time and it's still going on. It's never enough! So asking for another more satisfying, more "clear" one at this stage is just utterly dumb or more likely in this case more pretense after a lifetime of training and perfecting pretense as to become second nature.
What you write---again your opinion, your private understanding interposed---contradicts overtly the idea and the necessity communicated in Dan's video and in every declaration out of the mouths of David or Dan. And that is fine and good to know.

If we are all here with sort of 'Hellenic curiosity' to inquire into the nature of the world and the meaning of our presence in it, there are many different possibilities and also sources to look into. I accept no reduction, no crass reduction I should say, of the depth and breadth of the issue we face as we come face to face with the Great Questions.

It is true indeed that there seems to be a great division between our points of view, but not because 'yours' is rational and somehow automatically correct and mine is not. But it rather has to do with the way that we use ratiocination. But this much is a fact: there is a great deal of material out there (just now reading The Legacy of Greece which is phenomenal) that opens up an inquiry (honest seeking: ζήτησις) in ways and into areas which, for small-mindedness and bizarre rigidity, are not allowed here.
Russel wrote:When someone has been around for as long as 6 years, and still has to ask what this forum is about, it's safe to assume that, to this point, that person hasn't been here to actually participate and engage in the forum's purpose in any way whatsoever. The cloud of ignorance surrounding you, full of faulty and arrogant presumptions based on a premise that directly contrasts the founders' goal (that enlightenment is useless as a goal and even as a term), is so thick that you wouldn't be able to read the definition of enlightenment if it were written on your hand.
Except that according to Diebert it is the very term that we are all here working on. The issue seems to be in 'demanding' a 'clear' or 'final' definition which, if I understand correctly, is not in fact available.

But it is not at all that I need to ask for a definition---I have indeed listened to Dan's video (or been hypnotized by it, depending)---but that I quite seriously doubt it as a basic proposition. Yet it is true that I have not aggressively attacked it in se. But I have now approached that effort with a clear definition of what about it I feel is dysfunctional.

And again, I am interested in participating in 'ultimate' conversations of the very nature of our experience in this reality but admit to being somewhat uncertain how I might, as a mere person, be able to penetrate into the essence of the 'nature of existence', or how, if such a thing were possible, I would then explain what 'it' is. I have a strong feeling that anyone who claims to 'know' what is 'ultimate reality' is 1) high on some strange drug, or 2) tricking themselves at a fundamental level. It seems to me---poor, suffering and ignorant as I am---that we can only really define a sense of what we shall do here and also possibly that, face to face with God or god or 'God', some other sort of inner skill is required to be brought into understanding.

Please don't have a freak-out if I toss in a few of St Paul's words on this subject:
"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive, the things that God hath prepared for them that love him" and "Now we see through a mirror, in riddles, and know only in part".
I have my issues with Christianity, and with St Paul, and yet I find that on a basic level I resonate, myself, more with the essence that comes through this than with some 'poisonous logic' which seems to be the methodology at the base of the rational tactics of the Founders. Is that acceptable here?

Again, don't have a freak-out I only do this for fun, and possibly to annoy a little since, to say the least, y'all don't have much 'appreciation' of the Bible, but your comment about 'if it were written on your hand' reminded me of a bit of Isaiah:
“Can a mother forget the baby at her breast
and have no compassion on the child she has borne?
Though she may forget,
I will not forget you!
See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands.
Ni ange, ni bête

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Russell Parr » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:34 am

I don't have an issue with the bible itself, but rather the people that use, or misuse, it for egotistical agendas (nearly everyone). I don't mind nor care who or what you quote; it's about intent, obviously.

The core problem you have is this belief that there is no ultimate truths/Reality to be known or had in subjective experience. To be fair, this sums up the core problem in everybody (and root of all ignorance, it seems). It's not an easy illusion to shake. It's easy enough to see in the likes of Kunga and Seeker, but unlike them, you've manage to ignore it completely while arguing against some imaginary edifice for years. Everything is right there in the writings, but you claim you must probe deeper, get behind the scenes.. I've no problem understanding the founders in the few years I've been here, yet you're as baffled as ever.

It's all style, and no substance with you. As evident in your own admissions, you lack the ability to reach the core meaning of things. As such, you dwell on the surface and prance around in costumes of arguments, as if "for fun." But we all know that you just really love drama, and of course, your ego.

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:00 am

The 'ego' is part-and-parcel of man, now and forever. It is not that 'ego' is there that is the problem, it is rather what men do with their egos. Still, from the perspective of 'unmodified mind' and 'direct experience of reality', the Bible as a compendium of twisted ideas and obtuse history---not to mention the notion of a guiding, transcendent personality---can only, as I see things, be rejected in its entirety.
Russell wrote:The core problem you have is this belief that there is no ultimate truths/Reality to be known or had in subjective experience.
Frankly the issue is quite a bit more complex than that, as with so many things in life. The more difficult questions are often the most knotty. But I want you to own your own paraphrase and not to associate it with me. Or, like a sticker, to stick it on me. I am pretty capable of choosing my own labels which is to say: self-defining. And too I am aware of my own shortcomings, though I don't consider the ones you've outlined as either mine or the ones that inhibit me.

I would rather say that I am chary of the implications of privileging as absolute truths truths which, prima facie, appear in fact as partial truths, or truths dominated by a virulent will, or 'truths' which are part of the operations of virulent wills who, in their own ignorance, break apart and even work to destroy 'links' with vital currents of idea that, in my view, are extremely valuable and won at great cost---I take issue more with that. I could go on. If you take the time to examine what I have written, and run it back through your mental mill, you may be able to understand that I am opposed to an aspect of the project, or to use your phrase the 'egotistical agendas' of certain persons who get hold of so-called Absolute Truths. But yes, if push came to shove, I would have to confess to you that though I sense a general area (where an Absolute may be encountered), I cannot myself lay claim to ownership of it. And further I think the best way to serve it, in ourselves and also for others, is to describe the ramp that approaches it. But it is also true that I am not at all attracted---indeed I am repulsed---by 'zennish' concepts of 'absolutes', and the use of what I have noted as 'cult-like tactics' in handling them and also what I referred to above with Ernst Becker: coercive spirituality. It is a wide and rather sticky conversation.

I don't think you have earned the right to define 'ignorance'. Nor do I think any one of the QRS has earned the right to define it. I say this in the strongest language and indeed this is the point that I become most biting, most adamant and where I desire to sting: for a batch of fools to appropriate these terms and to assume sagesse is a deep insult to everything that I can name as important and worthy. This is one point on which I will never bend. You need to continue in your education before you start---and you seem to have started---to bandy about these terms. You pick up these attitudes from your Masters I take it? It is not only your age but your clear lack of knowledge. Not some mysterious 'enlightenment' knowledge but the knowledge that makes up a basic education. Get a little humility if possible. It is quite possible that, at a fundamental level, you are in no different boat than either Seeker or Kunga. In fact, you may be worse off because you have little critical abilities, at least from the look of it. And you are inclined, also from the look of it, to operate within a pack.
It's all style, and no substance with you. As evident in your own admissions, you lack the ability to reach the core meaning of things.
Style and a certain use of drama I have availed myself of, but all of my recent posts have been in crystal clear prose full of substance. One remarkable thing is how 'the group' attempts to throw up a definition and then the whole pack takes hold of it. Your statement is blatantly false and yet ... you 'believe' it. But there is no need to fight over it---what a waste of time!---I accept that you think I am substance-less. Again, it often hinges in and around definitions of Value.
Last edited by Alex Jacob on Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ni ange, ni bête

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dennis Mahar » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:04 am

Russell,
Alex is a can of worms and cunning as a shithouse rat.
He says he plays the trickster role.

We have to bring the Zen distinction in to play.

Those who don't know tell.
Those who tell don't know.

A master builder engages an apprentice and its 'telling' the apprentice don't know.
A cursory glance at Alex appears don't know is 'telling'.

Does Alex fit that category?

Does his persistent mocking that y'sall aren't 'telling' anything and merely demonstrate hubris fully accountable of the circumstances?
I don't think Alex has got that right.

The difficulty for the master builder is that he can't tell the apprentice anything, he can only supply a series of pointers in a conversation that the apprentice 'gets' which enables the apprentice to 'tell' for himself.

The line 'those who tell don't know' would be better 'those who tell can't tell'.

that would reflect the situation better.
those who tell can't tell unless the apprentice is actually present in a listening mode.

the pointers themselves aren't 'telling' in themselves as they are 'told'.
they are only 'telling' when they are distinguished by the apprentice.

from the point of view of wisdom there is no productivity in engaging with trickster because it stays in a place called 'mucking around'.
on the other hand, as you say russell, a ratbag in a village is a useful temperament tester.

I wonder what action Pye would take if a committed ratbag dwelt in her class dishing out a 'mocking tirade' as she attempted to convey the subtle abstractions of the philosophers.
I suspect the ratbag would be escorted off campus.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dan Rowden » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:25 am

Alex Jacob wrote:Style and a certain use of drama I have availed myself of, but all of my recent posts have been in crystal clear prose full of substance. One remarkable thing is how 'the group' attempts to throw up a definition and then the whole pack takes hold of it. Your statement is blatantly false and yet ... you 'believe' it. But there is no need to fight over it---what a waste of time!---I accept that you think I am substance-less. Again, it often hinges in and around definitions of Value.
Substance? Well, yes, your posts have substance, as any post necessarily must. i.e. they're full of shit. Please name a single "absolute truth" that QRS asserts and show that we ought not. Do that or just shut up. I'm serious here - you either get past these empty rhetorical diatribes and make a proper argument or you can go away. Asserting the existence of cultism (we're such a cult I haven't laid eyes on Kevin in nearly ten years and have not spoken to him in about 5 - yes, we're such a cult), asserting some sort of "originality" [or claim thereof] that doesn't in fact exist, asserting hubris (you accusing others of hubris is utterly insane) - all of this malarkey doesn't constitute any sort of argument. It amounts to little more than an attempt at character assassination. I am sick to death of it.

Oh, and one more post from you containing what amounts to gossip about how who in QRS "recruited" whom and I'll ban your sorry arse without warning.

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Russell Parr » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:35 am

Alex, I certainly own my assessments.

I hope to point out to anyone reading Alex's replies that he says very little, if anything at all, in response to the actual issues, except that it's "complicated" or "knotty," and instead delves right into his own perceived underlying motives of those that argue for absolute truths, as if understanding exactly what is being said is less important than the fashion in which they are expressed, or the attitude of the messenger.
I would rather say that I am chary of the implications of privileging as absolute truths truths which, prima facie, appear in fact as partial truths, or truths dominated by a virulent will, or 'truths' which are part of the operations of virulent wills who, in their own ignorance, break apart and even work to destroy 'links' with vital currents of idea that, in my view, are extremely valuable and won at great cost---I take issue more with that. I could go on. If you take the time to examine what I have written, and run it back through your mental mill, you may be able to understand that I am opposed to an aspect of the project
This is what I mean when I say you're about the style, and not the substance. The depth of your response in regard to absolute truths is merely that they appear to be partial truths, or that you "sense" that there is a general area in which "an Absolute may be encountered". Wow.
Dennis Mahar wrote:from the point of view of wisdom there is no productivity in engaging with trickster because it stays in a place called 'mucking around'.
Although I may be having a run at Alex for my own sake in a sense, I don't post if I don't think it contributes to the purpose of the forum. You never know who might be reading.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dan Rowden » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:10 am

Russell to Alex wrote:The depth of your response in regard to absolute truths is merely that they appear to be partial truths, or that you "sense" that there is a general area in which "an Absolute may be encountered". Wow.
Wow indeed. What does any of that actually mean, though? The question that appears nigh impossible to answer is this: Is Alex incapable of knowing, or unwilling to know? I can't figure it out.

Post Reply