Videocy/Literacy

[Kunga]

I think its more "manly" for a man to not bitch about "womanliness" in others. Did Buddha or Jesus "bitch " about women ?
Think about it.

A man to me, is kind to women.
Real men appreciate real women.
And vice versa.

The Enlightened Ones are loving and compassionate to all...

[Dennis Mahar]

Minds aren't mirrors.
nothing's hidden.

[Pam Seeback]

Leyla: If there's no subject/object unification, no containment in a finite thing, how can love be anything other than "reciprocal"?

Wiki:

Reciprocity in social psychology refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, rewarding kind actions. As a social construct, reciprocity means that in response to friendly actions, people are frequently much nicer and much more cooperative than predicted by the self-interest model; conversely, in response to hostile actions they are frequently much more nasty and even brutal.

Emotional model of self, emotional mirroring. I give you the emotion of love, you return it. I give you the emotion of hate, you return it. Consciousness of no-self considers emotional mirroring ignorance.

[Kunga]

Consciousness of no-self considers emotional mirroring ignorance.

But being that they (the Enlightened) are compassionate... don't ridicule those, that they themselves were/are.

[Pye]

Firstly, it's good to see that wisdom's permission is expansive and of good cheer.

Secondly,

Dennis asks:
Armature?
Is that word of the week?

only inasmuch as it prompts this:

Dennis:
I haven't got a problem with winning formulas.
it's what we do.

Mind generates environmental possibilities.

yes, so there's no need to confine oneself to working in the building permit department issuing repeated refusals based upon dependent origination alone. the armature. got it. It's what we hang on it, transparent or obscurant or all points in between. the built-world. what we're conscious-of.

and just in general on the Marx/woman thing: also hooked into the materialist, capitalist, incremental world view is the elevation of competition - as the most pristine and effective model that Darwin's theory gives us of the 'proper' workings of the world. If species/life is assumed to be persistent and preservationary, then it is/has been competition that best serves the overall health of the species.

Any Saint Simeonian-like notion of cooperation as the more prevalent and preservationary aspect to species-being is naturally met with a sexist response. That kind of milky bullshit (like, say, socialism) won't keep a species healthy and strong, so the same patrician matrix of the capitalist/competitive model supports.

Perhaps the present sense of species-being - with its huge and unwieldy numbers and lopsided consumption/distribution, its anxiety - would trend more toward the cooperation model in natural response to its sheer numbers. Not to be mutually exclusive of either, but it is possible that all the 'feminizing' trends some of yuns like to cite and bewail as the slippery decay of humanity would become necessary to support our consciousness of our numbers.

They say rats overcrowded in a cage will kill/eat one another with some sort of malthusian inevitability in order to shave their own numbers down. As not-rats, consciousness of our present species-being - as well as the impossibility of sustaining a world-wide western lifestyle - might eventually have to terrify us into a better model of distribution than that of the wild wild west of free market/predatory capitalism.

I imagine as well, that a notion of Marx's, such as "species being," would be too soft and fuzzy for the competition model/conception of the world as well. But in another light, it can be seen for sharp attention to a non-self-centered species-sense and a band-width of causal conditions that produce favourable/unfavourable conditions for species-overall. If the capital-competition model were once serious with itself, it would have to reckon that species-being overall concerns itself less than individual egoic being does. Perhaps species response to present/future conditions will not be suited to these so-called 'masculine' belief practices anymore.

[Dennis Mahar]

Armature and what hangs off it aren't different as you seem to suggest.
One and the same.
You ARE your winning formula.

existential critter of no rank at all.

[Pam Seeback]

Consciousness of no-self considers emotional mirroring ignorance.

But being that they (the Enlightened) are compassionate... don't ridicule those, that they themselves were/are.

Are you equating the term "ignorance" with ridicule?

[Kunga]

Consciousness of no-self considers emotional mirroring ignorance.

But being that they (the Enlightened) are compassionate... don't ridicule those, that they themselves were/are.

Are you equating the term "ignorance" with ridicule?

No.

No-self doesn't consider anything ignorant....doesn't look down upon others...see's all as equal....does not consider anything...

[Pam Seeback]

Consciousness of no-self considers emotional mirroring ignorance.

But being that they (the Enlightened) are compassionate... don't ridicule those, that they themselves were/are.

Are you equating the term "ignorance" with ridicule?

No.

No-self doesn't consider anything ignorant....doesn't look down upon others...see's all as equal....does not consider anything...

It is not its things that consciousness of no-self considers ignorant, it's its reaction to its things that it considers ignorant and rightly so. Since consciousness is the sum and total of all its things, when it emotionally reacts to its things as it does in moments of reciprocity, kindness for kindness, anger for anger, it does so in ignorance. To reflect this truth is not to look down on others, for in truth, 'other' does not exist, rather, it is what it is, a reflection of truth.

[Leyla Shen]

Thanks for the Wiki quote, Pam.

Now would you mind blessing us with the actual work to be done and critiquing the statement in the full context of Marx himself, or will you simply continue to mirror the kind of emotional tardiness Diebert likes to reflect?

[Leyla Shen]

Pam wrote:

Consciousness of no-self considers emotional mirroring ignorance.

What's no-self consciousness?

[Leyla Shen]

And while you are at it, would you mind—

1. Explaining to me what Marx means in the quote below.
2. How he would respond, given the reasoning therein, to your notion of “no-self consciousness”.
3. Refute the premises of his argument and the reasoning thereupon proceeding.
4. Providing your own premises and the reasoning thereupon proceeding.

Marx:

A being only considers himself independent when he stands on his own feet; and he only stands on his own feet when he owes his existence to himself. A man who lives by the grace of another regards himself as a dependent being. But I live completely by the grace of another if I owe him not only the maintenance of my life, but if he has, moreover, created my life – if he is the source of my life. When it is not of my own creation, my life has necessarily a source of this kind outside of it. The Creation is therefore an idea very difficult to dislodge from popular consciousness. The fact that nature and man exist on their own account is incomprehensible to it, because it contradicts everything tangible in practical life.

Now it is certainly easy to say to the single individual what Aristotle has already said: You have been begotten by your father and your mother; therefore in you the mating of two human beings – a species-act of human beings – has produced the human being. You see, therefore, that even physically man owes his existence to man. Therefore you must not only keep sight of the one aspect – the infinite progression which leads you further to inquire: Who begot my father? Who his grandfather? etc. You must also hold on to the circular movement sensuously perceptible in that progress by which man repeats himself in procreation, man thus always remaining the subject. You will reply, however: I grant you this circular movement; now grant me the progress which drives me ever further until I ask: Who begot the first man, and nature as a whole? I can only answer you: Your question is itself a product of abstraction. Ask yourself how you arrived at that question. Ask yourself whether your question is not posed from a standpoint to which I cannot reply, because it is wrongly put. Ask yourself whether that progress as such exists for a reasonable mind. When you ask about the creation of nature and man, you are abstracting, in so doing, from man and nature. You postulate them as non-existent, and yet you want me to prove them to you as existing. Now I say to you: Give up your abstraction and you will also give up your question. Or if you want to hold on to your abstraction, then be consistent, and if you think of man and nature as non-existent, ||XI| then think of yourself as non-existent, for you too are surely nature and man. Don’t think, don’t ask me, for as soon as you think and ask, your abstraction from the existence of nature and man has no meaning. Or are you such an egotist that you conceive everything as nothing, and yet want yourself to exist?

[Leyla Shen]

You know like, I'm asking you to demonstrate how your assertion, "It is not its things that consciousness of no-self considers ignorant, it's its reaction to its things that it considers ignorant and rightly so" applies in this case; how it is that Marx's reasoning here is "reactionary" and your -- well, assertion, is truthful.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But will you respond any better to some actual critique?

The text that was left out in that last Marx quote is way more interesting to comment on. The whole piece appears to be an argument against a divine Creator. This is the context one has to analyze the text in.

Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society

Various errors:

• the postulation of "real existence of man and nature" only "through sense experience" is a position worthless as "real" is here just the truth of Marx and 19th century concepts of human nature.
• here Marx his new "essence": the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature. But do not ask about causality please! That's too abstract...spoiling the sensuous consciousness of eye-nature.
• ideology needs a eschatology, for Marx it's the "actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development".

By postulating against alien-as-cause and abolishing atheism Marx just created ideology, as apostle of a secular creed, full of religious sentiment, like Nietzsche's definition of opposite thinkers, " those, in who continuous opposing and objecting is taken to such an extreme, that they end up positioning against an existing system, a different one". But then read ideology or religion here. This is possible because Marx is nearly always wrong when analyzing religion since the philosophical and wisdom aspect, the spiritual is alien to him. It's analyzed as social movement and response, not about any ideas on human nature because it has to be, right? For example:

Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves

This is not true. The first known followers of Christ were mostly from the wealthy, Romanized part of society. Even the grave Jesus was put in and ointments were poshest of the posh! And the acceptance of Christianity as state religion with the Roman Emperor himself as first pope before even the first official canon and basic theology were established point to the complete reverse of Marx his concept. He picks a few decades of religious oppression and analyses that instead of centuries of slow development before and after as cause. Again we see a complete neglect of the full scope of causality with Marx. Since origins must be "social forces" he thinks he can safely ignore the power of ideas and philosophy (of moving spirit) which underly the initial gospels, the force, the pen that moved people against a flow of decadent forces like Judaism or the Roman moral decline.

The problem in even starker terms:

In direct contrast to German philosophy, which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven… We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-proces

Yes, we set out from the "real" which we just defined for you in some defined material historical sense. But the "heaven" one creates with that to ascend to will crumble with every step. It ends up not having any base simple because the material hasn't any. Marx his "real" and his productive forces do not have any. Well, in his own analysis they can exist since there's an ideology to fuel its reality! This is the fundamental problem with Marx and his method of analyzing. It's very difficult to explain because generally a Marxist thinker already signed on to the religious or ideological elements underling the definitions.

[Leyla Shen]

But will you respond any better to some actual critique?

Sure, when it's forthcoming, with deliberate aforethought...

The whole piece appears to be an argument against a divine Creator. This is the context one has to analyze the text in.

(Aw, you removed the "tsk tsk"? Tsk tsk!)

Maybe it's just me, but I figure that in this day and age, when a person reads the term "the Creation" it's pretty bloody obvious from the outset what that encompasses.

[Dennis Mahar]

Yeah dumbass Karl,
Marx thought fixing conditions 'out there' resolved suffering.
Script for herd as a result.

painting by numbers.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But will you respond any better to some actual critique?

Sure, when it's forthcoming, with deliberate aforethought...

The whole piece appears to be an argument against a divine Creator. This is the context one has to analyze the text in.

(Aw, you removed the "tsk tsk"? Tsk tsk!) Maybe it's just me, but I figure that in this day and age, when a person reads the term "the Creation" it's pretty bloody obvious from the outset what that encompasses.

Yes, I still believe a 'tsk tsk' was in order since I think you were using the quote mostly out of context. If anything, it's raising the flag of causality to challenge well, causality. It suggests a starting point like material perception, meaning non-inherent self (no-self!) but still the factuality, the reality of a process and its various abstractions that lead to such and such analysis nevertheless.

The way you were using the quote was more like opposing "no self" as abstraction in the sense a "creator God" is one when it comes to the starting point of (religious) analysis. It's wrong because if anything Marx here argues for exactly that "no self" but continues then in other passages instead with the material "real" existence of man and nature: the whole of producing natural existence. This switch he keeps pulling off is amazing: as if his intellect reasons towards "no self" and then needs to create another self, some material preposition to build upon including a very select set of causes to include. A necessity for him I suppose since he's not a philospher, he couldn't exist in any other way. Dennis can be right at times: "painting with numbers" -- with numbers being the abstract Marx counts as "real".

[Dennis Mahar]

Extra Extra
stop press
Romance Weekly

Leyla falls for wrong guy again!

Tears in heaven.

[Pam Seeback]

Thanks for the Wiki quote, Pam.

Now would you mind blessing us with the actual work to be done and critiquing the statement in the full context of Marx himself, or will you simply continue to mirror the kind of emotional tardiness Diebert likes to reflect?

Emotional anything is the ignorance I was exposing. Reciprocity is an emotional reaction. Marx used the word in the sense of it being an enlightened activity. Reaction is not an enlightened activity.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam wrote:

Consciousness of no-self considers emotional mirroring ignorance.

What's no-self consciousness?

Not no-self consciousness but consciousness of no-self. Consciousness of no-self is the same consciousness as is consciousness of emptiness.

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert wrote:

Yes, I still believe a 'tsk tsk' was in order since I think you were using the quote mostly out of context. If anything, it's raising the flag of causality to challenge well, causality.

Um, no, I don’t think so.

It suggests a starting point like material perception, meaning non-inherent self (no-self!) but still the factuality, the reality of a process and its various abstractions that lead to such and such analysis nevertheless.

The idealist premise that nature and man (and with it, “self”) are pure/abstract truths, i.e., exist inherently or ultimately (!), is clearly the idealist premise being challenged by materialism, i.e., dualism (that “process and its various abstractions that lead to such and such analysis”) as reality, reality from which all abstractions are made possible, even the absolute ones. There is no other way the self can exist non-inherently/in any form, deluded or otherwise! (This explains why you and Dennis, and Dennis and others, occasionally get on, and occasionally don’t, by the way.)

This point he addresses when he takes Aristotle as an example, and the patrilineal regression of begetting and begotting offered as the cause of one’s existence, and its following this that Marx makes the crucial (and misunderstood!) point:

[therefore] You must also hold on to the circular movement sensuously perceptible in that progress by which man repeats himself in procreation, man thus always remaining the subject.

So man becomes, by this grand act of linear, specious reasoning, eternal subject without objective existence! Are you really trying to tell me that this is what is meant by “no-self”?

This is why he responds to the question of who begot the “first man and woman” with:

Ask yourself whether your question is not posed from a standpoint to which I cannot reply, because it is wrongly put. Ask yourself whether that progress as such exists for a reasonable mind. When you ask about the creation of nature and man, you are abstracting, in so doing, from man and nature. You postulate them as non-existent, and yet you want me to prove them to you as existing. Now I say to you: Give up your abstraction and you will also give up your question. Or if you want to hold on to your abstraction, then be consistent, and if you think of man and nature as non-existent, ||XI| then think of yourself as non-existent, for you too are surely nature and man. Don’t think, don’t ask me, for as soon as you think and ask, your abstraction from the existence of nature and man has no meaning. Or are you such an egotist that you conceive everything as nothing, and yet want yourself to exist?

And also why he, in the first instance, stated:

The fact that nature and man exist on their own account is incomprehensible to [popular consciousness], because it contradicts everything tangible in practical life.

So I really don’t see how this is supposed to be “raising the flag of causality to challenge well, causality”.

The way you were using the quote was more like opposing "no self" as abstraction in the sense a "creator God" is one when it comes to the starting point of (religious) analysis.

It's wrong because if anything Marx here argues for exactly that "no self" but continues then in other passages instead with the material "real" existence of man and nature: the whole of producing natural existence. This switch he keeps pulling off is amazing: as if his intellect reasons towards "no self" and then needs to create another self, some material preposition to build upon including a very select set of causes to include. A necessity for him I suppose since he's not a philospher, he couldn't exist in any other way. Dennis can be right at times: "painting with numbers" -- with numbers being the abstract Marx counts as "real".

See above.

[Leyla Shen]

Extra Extra
stop press
Romance Weekly

Leyla falls for wrong guy again!

You wish!

[Pam Seeback]

You know like, I'm asking you to demonstrate how your assertion, "It is not its things that consciousness of no-self considers ignorant, it's its reaction to its things that it considers ignorant and rightly so" applies in this case; how it is that Marx's reasoning here is "reactionary" and your -- well, assertion, is truthful.

My above assertion was based on that one statement given by Marx as quoted by Diebert. It stood out as perfect opportunity to challenge the idea that emotional love is enlightened or existential love. I have never read Marx and have no intentions of reading Marx. It is not that I don't believe his works have merit, every work is a perfect reflection of consciousness, it is that I see no value, for my own consciousness in studying-critquing social-political idealism, or any idealism for that matter.

[Leyla Shen]

And how do you define idealism!?

[Pam Seeback]

The pursuit of the perfect in ideas that is projected onto the world as the perfect idea or set of ideas. Like when Dennis forgets to say that bliss is a possibility born of consciousness of emptiness and instead he places bliss side-by-side with emptiness implying they are one and the same thing or he side-steps the idea of emptiness altogether and simply declares "Bliss" as if it is truth absolute.