Statement about Solway and Trump

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Sorry I lie - one last post showing Trump's utter disregard for reality and his quite apparent inability to parse anything other than through the filter of his own insane emotional nexus

You realize that's a red herring, right? Nobody in this thread has even started arguing for whatever it is you seem to try to disprove or demonstrate. The discussion as I read it was really about two other things: 1. for what reason beyond a vague fear a Trump government would be so much worse than surviving e.g. G.W. Bush with a proven track record lasting eight years of lethal insanity (as if it's a feature of US politics). And 2. if it's reasonable to distance oneself from "alt-right" so vocally and publicly, considering it's a complex phenomenon, looking beyond the more vocal lowest common denominator, involving quite a few people who support just parts of the ideas floated by Trump and find the occasional bold in-your-face cheap lying (or confusing stories) refreshing compared to the more refined, but constant version: that nothing being said was ever close to any truth any more!

One of the many examples for that last point would be the people from antiwar.com, who are promoting non-interventionism and although driven by libertarian and some "old-right" intellectuals (and stemming from the Randolph Bourne Institute) they really try to involve the left and independents as well since their focus is mostly foreign policy related. And lets face it, there's hardly a serious pacifist element left at the Left/Liberal side in the States. So you'd find there a general interest and mild support for some of Trump's trial balloons for becoming less interventionist which would bring him in opposition to die-hard Statists of both ruling parties while at the same time you'd notice a healthy distrust as well since it's still more likely Trump will go with anything which advances his position on a particular day in the eyes of what he imagines his world consists of on a given day.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Thanks for taking time to respond so detailed, Jim.

The to and fros ... – they become too academic, I don’t want to compete at the fine detail level.”

Yeah, fair enough although it's always the Devil which lurks in those damn details! But at some point it indeed becomes increasingly contradictory and counter-productive. Then again, just skimming the issue not looking any deeper is not going to provide any well thought-out point of view either. Most people seem to desire just to "have" a view, to buy it, copy it, ensemble it from smaller bought parts and so on. To me it seems most discussions are a battle of pre-conceived notions and fragments taken from here and there. Verification becomes more the question of who you want to trust.

That’s a problem, I don’t have any philosophic questions and require novelty to be interested.

Fair enough. But what brought you back to the forum? Even just to tell us you're not here? :) What drove you? The novelty of political discussions between philosophers who normally write pretty abstract sounding about "existence"?

Technology has become a curse. I really hoped that enough people would eventually get bored with the shallowness of the entertainment based world and look for something deeper, so that there could be a critical mass here at GF. I hate the feeling that my mind opening experience here was just a case of being around at the right time, early in the age of the internet.

There's nothing odd or unusual about your description of your state of mind. From my own experience I can only say that there are definitely ways to get deeper into any subject, any aspect of the world or experience you can imagine. But it's largely an individual journey although once you realize what's happening, it's a road everybody is on, in many horrible variations. In the end wisdom won't bring any sustained happiness or satisfaction, or at least not how happiness and satisfaction were understood at the start. In many cases it will bring stress and could burn and crash even the most sincere explorer simply because, and this is my view, the human mind has currently still severe limits on reasoning, mainly because how it's tied to the world of hormones (which are in turn tied to many external forces), competing instincts, genes, stress from environments and all the habitual stuff. The ideal to rise all above that is the most pure and highest ideal for any human while at the same time also the ultimate delusion: having to deny or ignore some causality in the process.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: In the end wisdom won't bring any sustained happiness or satisfaction, or at least not how happiness and satisfaction were understood at the start. In many cases it will bring stress and could burn and crash even the most sincere explorer simply because, and this is my view, the human mind has currently still severe limits on reasoning, mainly because how it's tied to the world of hormones (which are in turn tied to many external forces), competing instincts, genes, stress from environments and all the habitual stuff. The ideal to rise all above that is the most pure and highest ideal for any human while at the same time also the ultimate delusion: having to deny or ignore some causality in the process.

I agree with you that the ideal to rise above the stress of competing instincts, genes, and the environment is the most pure and highest ideal for any human but we disagree on what this ideal 'is'. Where you (and most here) define this ideal of the highest as being that of reasoning, I define this ideal as being that of emptiness realization, of which reasoning is the intellectual aspect of 'making order' and feeling is the playful/enjoyment aspect of 'making love.'

As long as emptiness is kept fore front and centre (and this task of the idealist of truth is not an easy task) the spirit is free to make order when making order is required (required being the operative word - this is where wisdom comes in) and to make love when making order is not required (also wisdom's call). It is my belief that most on this board suffer from poverty of love-play emptiness. Perhaps it is time to let go of fear of the feminine.

[Eric Schiedler]

Where you (and most here) define this ideal of the highest as being that of reasoning, I define this ideal as being that of emptiness realization, of which reasoning is the intellectual aspect of 'making order' and feeling is the playful/enjoyment aspect of 'making love.'

As long as emptiness is kept fore front and centre (and this task of the idealist of truth is not an easy task) the spirit is free to make order when making order is required (required being the operative word - this is where wisdom comes in) and to make love when making order is not required (also wisdom's call). It is my belief that most on this board suffer from poverty of love-play emptiness. Perhaps it is time to let go of fear of the feminine.

I might be able to understand your message if you could elaborate or expand on your understanding of "love-play emptiness".

Do you mean humor? I laugh and chuckle quite a bit as I observe myself and others stumble over the absurdity of delusions. I don’t often put this humor into my writings as it is hard to get across. I've found excellent humor on this board and in the links to other works.

Or do you mean physical sex with a woman with emotional overtones? I’ve met many women and never got a sense of love from women, just an illusion in my own mind that any kind of “love” was going on over the lust. I think the views on physical and mental sex discussion on this board and the philosophical writings that are linked as references are quite observant but perhaps your views are different.

Or maybe this is a topic for a different thread or, if it has been discussed in a previous thread, could you link to it? I'm happy to do a search as I have browsed the archives but perhaps you have one thread in mind towards which to point.

[Pam Seeback]

Where you (and most here) define this ideal of the highest as being that of reasoning, I define this ideal as being that of emptiness realization, of which reasoning is the intellectual aspect of 'making order' and feeling is the playful/enjoyment aspect of 'making love.'

As long as emptiness is kept fore front and centre (and this task of the idealist of truth is not an easy task) the spirit is free to make order when making order is required (required being the operative word - this is where wisdom comes in) and to make love when making order is not required (also wisdom's call). It is my belief that most on this board suffer from poverty of love-play emptiness. Perhaps it is time to let go of fear of the feminine.

I might be able to understand your message if you could elaborate or expand on your understanding of "love-play emptiness".

Do you mean humor? I laugh and chuckle quite a bit as I observe myself and others stumble over the absurdity of delusions. I don’t often put this humor into my writings as it is hard to get across. I've found excellent humor on this board and in the links to other works.

Or do you mean physical sex with a woman with emotional overtones? I’ve met many women and never got a sense of love from women, just an illusion in my own mind that any kind of “love” was going on over the lust. I think the views on physical and mental sex discussion on this board and the philosophical writings that are linked as references are quite observant but perhaps your views are different.

Or maybe this is a topic for a different thread or, if it has been discussed in a previous thread, could you link to it? I'm happy to do a search as I have browsed the archives but perhaps you have one thread in mind towards which to point.

Hi Eric, pleased to meet you!

Because you mentioned the writings on this board, you must be aware that the Buddhist ideal of Buddahood is the highest held ideal by most of the posters here. In order to explain further what I mean by 'making love' in relation to this highest held ideal, I'll refer to the simplest summation of the Buddist ideal I could find, that of the Wikipedia entry on the 10 spiritual realms of Mahayana Buddhist cosmology:

"Buddhahood is the highest of the Ten Worlds, a condition of pure, indestructible happiness which is not dependent on one's circumstances. The experiencer is totally free from all delusion, suffering and anger. It is a condition of perfect and absolute freedom, characterized by boundless wisdom, courage, compassion and life force. This realm is difficult to describe and is generally only obtained through the direct internal perception of the realm of realization. This realm is characterized by not being shifted into lower realms due to external sources, and the non-reliance on external sources for happiness. This realm is manifested outwardly through the actions of the realm of bodhisattvahood.

In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha declares that all living beings can become a Buddha. The Buddha also inculcates the aspiration of attaining Buddhahood in his disciples. The aspiration toward Buddhahood is the key to eventually arrive at the shore of Supreme Perfect Enlightenment, i.e. Buddhahood.
In Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha explains the state of Buddhahood that is characterized by four qualities - True Self, Eternity, Purity, Happiness. All sentient beings have the Buddha-Nature within them, and hence all living beings are capable of attaining Buddhahood."

You'll note that a Buddha is defined as having absolute freedom from dependence of happiness on external sources, so I certainly am not referring to physical love or sex when I refer to 'making love.' Instead I am referring wholly to the love of the forms of The True Self as mentioned above. In other worlds, taking delight in one's distinctions, be they of colour, taste, sight or sound. And yes, laughter is indeed a part of this delight in the distinctions of True Self!

As for the reasoning of politics that is the subject matter of this thread, I don't see the reasoning coming from the indestructible happiness of a Buddha of True Self, instead, to me, it seems to originate from the human realm of awareness of 'other', of consciousness of external forces, of suffering.

[Eric Schiedler]

You'll note that a Buddha is defined as having absolute freedom from dependence of happiness on external sources, so I certainly am not referring to physical love or sex when I refer to 'making love.' Instead I am referring wholly to the love of the forms of The True Self as mentioned above. In other worlds, taking delight in one's distinctions, be they of colour, taste, sight or sound.

When you refer to taking delight in one’s distinctions, do you mean something like a deep understanding of experiencing duality, such as the realization that, after all is said and done, trees are trees and mountains are mountains, or do you mean experiencing a form of happiness, as you said earlier that a Buddha does not depend upon happiness from external sources? - This implies that a Tenth World Buddha finds happiness from his internal references. Unless you mean something else than happiness because it doesn’t seem to me that an enlightened mind feels the emotion of happiness.

What does this have to do with femininity or of being afraid of the feminine? That is something that you mentioned before. It seems to me that femininity is an external source of happiness and suffering. The men I know who are afraid of women actually love and want to love them very much! That is why they are afraid. I have yet to meet a man in person who is not afraid of women, now that I think about it.

As for politics, women seem hardly interested in politics. They want to turn the world off and dance to music. So politics seems much closer to the realm of the masculine, rational mind than the feminine mind. To the degree that there is wisdom or the lack of it among people, it will be reflected in the politics of said people.

[jimhaz]

Hi again Diebert (who is trying to make me talk).

But what brought you back to the forum? Even just to tell us you're not here? :) What drove you

Sentimentality. I’ve still got GF linked on my home page and have a peek every few months to see if things have picked up. My normal “light on depth” political forum was rather quiet.

What Kevin was up to I found interesting, particularly as I thought Kevin’s wisdom was overrated. Poison for the Heart was only half OK in my view.

I am curious about what the upcoming years will bring.

I do find the Trump team to be very confronting and they seem quite dangerous, so naturally I have a general interest in the topic. They make the US look like an ex-soviet block country.

I’m also interested in the current level of action in the right’s war on the left.

On both the above I support the moderate left – though I’ve argued elsewhere against high immigration, muslim immigration, PCism and too much mothering from the far left. I’m also certain that some degree of manufacturing protectionism is healthy for society. The problem is that it is always horribly selfish and immature conservatives that want the same thing – I mean practically all of them, not just the leaders.
I’m not going to sell my soul to them just because we have some issues in common, and certainly not when half of them are religious nutters (or pretend to be for support reasons).

I think the left is being blamed for things that technology and large numbers of people in dense areas create by necessity– things that the right do their hardest to create if there is profit in it. We actually have to allow this general weakening of masculinity in order to get the level of cooperation large hives of humans need.

One can assume in normal circumstances these things will sort themselves out – right wingers will reign for a few years and then get chucked out. There seems to be some kind of bipolar voting history in the US for the last few decades, they swap between daddy and mummy types every 8 years.

I suppose my real concern is what would happen in a time of crisis – we have an unfinished GFC due to debt and wealth hogging issues and we have world getting noticeably hotter each year with much unstoppable population and resource usage increase yet to come….and we have a rising China and a Rome in decline-like USA.

So for these reasons I fear excessive domination is to come and it will be inflicted by practically insane haters, sycophants and gluttons. There are other ways to tackle the issues I have in common with the dark side full of dark triad personalities.

Dude! It has always been that, it's the new post-coup government which was actually trying to remove it as official language. I'm not going to bother with links. It's always the people with the vapid "facts" who don't really want to enter any "debate" I suppose

I looked at Wiki - this point is certainly not as black and white as you are saying.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Jim thanks for sharing your background thought on the topic. It might be surprising but I recognize quite a lot and the differences in perspective are not that much apart! Perhaps the main difference, or at least with what Dan and David wrote, is that I do regard Russian foreign policy, however crude at times, to be more rational and measured than the American one, despite it being reported often in absurdly negative light, without much proof being supplied. And I believe it's possible to think that without in any way supporting the Russian federation or the Kremlin's domestic "mafia state". For those things I'm truly am amoral and cautious: it's not up to me to judge how others have organized their stuff; whatever works. There's no "better" Russia somewhere in recent history. It's right now as good as ever for the people and might transform into even better societies to live and work in.

So I think it's fully rational to oppose the Kremlin-baiting against Trump (Stephen F. Cohen, The Nation). And as such irrational to join the chorus.

So for these reasons I fear excessive domination is to come and it will be inflicted by practically insane haters, sycophants and gluttons. There are other ways to tackle the issues I have in common with the dark side full of dark triad personalities.

To me, the world and its inhabitants never appeared sane or particularly friendly beyond the social masks or guilt driven concern. So I've no illusion to lose here. Part of that conception is probably personal, I've always been looking at the contrasts, the light and the shadows around me which caused me to lose my initial more naive trust in people's motives. Dig deep enough around in someone's mind and you'll find some form of hate, insanity or ideas with potentially gruesome consequences if acted upon although most don't have the guts - or means. So that all made me very cautious to divide people in good or bad, nice or hateful too hastily. The finger always points back. One becomes truly modest that way, in the moral sense.

I looked at Wiki - this point is certainly not as black and white as you are saying.

Well everything is more complex under the hood. But it's still wrong to imply that Putin wanted to introduce something that wasn't there already in the first place. Clearly it's in Russia's benefit to retain and reinforce their cultural and political sphere of influence. It's rational behaviour in the context of an entity trying to self-preserve.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Where you (and most here) define this ideal of the highest as being that of reasoning, I define this ideal as being that of emptiness realization, of which reasoning is the intellectual aspect of 'making order' and feeling is the playful/enjoyment aspect of 'making love.'

When I use the word reasoning I do have a bit higher aspiration than just intellectual ordering. For most the intellectual order is the only experience they have of it and that's okay. But it's possible to conceive of reason as a prime manifestation of self-awareness, of consciousness itself. Like a contrast, a dialogue between self and other, ich & du, we & world or me in the mirror, that would be the very base of the ascent of humanity as "sapiens", or not? And if not, it's the prime element for the reason we communicate on this forum, this belief in reason to distinct us, our activities, from mindless acts. And that's the reason I'd push the ideal of reason. But the highest ideal would be infinitely wider and deeper.

the spirit is free to make order when making order is required (required being the operative word - this is where wisdom comes in) and to make love when making order is not required (also wisdom's call).

To make love is to make distinction. Before one conceives the image, the sense, the other to love, a heightened degree of distinction, of singling out is taking place. Any idea of loving without distinction is changing the definition towards its opposite. A form of violence against what made love, or even the slightest concern possible in the first place. Beware of that.

my belief that most on this board suffer from poverty of love-play emptiness. Perhaps it is time to let go of fear of the feminine.

On what do you base the idea of "fearing the feminine"? Fear is the shadow of love, fear is always geared to a sense of loss or losing whatever one feels attached or entitled to. Since the feminine is defined on "this board" often as this very attachment personified, attachment to self, its embodiment, the confusion of taking it as absolute while rejecting reality as pure relative to that, it's not the feminine that should be feared but becomes simply linked, following the earlier definition, to the deeper sources of fear and desire, of confusion.

[jupiviv]

I, on the other hand, remain convinced that jimhaz - whoever he is - is a glib windbag.

What Kevin was up to I found interesting, particularly as I thought Kevin’s wisdom was overrated. Poison for the Heart was only half OK in my view.

What does "overrated" and "half OK" even mean in this context? His book isn't Twilight fanfic; either it indicates wisdom or it doesn't. A statement like that invalidates itself.

On both the above I support the moderate left – though I’ve argued elsewhere against high immigration, muslim immigration, PCism and too much mothering from the far left. I’m also certain that some degree of manufacturing protectionism is healthy for society.

Moderate/centrist positions are by no means rational in themselves. See for example Ecumenism, which is wholly concerned with ironing out the trifling oddities of different sects. Moderate immigration isn't better than high, low or zero immigration. Neither is the lack or presence of protectionism a problem in itself. The latter is at this point a non issue because it isn't possible or useful to bring back manufacturing to the US, at least not in the way that Trump imagines.

The distinction you draw between moderate and far left is spurious. The vast majority of moderate leftists have no problem with political fake wrestling based on trivial talking points, nor are they willing to challenge concepts like welfare capitalism or political correctness axiomatically.

I think the left is being blamed for things that technology and large numbers of people in dense areas create by necessity– things that the right do their hardest to create if there is profit in it.

Here I can at least partially agree. Right wingers blame the left for raising taxes and creating the welfare state, while doing absolutely nothing to roll back credit expansion or monetary voodoo. Better to dole out the free shit you have than create demand for even more shit.

We actually have to allow this general weakening of masculinity in order to get the level of cooperation large hives of humans need.

Cities are resource sinks; centers of villainy, mindless status seeking and cruelty. The countries that benefit most from weakening masculinity, like Denmark, have cities with relatively low populations and suburban sprawl, with average density rural and sub-rural populations.

Right wingers usually blame leftist politicians and activists for their vain, misguided and often self-serving attempts at subsidising large and unproductive groups of people. Not that they offer any good solutions, mind you. All the good solutions are complex and hard to swallow for everyone involved.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What Kevin was up to I found interesting, particularly as I thought Kevin’s wisdom was overrated. Poison for the Heart was only half OK in my view.

What does "overrated" and "half OK" even mean in this context? His book isn't Twilight fanfic; either it indicates wisdom or it doesn't. A statement like that invalidates itself.

Nah... false dilemma! To me it was as well "half OK" but i read it only relatively recently. It's more like a very broad, wandering compendium with varying degrees of clarity. To me the strength of Kevin is being initiator of various media projects, his translation work and perhaps as well indeed his activism. his concern with materializing something. This is how I see his current project too, his interest in the alternative right, as just another exploration, to see if wisdom can be injected into it or the activities can be made to serve a wiser purpose like to challenge a feminine, confused society. But then again, he should be here talking about it and explain where he sees the wisdom. In the Worldy Matters section or something.

[jupiviv]

What Kevin was up to I found interesting, particularly as I thought Kevin’s wisdom was overrated. Poison for the Heart was only half OK in my view.

What does "overrated" and "half OK" even mean in this context? His book isn't Twilight fanfic; either it indicates wisdom or it doesn't. A statement like that invalidates itself.

Nah... false dilemma! To me it was as well "half OK" but i read it only relatively recently. It's more like a very broad, wandering compendium with varying degrees of clarity. To me the strength of Kevin is being initiator of various media projects, his translation work and perhaps as well indeed his activism. his concern with materializing something. This is how I see his current project too, his interest in the alternative right, as just another exploration, to see if wisdom can be injected into it or the activities can be made to serve a wiser purpose like to challenge a feminine, confused society. But then again, he should be here talking about it and explain where he sees the wisdom. In the Worldy Matters section or something.

I don't see Kevin remotely like that, and I communicated with him quite extensively for a time. Neither does he I would think.

His book is about teaching a deluded mind to try and wrestle with its delusions on its own. By tackling various disjointed topics and relating them back to wisdom, he lays out an example of how that is done. That is the best, and most, any teacher of wisdom can do. David and Dan have their own significant contributions, of course, but Kevin's work has helped me the most by far.

I repeatedly requested of David that he quote the alt-right related communication with Kevin he referred to at the beginning the topic, but got no response. No idea why. I do so again, and extend that request to Dan as well.

In any case, I also wish Kevin would start writing about his (putative) alt-right activism, not to mention wisdom.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

His book is about teaching a deluded mind to try and wrestle with its delusions on its own. By tackling various disjointed topics and relating them back to wisdom, he lays out an example of how that is done. That is the best, and most, any teacher of wisdom can do. David and Dan have their own significant contributions, of course, but Kevin's work has helped me the most by far.

So David and Dan's contributions were "half OK" for you then? Or 85%? You seem to have jumped mostly on semantics here and then applied some bifurcations just because someone didn't think Kevin tackled all the subjects as consistently or convincingly for him. So perhaps half of the time bullseye hits and half of the time somewhat amiss. A bit like your posts then ;-)

[GetoriksII]

I think everyone has done a fine job so far contributing to this thread, especially you jupiviv. I have a couple friends who support Trump, and have invited them to register here and join the discussion. As for my own thoughts, I have yet to complete a summary useful enough for everyone here. In the mean time, here is an insightful, three-part article on the nature of fascism:

__http://tarpley.net/trumps-art-of-fascism-pose-as-anti-establishment-but-never-attack-wall-street-federal-reserve/
__http://tarpley.net/the-new-year-in-the-shadow-of-fascism/
__http://tarpley.net/trump-movement-founded-on-hysterical-superstitious-gullibility-of-his-duped-followers/

[jupiviv]

So David and Dan's contributions were "half OK" for you then?

"Significant" means the opposite of "half OK".

The point is that "half OK" and "overrated" is a facile and arrogant way of describing Kevin's work, or any philosopher's work, especially when not followed by any explanation. I have never found Kevin's logic to be wanting or less than profound when it comes to the matters he has historically concerned himself with. If you disagree then you have to provide some evidence of multiple instances of "overrated" or "half OK" logic or perhaps a few instances of 100% un-OK logic coming from Kevin. Also, explain what is meant by "overrated" and "half OK" logic.

Of course his alt-right ventures may well be "half-OK", but that's a recent issue. And unless David or Dan gives us the source material we can't judge.

@GetoriksII, at last some recognition for my underscore preceded links (TM)! But just to be clear - I don't and have never supported Trump. I only wish to dispel some of the fog around the issue.

[Pam Seeback]

Eric: When you refer to taking delight in one’s distinctions, do you mean something like a deep understanding of experiencing duality, such as the realization that, after all is said and done, trees are trees and mountains are mountains, or do you mean experiencing a form of happiness, as you said earlier that a Buddha does not depend upon happiness from external sources? - This implies that a Tenth World Buddha finds happiness from his internal references. Unless you mean something else than happiness because it doesn’t seem to me that an enlightened mind feels the emotion of happiness.

I understand that when one steps on the path of the quest of wisdom of the nature of reality that happiness is not the goal (as it should be), however, once the goal of realizing the nature of reality is attained, it is my experience that the condition of happiness is a natural outcome. Is this condition an emotion? Not in the human sense, its quality is hard to describe.

As for taking delight in one's distinctions, I would say that it is beyond the deep understanding of experiencing duality, perhaps the 'next step' up, that of a deep understanding of emptiness.

What does this have to do with femininity or of being afraid of the feminine? That is something that you mentioned before. It seems to me that femininity is an external source of happiness and suffering. The men I know who are afraid of women actually love and want to love them very much! That is why they are afraid. I have yet to meet a man in person who is not afraid of women, now that I think about it.

When I speak of being afraid of the feminine, I am speaking, as are you, of the search for external happiness leading to suffering. To want to rise above this search for external gratification is indeed noble and in the early stages it is almost a requirement to develop an aversion to the feminine mind so that one has enough spiritual 'power' to eventually leave it behind. However, having an aversion toward anything of one's spiritual development is ultimately a hindrance to attaining Buddhahood. My personal experience is that the aversion to 'all things feminine' passes when one ceases fearing falling from the noble realms into the desire realms.

A man who loves a woman has not yet learned to love himself completely, one fo the conditions of attaining to the upper spiritual realms. The same can be said of a woman who loves a man. A Buddha loves all things because It is all things.

As for politics, women seem hardly interested in politics. They want to turn the world off and dance to music. So politics seems much closer to the realm of the masculine, rational mind than the feminine mind. To the degree that there is wisdom or the lack of it among people, it will be reflected in the politics of said people.

I don't disagree that the rational mind is more interested in politics specifically and passionate idealism generally than is the emotional mind and that the rational mind is the mind that sets out to seek for wisdom of the nature of reality. My point is that if the rational mind remains on the human realm of passionate idealism and does not make the step into deep questioning of the nature of ultimate reality, it remains caught in the realm of desire and suffering.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: When I use the word reasoning I do have a bit higher aspiration than just intellectual ordering. For most the intellectual order is the only experience they have of it and that's okay. But it's possible to conceive of reason as a prime manifestation of self-awareness, of consciousness itself. Like a contrast, a dialogue between self and other, ich & du, we & world or me in the mirror, that would be the very base of the ascent of humanity as "sapiens", or not?

Reasoning is a most noble human aspiration, yes, perhaps the noblest. However, it becomes necessary to leave the human realm behind when seeking the nature of ultimate reality wherein the idea of 'self' does not arise. Of my own experience, it is very difficult to leave one's sense of humanity/self behind, almost like one is betraying those that yet suffer, but this is precisely what must be done so that all humans can be lifted up beyond their attachment to ignorance/suffering.

Pam: the spirit is free to make order when making order is required (required being the operative word - this is where wisdom comes in) and to make love when making order is not required (also wisdom's call).

Diebert: To make love is to make distinction. Before one conceives the image, the sense, the other to love, a heightened degree of distinction, of singling out is taking place. Any idea of loving without distinction is changing the definition towards its opposite. A form of violence against what made love, or even the slightest concern possible in the first place. Beware of that.

It is not necessary to conceive of an image to experience disctinction love. It's hard to explain what I mean here, but it is as if the thing and the loving of the thing are one. The sense of other or loss is definitely not present.

Pam: my belief that most on this board suffer from poverty of love-play emptiness. Perhaps it is time to let go of fear of the feminine.

Diebert: On what do you base the idea of "fearing the feminine"? Fear is the shadow of love, fear is always geared to a sense of loss or losing whatever one feels attached or entitled to.

David said he would rather have a world of the feminine than a world of Trumpism. Kevin's online war with the feminists displays a fear of a "takeover." Both these are examples of attachments to desire (in its aversion form).

In the human realm, fear may be the shadow of love, but not in the realms beyond the human.

Since the feminine is defined on "this board" often as this very attachment personified, attachment to self, its embodiment, the confusion of taking it as absolute while rejecting reality as pure relative to that, it's not the feminine that should be feared but becomes simply linked, following the earlier definition, to the deeper sources of fear and desire, of confusion.

I agree with your analysis that fear of the feminine is actually tied to deeper sources of fear and desire, of confusion. In relation to moving beyond the human realm of reasoning and emotion, I believe one who fears doing so fears doing so because he or she is afraid that if they let go of reasoning and its contrast, emotion, that they will fall into 'nothingness' or chaos. Impossible of course, because in all realms, conditions are present.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The point is that "half OK" and "overrated" is a facile and arrogant way of describing Kevin's work, or any philosopher's work, especially when not followed by any explanation.

II doesn't need to be "explained" since it only served, in the initial context, as reply to my question to Jim on motive and interest.

I have never found Kevin's logic to be wanting or less than profound when it comes to the matters he has historically concerned himself with.

Sure you're a Solway product, like I'm caused by Quinn and maybe Jim can be Rowden after a few beers: meet the new QRS!
The DJJ. And a joke is all I can reply to whatever it was what you wanted to say here...

If you disagree then you have to provide some evidence of multiple instances of "overrated" or "half OK" logic or perhaps a few instances of 100% un-OK logic coming from Kevin. Also, explain what is meant by "overrated" and "half OK" logic.

Not really, like you don't have to provide "evidence" to me of why you think he's 100% profound. It's a whole other topic. And one I don't find particularly interesting since obviously Kevin's aphorisms and media projects continue to inspire many.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

However, it becomes necessary to leave the human realm behind when seeking the nature of ultimate reality wherein the idea of 'self' does not arise.

That's just a matter of how you want to define human or reason in the end. Like I'd say it's about entering the human realm when the false idea of self falls away as if it could ever have stood anywhere. Whatever was before is not even animal: it's about ghouls, aliens, a world of fleeting poltergeists.

It's hard to explain what I mean here, but it is as if the thing and the loving of the thing are one. The sense of other or loss is definitely not present.

It's all absorbed by self. The pure feminine has made absolute the I and the whole world is now accessory, relative to that. It's certainly true that loving of the thing equals the thing, or in other words the desire-nature of this world exposed intimately. And you're right, in the end there's no real "other" conceived of, it's the culmination of self after all. What you seem to be revealing is the nature of desire in a very fine grained resolution. A scale where things are not there (or come and go) but you're still aware of the "loving" underlying it, the relating to the absolute status of self. It's not selfless. Not at all, it's just a state where the self is the only actual thing left to itself. It's the end of the road, so to speak.

In the human realm, fear may be the shadow of love, but not in the realms beyond the human.

And beyond love, a human thing in all its forms after all.

Since the feminine is defined on "this board" often as this very attachment personified, attachment to self, its embodiment, the confusion of taking it as absolute while rejecting reality as pure relative to that, it's not the feminine that should be feared but becomes simply linked, following the earlier definition, to the deeper sources of fear and desire, of confusion.

I agree with your analysis that fear of the feminine is actually tied to deeper sources of fear and desire, of confusion.

You might have misunderstood my poor expression here. Not the fear but the feminine itself would be tied. Thus any masculine action will be (en)countering her, one way or another. It's that game you mentioned, "Lila".

In relation to moving beyond the human realm of reasoning and emotion, I believe one who fears doing so fears doing so because he or she is afraid that if they let go of reasoning and its contrast, emotion, that they will fall into 'nothingness' or chaos. Impossible of course, because in all realms, conditions are present.

Chaos also has conditions present so ultimately observational, like randomness. But you're right the fear is unjustified. We're already beyond it, we always were. We don't need to move "beyond" anything but that's not how most would conceive of it. And even if they'd try: it would become another thing, like selfish passivity.

The image I had in mind today was of a very large pyramid, upside down, balancing on its point, its apex pressing a certain spot on the ground, an incredibly tiny spot. That spot is where we are, at best, at the summit, with all our things, relations, the whole universe, our largest thoughts, transcendent feelings and greatest desires: our whole tragic being. But enlightenment concerns the whole of the bottomless pyramid extending from the apex. And yet you're never going to move "beyond" anything. Not really.

[jupiviv]

The point is that "half OK" and "overrated" is a facile and arrogant way of describing Kevin's work, or any philosopher's work, especially when not followed by any explanation.

II doesn't need to be "explained" since it only served, in the initial context, as reply to my question to Jim on motive and interest.

I don't see how interest in Kevin's recent activities relates to his book or past writings, especially since all the evidence points to no *original* activity but rather sparse, client-side expressions of support for an online movement. It was obviously a quick jibe based on past disagreement etc.

If you disagree then you have to provide some evidence of multiple instances of "overrated" or "half OK" logic or perhaps a few instances of 100% un-OK logic coming from Kevin. Also, explain what is meant by "overrated" and "half OK" logic.

Not really, like you don't have to provide "evidence" to me of why you think he's 100% profound. It's a whole other topic. And one I don't find particularly interesting since obviously Kevin's aphorisms and media projects continue to inspire many.

I asked you for evidence of half OK/overrated/non-OK *logic*, not profundity. Profundity is usually a descriptor.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I don't see how interest in Kevin's recent activities relates to his book or past writings

If it would indeed involve indisputable irrational activities, as Quinn suggested, one could easily start to look at earlier and related work from collaborators with different eyes or even use it to explain some of it. Personally I don't think such links are important otherwise we have to judge everything we read from past philosophers through the lens of something they did later in life. But the point is that the concern or interest itself is almost self-explanatory. The importance given to it is up to the person.

I asked you for evidence of half OK/overrated/non-OK *logic*, not profundity. Profundity is usually a descriptor.

You are introducing now the idea of logic being OK or not. But there's more to quality: style, focus, power, timing, audience type and indeed overall profundity. This cannot be captured in black and white school grades. Only personal rankings and impressions.

[jupiviv]

I don't see how interest in Kevin's recent activities relates to his book or past writings

If it would indeed involve indisputable irrational activities, as Quinn suggested, one could easily start to look at earlier and related work from collaborators with different eyes or even use it to explain some of it. Personally I don't think such links are important otherwise we have to judge everything we read from past philosophers through the lens of something they did later in life.

Thank you for repeating what you left out of my quote.

But the point is that the concern or interest itself is almost self-explanatory. The importance given to it is up to the person.

If the interest is in recent activities evidently unconnected to past work (and accepted as such by most) then there should be no need or reason to express that interest through such flippant statements about the latter. The importance given to anything is up to the person, but it doesn't follow that his estimation is correct.

You are introducing now the idea of logic being OK or not.

I introduced it in the post before the one you quoted. The primary quality in a philosopher's work is the consistency and profundity of his logic. By profundity I mean both the interrelation between different thoughts and the scope of application. As such, logic cannot be overrated or indeed "half-OK" or half correct. Either one accepts it or not, and if not then should provide reasons.

But there's more to quality: style, focus, power, timing, audience type and indeed overall profundity. This cannot be captured in black and white school grades. Only personal rankings and impressions.

You seem to think philosophers should be judged by standards pertaining to acting and drama. Personal rankings differ according to *person*. People who listen to Bach usually differ from those who listen to Nordic death metal (although with the rapefugee crisis, perhaps not so much these days).

Besides, if personal rankings of the quality of other people and their thoughts is beyond contest, why have you been arguing with David or Dan about Trump's character?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If the interest is in recent activities evidently unconnected to past work (and accepted as such by most)

So what's your issue? That others have to first prove now why someone might be not a faultless philosopher before they can even think of connecting past and present work?

The primary quality in a philosopher's work is the consistency and profundity of his logic. By profundity I mean both the interrelation between different thoughts and the scope of application. As such, logic cannot be overrated or indeed "half-OK" or half correct. Either one accepts it or not, and if not then should provide reasons.

So you first make "quality" mean "logic" and then offer me the choice to dismiss it or completely accept "logic" as some qualitative statement. It's a deceptive move. Apart from that, most of Kevin's work I've read seems neither logical or illogical but more meant to be descriptive or provoking.

But there's more to quality: style, focus, power, timing, audience type and indeed overall profundity. This cannot be captured in black and white school grades. Only personal rankings and impressions.

You seem to think philosophers should be judged by standards pertaining to acting and drama.

Their work and everyone else's should be continuously judged by our standards. In other words: think!/

Besides, if personal rankings of the quality of other people and their thoughts is beyond contest, why have you been arguing with David or Dan about Trump's character?

Well, actually I didn't do that. My issue was so far with statements like "The end times are upon us" and the supposed rationality left in mainstream journalism, liberal politics and giant structures like intelligence agencies. If I want to worry about the state of rationality in our society, I'd look at the power intelligence agencies hold over information and who, citizen, politician or nation to make or break with it. But instead we're worrying about the one not representing that system, yet!

If you want to continue the topic of valuing or ranking Kevin's work, please start a new topic. I won't address it there.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So back to the topic "Statements about Solway, Trump and Putin" (but feel free to start new topics on the forum for any spin-off discussion you deem important). Here's what I think is a refreshing article about some the demented craze coming out of the "establishment" on the topic of Russia. This is the irrationality and scale I'd be worrying more over than the n-th oddball of a US president or the chaotic alt-right.

Killer, kleptocrat, genius, spy: the many myths of Vladimir Putin The Guardian by Keith Gessen

• At no time in history have more people with less knowledge, and greater outrage, opined on the subject of Russia’s president. You might say that the reports of Trump’s golden showers in a Moscow hotel room have consecrated a golden age – for Putinology.

Something there also about the idea that Putin has outlasted already several leaders from his counterpart nations. He sees them coming and going but he remained (which is kind of the problem: the job probably deforms the mind). But it reminded me of something Preibus said about Trump at CPAC, which I think can help with understanding the perception of Trump by his many fans.

• but what we were starving for was somebody real, somebody genuine, somebody that was actually who he said he was.

You'll find this more often, the perception of Trump being more "real" because him repeating his ideas many times, often in slight variations and also because he started to act on it right away now he's president. It seems many of his admirers had lost the hope that any politician would even be sticking with his words or the general idea behind them. And even Trump's "raw" behaviour -- he could be any blow-hard from the street with assorted glamorous "trophy" wife -- does not change that perception. In fact, it might even solidify it! Trump's not a politician. He's the kind of bastard people seem to relate to more easily than the more carefully "manufactured" leaders (see also Berlusconi in Italy, actually anyone having issues with Trump should study the Berlusconi case).

[jupiviv]

So you first make "quality" mean "logic" and then offer me the choice to dismiss it or completely accept "logic" as some qualitative statement.

When you responded to me about this, I made it clear that a philosopher's work should judged on the basis of his logic. I am not equating quality per se with logic or vice versa. Logic is the primary measure for judging the quality of philosophy. If you disagree then provide examples of alternatives.

Apart from that, most of Kevin's work I've read seems neither logical or illogical but more meant to be descriptive or provoking.

What is an example of a thought or argument that is neither logical nor illogical?

In any case I agree that this isn't the place for detailed discussion of Kevin's work, so this is my last post on that.

On the linked article: world class propaganda. Criticise with faint praise, praise with faint criticism, and tell the truth in between to retain credibility. Even *that* level of honesty from the MSM about Trump, at this point, would be encouraging.

You'll find this more often, the perception of Trump being more "real" because him repeating his ideas many times, often in slight variations and also because he started to act on it right away now he's president. It seems many of his admirers had lost the hope that any politician would even be sticking with his words or the general idea behind them. And even Trump's "raw" behaviour -- he could be any blow-hard from the street with assorted glamorous "trophy" wife -- does not change that perception. In fact, it might even solidify it! Trump's not a politician. He's the kind of bastard people seem to relate to more easily than the more carefully "manufactured" leaders (see also Berlusconi in Italy, actually anyone having issues with Trump should study the Berlusconi case).

Trump is as carefully manufactured as any other politician. He is a heel. In other words, a good baddie. Good baddies are charismatic, intelligent and efficient. They get the job done without pondering about ethics and popularity (the Wall, trade wars, travel ban[?]). They are contrasted with bad baddies (rapefugees, Clintons, SJWs) and bad goodies (establishment politics in general, MSM[?], deep state, cuckservatives and disillusioned liberals who have seen the light).

The bad baddies are usually fewer in number and yet potentially very threatening; their flaws are inhuman and irredeemable and thus their demise is enjoyable. The bad goodies have more human flaws - stubborn, partial, misguided, incompetent etc. They can be sympathised with and are redeemable. The good goodies are even scarcer than the bad baddies and yet boldly await A New Hope (copyright Disney-Lucasfilm). To keep things real they require some faint flaws to adorn their natural goodness.

Returning to the good baddie/s - he always has a humane side (Trump loves his family, is somewhat avuncular even when confronting bitter enemies). He also tends to support both goodie and baddie ideas which the others consider to be incompatible with each other for various reasons (welfare but not for illegal immigrants, protectionism but low taxes). Within this resolution of *needless* delusions lies the good baddie's heart and his worldly ideal, and also the only traces of honesty in the narrative. Too much dishonesty here would ruin immersion. Anyways, the bad baddies and recalcitrant bad goodies are eventually destroyed and the remaining turn into good goodies or baddies.

All this to keep things realistic. Also, I have summarised Game of Thrones and other "brilliant" web/cable TV shows.

In marketing and showbiz, as in law, lying and illusions are literally bread and butter. Many people know this, and expect their money's worth. However, lawyers in my opinion occupy a higher moral plane because they at least lie for the benefit of their clients.