Wisdom of the Infinite - Part One by David Quinn

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

Re: Causality, time, space.

Postby mowk » Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:33 am

David: I think you're trying to criticize a body of thought that you haven't fully grasped yet.

Yes, that is a possibility. But as I stated it is difficult to grasp given the percieved contradictions. I have attempted to address those contradictions to the point that you consider them as something other than someone elses failure. Now we are left with each of us stating the other doesn't seem to grasp fully. Mmmmm, how predictable.

Smuggle something supernatural? No I was thinking more like decay, entropy or chaos.

Thanks for the chat. Edited by: mowk at: 1/14/04 3:03 pm
mowk
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:36 am

what is the answer

Postby birdofhermes » Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:23 am

Quote:
Quote:<hr>There is certainly the appearance of boundaries, which denote where things seem to begin and end. But as I explained in the book - using the example of a cloud in the sky - they are as much a creation of our perspective and conceptualizing minds as they are of the actual cloud in question. A cloud's boundaries can no more exist in the absence of the observing mind as they can in the absence of the cloud itself.

As much as. So the boundaries are partly created by our minds and perspective, and partly real. It's an important insight to see that boundaries are not solid and inherent, because the tendency of our brain wiring is to see only that. And seeing it the other way is certainly a step toward enlightenment. So my arguing here is about recognizing that if boundaries had no reality to them, no unfolding of life as we know it could occur. As to whether it can exist without an observing mind - I'm not sure. I would say a leaf is still a leaf, going about its leafy business, whether anyone sees it or not, even if every single being in the locality saw no boundaries to anything at all, the leaf would do its thing, and its molecules would be exactly the same. Unless, of course, the existence of everything is always and at all times upheld by some sort of Consciousness, which is entirely possible.

Quote:<hr>Bird: Well, if you dispute that then your arguments make sense. As to whether you are right, that is another question. There is not any fault in experiencing a heaven, and its truths are much higher than the mundane ones. Truth is vast and it is a never-ending ascent, or at least, the end is nowhere in sight.
-------------------------------------------------------

Another myth created by over-bloated mystics, who do everything possible to put the real Truth out of their minds so that they can continuing gorging on their never-ending ego heavens. When will they eve<hr>
<hr>
What do you mean, "they"? I made that up! If this is the difference between the masculine mind and the feminine, I'll take mine, thanks. Are you really saying that you have such a grasp on truth that there is no more for you to discover, in this life or any other possible state of existence that you can imagine?
You don't think truth is a long ascent, perhaps without end? You don't think that the truths you once held, maybe 5 maybe 10, maybe 15 years ago, were improved and modified over the years, and yet you had more truth back then than someone else? This is not the same as saying truth is relative or nonexistent. But it is a VERY large elephant. The blind man who said the elephant was like a rope was *not* wrong - he was only limited in what truth he could discern.

Quote:
Quote:<hr>We don't have to "be" everything, or indeed "be" anything. We are already everything. It is an already accomplished fact. We just have to stop blocking it out of our minds. <hr>
It may be a fact, but I don't know everything. What do you mean, blocking it out of our minds?

Quote:
Quote:<hr>Yes, as I say, she hangs back a bit. She preserves a part of herself, so as to continue enjoying life. <hr>
You speak as though it were a choice. I haven't seen a different opportunity.

Quote:
Quote:<hr>"Whoever does not give up his life will lose it. But whoever loses his life for my sake will receive eternal life." - Jesus <hr>
Yeah, he was talking about the real thing. You're not.

Quote:
Quote:<hr>It is literally what existence means. To exist is to appear. <hr>
I can't get a handle on that. Just doesn't seem right. So rather than question my intelligence, it would be better to say that you're wrong : )

[quoteor that it doesn't exist just because of the fact that it is utterly transormed *in appearance* (but not in its molecules.)
I'm not sure what you're talking about here.[/quote]
Oh, just what I said above about the leaf.

Quote:
Quote:<hr>There is just empty space and no sign of any observer at all. This demonstrates that the "observer" is a fictitious creation of the brain, which automatically implies that appearances towards this non-existent observer are not really appearances.<hr>
I think you are just assuming that an observer must feel that their eyes are in their head and the brain behind the eyes. There is a sign of an observer -an oberver with weird long eyeballs.




birdofhermes
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: Causality, time, space.

Postby mowk » Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:01 am

birdofhermes,

All I can say is read it, and I probably will have to again and again. Would you like to save me some time?

mowk
mowk
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:36 am

Causality, time, space.

Postby birdofhermes » Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:46 pm

Quote:
Quote:<hr>All I can say is read it, and I probably will have to again and again. Would you like to save me some time? <hr>


The whole thing you mean? I'm not sure to what you are referring. And how can I save you time?
birdofhermes
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: Causality, time, space.

Postby silentsal » Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:53 am

Quote:
Quote:<hr>Unless, of course, the existence of everything is always and at all times upheld by some sort of Consciousness, which is entirely possible. <hr>


well first there was the "word" so yes everything does hinge upon consciousness

alot of what your saying here David falls into place, yet I can definately see the oopps now it's gone ... but why do you have such low regard for woman?
silentsal
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:53 am

Re: Causality, time, space.

Postby David Quinn » Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:47 am

I try not to have a low regard for them. I have nothing against them personally. They can be really sweet at times, which makes them endearing. So I try to be upbeat about them. But I find it impossible to ignore the glaring reality that their minds are not focused and penetrative enough to do groundbreaking work in the abstract realm, whether it be in philosophy or science or wisdom. Nor can I ignore the reality that women (in general) place no real value on truth.

---

* grammatical correction - DQ * Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 1/17/04 8:10 am
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Causality, time, space.

Postby silentsal » Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:58 am

yet dosen't woman somehow facilitate the male's transformation, this is maybe at a very basic level thru the building up of male's ego
silentsal
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:53 am

Re: Causality, time, space.

Postby David Quinn » Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:24 am

Possibly, although I tend to agree with this line of thought by Kierkegaard:


As I have said, it is through woman that ideality is born into the world and
- what were man without her! There is many a man who has become a
genius through a woman, many a one a hero, many a one a poet, many a
one even a saint; but he did not become a genius through the woman he
married, for through her he only became a privy councillor; he did not
become a hero through the woman he married, for through her he only
became a general; he did not become a poet through the woman he
married, for through her he only became a father; he did not become a saint
through the woman he married, for he did not marry, and would have
married but one - the one whom he did not marry; just as the others became
a genius, became a hero, became a poet through the help of the woman
they did not marry. If woman's ideality were in itself inspiring, why, then
the inspiring woman would be the one to whom a man is united for life.
But life tells a different story. It is only by a negative relation to her that
man is rendered productive in his ideal endeavors. In this sense she is
inspiring; to say that she is inspiring, without qualifying one's statement, is
to be guilty of a paralogism which one must be a woman to overlook. Or
has anyone ever heard of any man having become a poet through his wife?
So long as man does not possess her, she inspires him.



And .....


A negative relation to a woman may arouse the highest ideality in a man.
Let that be said once for all, and let it be said in honor of woman; and it
may be said without reservation. For it depends not on the particular
quality of the woman concerned, her loveliness, or the persistence of her
loveliness. Rather does it depend on her appearing at the right moment,
when ideality is glimpsed. That is but a short moment, and then she had
better disappear again, because a positive relation to a woman renders man
finite to the highest degree. Therefore, the greatest service a woman can
do a man is to make her appearance at the right moment. But that she
cannot do by herself but only through the benevolence of fate. And now
comes the greatest thing she can do for a man, and that is, to be unfaithful
to him, the sooner the better. The first ideality will assist him to attain a
still higher degree of ideality - and then he is helped in an absolute sense.
This second ideality is, to be sure, purchased with the sharpest pain, but it
is also his greatest bliss. And though he may in no wise desire it before it
comes to pass, yet he will thank her when it has come. And as, humanly
speaking, he has no very good reason to thank her, why, then everything is
as it should be. But woe to him if she remains faithful to him!



--

From <a href="http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/preview.html#mfpsych" target="top">"The Banquet" </a> by Soren Kierkegaard.
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Causality, time, space.

Postby silentsal » Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:21 am

well it matters little if the relationship is negative, what is important is the movement - I would also venture that woman's role must be viewed standing way back .... or encompassing a greater range than is portrayed here.

silentsal
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:53 am

Re: Causality, time, space.

Postby David Quinn » Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:33 am

Can you expand on this?
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Causality, time, space.

Postby silentsal » Sun Jan 18, 2004 5:48 pm

not really, other than to say that it is her very unconsciousness which makes her a much larger cause in determining man's transformation, somewhere in the notion that our trip from hell to heaven (enlightenment) is even possible without the pre-existing trip from heaven to hell
silentsal
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:53 am

Previous

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest