My Mundane Life

Post questions or suggestions here.
Lennyrizzo
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am

Post by Lennyrizzo » Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:43 am

Generally speaking, I agree with you. A sage would have to have an exceedingly good reason to kill himself, and I'm not convinced that Weininger had that reason.

Of course, we are somewhat in the dark here, and we can only speculate why he killed himself. Kevin reckons that he might have killed himself in a selfless act in order to promote his written work, but I have my doubts about that. There are signs that he was afflicted with mental illness in the last twelve months of his life, which was evidenced by (a) the way his mind became increasingly haunted and unbalanced towards the end, and (b) the way his suicide was performed in a highly romantic manner - i.e. shooting himself in Beethoven's old room. This leads me to believe there was a lot of egotism involved.
More likely both for the promotion of his book and to relieve his suffering.
But the haunting may have began once he contemplated his plan, his out, and not necessarily before, certainly such a plan could be stressful and result in outward signs often easily misinterpreted. And the choice of location may have been with a thought to better promoting his book, knowing that romance is one way to keep a story more viable. After all, he probably didnt care so much what conclusions wise people might one day reach, more important was to get the most effective advertising possible.
My impression is that he was a very energetic thinker who burned himself out. I only wish that he had scaled his efforts back a few pecentage points, looked after his health a bit more, and lived for another twenty or thirty years. Given his quality as a thinker, he could have gone on and produced some tremendous works.
Do you believe if he had (written more) the world would be much different than it is now!
Still, there may be valid instances in which suicide is the best course of action as far as promoting wisdom is concerned. Take Socrates, for example. His suicide had a powerful impact upon people and went a long way towards immortalizing his teachings.
Wasn't it more the fact he was killed, and was willing to be killed for what he believed, that accomplished this, and not the suicide per say? Had they just executed him for his unwillingness to change his ways i reckon would have produced the same effect.

He really didnt commit suicide as much as he enjoyed the privilege to choose how to die. Wasn't he very old, much older than the average lifespan for men of his day? It's quite possible he had some ailment and was on the way out anyway.

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:39 am

.
DQ wrote:Generally speaking, I agree with you. A sage would have to have an exceedingly good reason to kill himself, and I'm not convinced that Weininger had that reason.

Of course, we are somewhat in the dark here, and we can only speculate why he killed himself. Kevin reckons that he might have killed himself in a selfless act in order to promote his written work, but I have my doubts about that. There are signs that he was afflicted with mental illness in the last twelve months of his life, which was evidenced by (a) the way his mind became increasingly haunted and unbalanced towards the end, and (b) the way his suicide was performed in a highly romantic manner - i.e. shooting himself in Beethoven's old room. This leads me to believe there was a lot of egotism involved.
Suicide is typically a last resort way-out of a situation as far as i understand it. Considering Weininger's statement about man either proceeding towards the absolute or nothingness, i wonder if he figured he couldn't bear either of these, and thus took the third option.

Perhaps a shame, because if he'd hung around he may have come to see the absolute in a different light.

.

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett » Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:45 pm

.

Greetings Ary,

I have responded to your last email, but considering you voiced the preference of not wanting to pursue these matters now, i express that i am unperturbed if you'd prefer not to respond, and do not do so.

Rhett: To 'accept' what i have expressed is simply to affirm A=A, to affirm that what i am expressing to you is what i am expressing to you.

Ary: What I meant was, when one doesn't accept something, one denies it or wants to make of it something different than what already is.
Yeah, i agree with that.


Rhett: I understand that their reasons for hanging-about deluded are a product of their delusion. Could you give me a reason why you choose delusion over genius?

Ary: Their delusion as well as mine are caused... Your delusion is also caused. You may be less deluded than me, maybe not. But as long as there is delusion, one is still conditioned. Enlightened ones aren't conditioned, only their bodies (liking tomates vs onions for example, having certain accent, etc.) and minds (remembering blue in some way, having preference of some approach in their teaching or communcation -by preference I mean that they do it in their own way-).
Sure, people are caused to be deluded and caused to value delusion, but that doesn't mean they can't develop from these conditions, or develop at a certain rate. Causation works in all respects, and i'm sure you'll agree people can be caused to value and exhibit truth in widely varying measures. In fact, you've already affirmed this when making references to sages of the past, who started off deluded like everyone else.


No enlightened will claim to be better than other person,
I can see cases where the sage will make such claims, but sure, he generally wouldn't do so. I understand what you're getting at, the sage understands that he's not inherently superior, and doesn't spout-off. But at the same time in the very act of being enlightened and valuing enlightenment we could say he is 'claiming' superiority over un-enlightenment. He is showing that he thinks enlightenment is better just by being it and prefering it. I think this is fair to say.


or think that other person should be what he is not.
Yeah, people are just caused to be the way they are - but this applies to each particular moment. In any succeeding moment they will have been caused to be different, maybe quite different.


He doesn't feel superior either. He is conscious of his state, and the state of the rest of the people.
Yeah, very conscious.


Rhett: I see the very act of comparing as highlighting differences, and that i am showing that i realise that people are always changing, moving either closer to God, or further away, and that i can influence their direction and how fast they move in it, taking into account their current limitations of course.

Ary: You may influence, but your approach is still a delusional one. You still don't show understanding of each person's particular conditions, causations, etc.
Where do you think there is fault? I'll definitely think about what you say if you respond.


Rhett: The possibility that an utterly utterly exceptional person could become enlightened whilst severely practically encumbered by no means makes those encumbances an irrelevant matter. They are still severe encumbances.

The attachments of a person are a part of their conditions, though essentially, they are their conditions.

Ary: If you mean by that, the attachment to thought, to identify himself with the body, the mind, the doer, with anything he perceives, then yes. But if you mean the superficial attachments: wife, job, kids, etc. Then I don't agree.
Well, i was talking about "severe practical encumbances". For someone near the beginning of the path these are major stumbling blocks. Except of course in those instances where they cause hurt and turn the individual away from them, which is an inevitable and important part of the equation, not to be underestimated.

Not having or being attached to getting a wife, kids and job is a very significant development along the way to enlightenment. Can you imagine just how divorced such a person would be from the mainstream?


In my view, what needs to be done is not thinking, but quite the opposite. To stop identifying oneself with thinking. What do you understand by thinking? What in your view is to think other than to experience? (I differentiate between experience and being)
So when I say: dettaching from thought, dropping the identification with thought, I mean dropping the identification with experience (be it sensations, memmory, etc, which in my opinion all enter the category of stimuli)
To me thinking can be regarded as the conceptual parcelling-up of reality (Nature) and the determination of causal sequences, involving the application of labels for the purpose of communication and shorthand thinking.

Thinking can occur in both the deluded and undeluded individual, much more so in the latter, due to the mind being free of encumbances.


the ignorant one can only see and experience ignorance. The enlightened one can only see and "experience" enlightenment. He can understand and see ignorance in people, but his "experience" is enlightenment, he cannot help it.
Okay.


Rhett: It is what i reason to be the likely unfolding of events. Certainly, if you disagree with me and remain married for the next 10 or so years your chances will basically be non-existent. Woman in life, woman in mind, it's that simple.

Ary: Nope, it's not that simple. Or maybe, it's that simple but you're wrong. Not necessarily woman in mind, mate. You seem to focus on the surface, not in what matters. One may be making love for example, while being aware. One may be paying a bill or taxes, while being aware. One may be working or eating, or watching tv, and while doing that, inquiring, observing, seeking, etc.
Seeking what?


Let me ask you if you work, or as some members of this forum, you receive payment by the government (becuase of "incapacity" or something alike) or someone supporting you?
I worked for ten years and recently decided to utilise government support. I became a pariah at my last job and am essentially unemployable because people can't handle being so close to the truth. They can't handle being so close to someone so reasonable and gentle, that says things that lead them to feel bad about themselves. They usually end up oscillating between hating and loving me. Sometimes they hate themselves for hating me, and perhaps more often that i know of because they wouldn't want even themselves to see that, never mind me.


Rhett: Busy with what?

Ary: Well, let's see... What about busy with seeking?...
Seeking what?


Rhett: No, i agree with you, it's a fair lesson, but only if what he is doing is actually good and he does it with full conviction. Something like discussing these kind of issues to a point of resolution with someone on a forum.

Ary: You mean that discussing these kind of issues here, is as good as practise as observation of oneself from example? I wouldn't say so. When I wrote that quotation I was certainly thinking more of the mind and body being filled with one kind of thinking or attitude regarding experience and life.
Observing oneself is a closed-loop scenario. That's fine and good if thinking on the nature of reality is involved, but if it's not one will only be repeating and habituating one's mistakes.

.

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:04 pm

Rhett wrote:.

Greetings Ary,

I have responded to your last email, but considering you voiced the preference of not wanting to pursue these matters now, i express that i am unperturbed if you'd prefer not to respond, and do not do so.
Greetings. I have not sent you any email. Other than replying the forum's posts I haven't sent any email.

I can see cases where the sage will make such claims, but sure, he generally wouldn't do so. I understand what you're getting at, the sage understands that he's not inherently superior, and doesn't spout-off. But at the same time in the very act of being enlightened and valuing enlightenment we could say he is 'claiming' superiority over un-enlightenment. He is showing that he thinks enlightenment is better just by being it and prefering it. I think this is fair to say.
Well I don't think he "prefers" it. He is just being it. Aware of what people could be if they had the right approach, and as they don't, they remain ignorant (until that changes).


Where do you think there is fault? I'll definitely think about what you say if you respond.
Well, you said that people are either moving closer to God, or further away from "him". What about people being stable in their delusion? That would probably make the delusional attachments stronger yeah, but they're not really moving much further than where they already are. There is a point where something or someone get stuck, which is not the same as to go sinking more and more.
Also, I happen to disagree with your views on what is delusional and what is not, on what is wise and what isn't. So, it is naturally for me to think your influence will not be pure of delusion, you may clarify about certain points, but still pass them some (how much is relative) of your conditioning.
For example (I'm only assuming here), you would recommend people to think more about Nature, something which I wouldn't do. One thing is to think about something, and another thing is to observe and inquire into that subject. Very different things in my opinion. If I read more of your posts, I'd probably find more things which I think are delusional or that I don't agree. It is not my intention however.
Well, i was talking about "severe practical encumbances". For someone near the beginning of the path these are major stumbling blocks. Except of course in those instances where they cause hurt and turn the individual away from them, which is an inevitable and important part of the equation, not to be underestimated.
Well I would "agree" but there's something that I think you are missing. What about attachments, that one is not ready to give up? Be it because one isn't that much concerned about them, or because one still feels the need? There are more reasons, not only those two, of course. This also has to do with one's tendencies. It would be like, one really can't fool oneself into something one is not, by this I mean: if I know that I am not disciplined enough to play 6 hours a day, and still knowing it, I set that goal, I will VERY probably fail. One has to be conscious of one's actual tendencies, conditions, etc, and start from there. This also applies to how much passion one feels, how much contentment, discontent, etc. I hope you follow me.
Not having or being attached to getting a wife, kids and job is a very significant development along the way to enlightenment. Can you imagine just how divorced such a person would be from the mainstream?
I didn't understand the last sentence-question. About job, I think it's pretentious AND delusional to expect the government to feed and pay for one's care


To me thinking can be regarded as the conceptual parcelling-up of reality (Nature) and the determination of causal sequences, involving the application of labels for the purpose of communication and shorthand thinking.
Well, I would call that, one way of thinking, or one line of thought. Still delusional, thought is delusional. I disagree with: "instead of trying to free the mind from judgements, why not making the mind used to judging right?". Not sure if that's something David said, in anycase, I disagree with that.
Thinking can occur in both the deluded and undeluded individual, much more so in the latter, due to the mind being free of encumbances.
I think it's actually the other way round (not sure if this expression is correct). The less encumbances (burdens?) the less thinking there is.


Seeking what?
Truth... Oneself, Awareness, Silence, etc....

I worked for ten years and recently decided to utilise government support. I became a pariah at my last job and am essentially unemployable because people can't handle being so close to the truth. They can't handle being so close to someone so reasonable and gentle, that says things that lead them to feel bad about themselves. They usually end up oscillating between hating and loving me. Sometimes they hate themselves for hating me, and perhaps more often that i know of because they wouldn't want even themselves to see that, never mind me.
I doubt you act wisely (remember, what you consider wise is very likely to be different to what I consider wise), if you acted wisely you would be able to keep a job and still "spread" or "emanate" wisdom.


Seeking what?
I already answered this before.
If one really feels passion about something, there is no secondhand experience, or consulting to others. ONLY first-hand experience: alone, alone, alone, cause nothing can't stop you from what you need.


Observing oneself is a closed-loop scenario. That's fine and good if thinking on the nature of reality is involved, but if it's not one will only be repeating and habituating one's mistakes.
.
I think I "agree". But only if it's about not isolating everything else and merely observing (here it would be best described as: being attentive, instead of being aware). Attention has to do more with being focused. As I wrote above, I disagree when it comes to "thinking about" Nature, rather than inquiring into Nature.
Let me put this example: in my view, there's no need to think about Causality. With the right observation or Awareness, Causality will be seen, no need to be thinking (in the sense or level of wordy, dialogue like, or even image-like thinking)
Greetings,
Ary.

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:09 pm

.
AryReisin wrote:I have not sent you any email. Other than replying the forum's posts I haven't sent any email.
My mistake, my intention was to refer to our posts.


Rhett: I can see cases where the sage will make such claims, but sure, he generally wouldn't do so. I understand what you're getting at, the sage understands that he's not inherently superior, and doesn't spout-off. But at the same time in the very act of being enlightened and valuing enlightenment we could say he is 'claiming' superiority over un-enlightenment. He is showing that he thinks enlightenment is better just by being it and prefering it. I think this is fair to say.

Ary: Well I don't think he "prefers" it. He is just being it.
The sage does prefer enlightenment. It would be easier for him to bend with the flow and talk like the herd, yet he doesn't do that.


Ary: Aware of what people could be if they had the right approach, and as they don't, they remain ignorant (until that changes).
Yeah, the sage realises that if people don't have the right approach, there's probably little he can do for them. But talking it through should still help, and it will help others anyway.


Rhett: Where do you think there is fault? I'll definitely think about what you say if you respond.

Ary: Well, you said that people are either moving closer to God, or further away from "him". What about people being stable in their delusion?
The state of delusion is by it's very nature a state of instability, a state of grasping for permanence to alleviate suffering. Impossible dreams in a world of eternal flux. However, some people are so lacking in vitality their fluctuations are minimal, so we may not be too far wrong to call them stable.


Ary: There is a point where something or someone get stuck, which is not the same as to go sinking more and more.
They might just fluctuate around a certain point, yes. For how long, it depends.


For example (I'm only assuming here), you would recommend people to think more about Nature, something which I wouldn't do. One thing is to think about something, and another thing is to observe and inquire into that subject. Very different things in my opinion.
As per the intention of this webspace and my personal values, i recommend people think about the nature of Nature. To merely think about Nature, or observe and enquire into it, would be like science, which is not what i exalt.


Rhett: Well, i was talking about "severe practical encumbances". For someone near the beginning of the path these are major stumbling blocks. Except of course in those instances where they cause hurt and turn the individual away from them, which is an inevitable and important part of the equation, not to be underestimated.

Ary: Well I would "agree" but there's something that I think you are missing. What about attachments, that one is not ready to give up? Be it because one isn't that much concerned about them, or because one still feels the need? There are more reasons, not only those two, of course. This also has to do with one's tendencies. It would be like, one really can't fool oneself into something one is not, by this I mean: if I know that I am not disciplined enough to play 6 hours a day, and still knowing it, I set that goal, I will VERY probably fail. One has to be conscious of one's actual tendencies, conditions, etc, and start from there. This also applies to how much passion one feels, how much contentment, discontent, etc. I hope you follow me.
Definitely. It's very important to know these things about oneself, and they play a crucial role in one's decisions on such matters. However, the key point i am making is that a compromised state is by no means acceptable reason to not pursue enlightenment. Quite the opposite in fact.

I haven't made a statement that you should pursue it. That is your decision alone.


I think it's pretentious AND delusional to expect the government to feed and pay for one's care.
I don't expect the government to, but they do it and i appreciate it. You'll have to explain to me how you see my situation as pretentious and delusional, as i don't see it that way.


Rhett: To me thinking can be regarded as the conceptual parcelling-up of reality (Nature) and the determination of causal sequences, involving the application of labels for the purpose of communication and shorthand thinking.

Ary: Well, I would call that, one way of thinking, or one line of thought. Still delusional, thought is delusional.
If one conceptually parcels reality up knowing that one is conceptually parcelling reality up, then one is clearly not delusion. One is not making false projections upon what is occurring.


I disagree with: "instead of trying to free the mind from judgements, why not making the mind used to judging right?". Not sure if that's something David said, in anycase, I disagree with that.
In which case you don't care if you really do disagree with that or if in fact you agree. Leaving yourself liable to making errors of judgment includes errors about your own opinions.


Rhett: Thinking can occur in both the deluded and undeluded individual, much more so in the latter, due to the mind being free of encumbances.

Ary: I think it's actually the other way round (not sure if this expression is correct). The less encumbances (burdens?) the less thinking there is.
The way i see it, and i don't see another way worth considering, a state of not thinking is a state of catatonia, of catharsis, like when someone is totally drug-fucked and doesn't respond to stimuli.


. . . if you acted wisely you would be able to keep a job and still "spread" or "emanate" wisdom.
But how much? Not very much.

.

User avatar
hsandman
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:25 pm

Re: My Mundane Life

Post by hsandman » Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:17 pm

I am looking at similar situation in realy near future and i think i can relate to your thougts on the matter for they are very similar :(
DHodges wrote:
But in another way, I am worried that my lack of emotional involvement is not a healthy detachment, but is symptomatic of depression, and needs to be dealt with. I hesitate to discuss it with my doctor, because I know how he will interpret it. He thinks emotional involvement is a good thing, that it’s what makes life worth living.

At the same time, knowing that she is gone is liberating. I can throw out all those stuffed animals. I know that I’m not just done with her. I’m done with romance, done with love. I knew the day would come. I knew it two or three years ago.

Bitter sweet. Joyfull sarrow. oxymoron. Shekspeere knew how it feels also i think.

Like you said
It is, what it is
edit:
In general I've tried to have equality in my relationships, and avoid the whole D/s thing. But a lack of wanting to be dominant is generally taken as a desire to be submissive; it's so pervasive that it's just assumed. You must be one or the other.

In this just past relationship, I did not strive for equality, but rather for complementarity. She did the things she was good at, I did my stuff, and it seemed to work out pretty well... but even so, she seemed to interpret my leaving certain things to her as helplessness, an inability to do those things. I think she actually felt guilty about moving out - it will be awfully hard for me to figure out how to pay bills, no doubt.
Thats exactly what is happening to me :( It reminds me of the experiment with animal (baboon?)that is put in front of the mirror, every agresion that it displays is mirrored back and after a while it uses body language to submit, and so does the "other baboon" . Someone has to be either D or s so the baboon becomes D again ........ the loop continues untill the stress gets too much for the animal and it breaks.. My first venture into relationship and equal D/s experiment is ending similarly :( the message womens lib movement is spreading does not seem to be workable as a solution. not for animals that we humans are,to deny our still existing bond with the animal origin is to delude oneself, it dictates many of our selection choices and more so for others who are at the other end of spectrum. Ignorance is a option,as is death (patatto/patetto), and this choices does not appiel to me. Acceptance is Liberation in a way "It is what it is". The consolation would be that i am not alone, i hope its consolation to you also. Is it to do with our condition of being a "group animal"? what ever it is, it seems to work :S (sp? :P)
It's just a ride.

Post Reply