Trump

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So, quoting Yang, it's better to see Trump as a symptom and not the core problem (and clutch at whatever straws one can grasp to drive a powerful counter narrative to the one Trump uses, as Yang is doing). Sure, he feeds the pathos the way it fed him, which makes him problematic, but it can hardly be all pinned on him.

Right on! So far Yang's the most credible candidate I've seen overall. Apart from being marginal of course. It's more about the brand these days. But Yang could decide to stick around and make a name in the coming years. Or form a robot army, seize power and put AI in charge.

[visheshdewan050193]

I don't see any of you raise issues with what I think to be the most dangerous issue with Trump, his 'business sense' fueled endorsements of 0% or negative interest rates. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/busi ... owell.html, look up similar articles from other sources if you can't view it freely)

I can't quantitatively establish correlations or whatever for now, but I think the biggest source of economic troubles in the advanced economies of the world (which effect the larger ecosystem that developing countries are part of) are out of date applications of macro-economic policies. This is not downplaying other factors that affect economic dynamism (such as automation, redistribution of labour and resources in local ecosystems, etc.), but I think there's something fundamentally wrong in say the decoupling of interest rates from metrics such as production-to-consumption ratios, or whatever else is grounded in fundamental economic realities other than the staple inflation versus employment metric that the Federal Reserve of the United States is fixated upon. These policies have increasingly fueled haphazard and unstable growth through asset fueled inflation (not saying that there hasn't been any real growth), and when you increasingly rely on artificial interest rates, massive fiscal stimulus and to a lesser extent, exchange rates, to prop up a staggering economy, you know there's something amiss.

I'd also wager that a lack of international means to check fiat activities and capital exchanges (and I'm not advocating something like the return to the crudeness of the gold standard that did this job precisely before Nixon pretty much single handedly ended the Bretton Woods System) also contributes to the issues. There's definite pressure on keeping interest rates low as a consequence of reliance on accruing foreign debt and consumption. For crying out loud, there are people who are tinkering with ideas such as a cash to digital money exchange rate to offset the limitations on the effectiveness of negative interest rates imposed by cash (https://blogs.imf.org/2019/02/05/cashin ... ates-work/). It's a classic example of blinkered singleminded thinking - a case of if-you're-armed-with-a-hammer-then-make-everything-a nail syndrome.

I've been thinking if advancements in using digital currency (cryptos that are mined in a private block chain setup) in lieu of gold, data science and feedback control theory that could be employed to better regulate intra-country and inter-country policies. Redistribution (in form of say dividends that Yang proposes) is also needed to offset present ills of the system and changes that will be brought about by the 4th industrial revolution. I highly doubt that today's systems are all just a product of impersonal rational assessments of world building and unreflective of of personal psychological mindsets.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam Seeback wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:14 pm
Of course, I have no way of knowing if Diebert is unconsciously or consciously alluding to philosophical (conscious/temporary) suicide when he refers to nuclear annihilation or if his apparent desire to eliminate all ethical boundaries is related to the experience of the eternally restless spirit of appearance, but I do believe he has mentioned such ideas in the past.

Diebert: Wasn't it clear I was deliberately referring to nuclear annihilation, like a whole generation before did, as evidence of the suicidal tendencies we collectively display? It's pretty mainstream: the Will to an End has been explored by Nietzsche, Freud and many others when analyzing the human psyche. It's something I assume the philosophically inclined know all about and not somehow translate this to my own inventions or desires.

The philosophically inclined may begin their inclination as the Will to an End (as in annihilation), however, once it is discovered that causation is eternal and infinite, the Will to an End is realized to be an ignorant desire.

Included in the realization of the infinite and eternal causality is the realization that the causation of suffering consciousness is finite and being finite, that it can be caused to be ended. And yes, to do so involves the causation of words of ending, but there is a difference between the language of ending that addresses the infinite causality as being unknown beyond the suffering world of consciousness and the language of ending that claims knowledge of causality beyond the suffering world of consciousness. In other words, it is truthful to put into words what it is like to be in the world but not of the world, but it is not truthful to put into words what it is like not to be in the world.

The Bodhisattva ideal that generates the bodhicitta of the infinite and eternal causality comes to mind, beautifully expressed here by Rumi: "Compassion builds a door, restlessness cuts a key."

Pam: Having said this, I do agree with something you alluded to in a previous post, that those of leftist leanings are more likely to step into the philosophical arena (and perhaps go as far as to experience self-annihilation/awareness of the eternal spirit of life), mostly because their values hinge on ideals of boundary-dropping/merging.

Diebert: Escapism, rejecting reality, drives the sentient being into action and yet the same motive becomes the largest obstacle when there's nothing left to merge with. Luckily death can be merciful that way. But more commonly anesthesia is deployed and I fully understand that need.

Dropping/merging boundaries is the way of wise suffering and the only death it brings is the death of the causation of boundary-identification, the way of ignorant suffering. Being in the world but not of the world is an intense, very-alive, very-purposeful way of being, albeit not a popular one.

[jupiviv]

What a nonsense. Pedophilia has little to do with any political affiliation. While strong opposition to the right or fighting fascism does.

It’s interesting how the word “political” is often used to cover up a multitude of sins.

Well technically it's words/phrases that are or can be interpreted to be political in nature, and there are an awful lot of those. Science, reason, liberal, freedom, democracy, mission to civilise, Enlightenment etc.

Well, sorry, I don’t accept that. I don’t support your repeated attempts to create false equivalencies and dissolve all ethical boundaries. I continue to maintain that what the right is doing nowadays is virtually indistinguishable from the physical and mental abuse of children.

More precisely you are against the dissolution of boundaries that are both ethical and temporal. Your stance on these issues is indistinguishable from time itself as it exists after 2016 AD. Trump as both Space and Satan. He deceived Kevin a priori, he absorbed Kevin a posteriori.

I'm wondering if your cheering on the destruction of the West, and even the destruction of civilization itself, is a way for you wrestle back a feeling of control of a dangerous situation that has long frightened you.

Another rare opportunity to do some introspection, wasted! In any case, this is inaccurate. Diebert is using your Trumphobia as a vehicle for his critique of QRS philosophy in general. I as well of course, but unlike Diebert's my critique is correct and profoundly insightful.

[jupiviv]

have parents of diverse Indian and Jewish ethnicity

I'm not convinced the Maltese people should be considered fully human.

I think you guys under appreciate the role of narrative and persuasion as a polarizing and driving force for macro events.

Because it's impossible to construct a useful understanding of political narratives if one starts off by accepting the premise those narratives themselves advertise to the public, i.e. political narratives influence world-historical processes.

Andrew Yang

Fairly predictable you'd stan for him, but no.
1>> Buttigieg minus the cool surname and meme potential.
2>> UBI is a dumb idea in general but he made it dumberer by unironically turning it into a raffle.

I don't even think Bernie will achieve any of his policy propositions if he gets elected, but any objective survey of candidates will conclude it's either him or Trump. Maybe Warren as well if she can manoeuvre towards performative DSA-type "radical socialism" without freaking out white suburban mammies. In other words, MAGA 2020.

[Rhett]

There were matches of Futsal, which is a modified version of soccer. ... So, have we now created spaces where Australians no longer feel comfortable or participate? Is this multiculturalism, one nation, or is this multiple nations in one?

For the sake of a counter argument: statistically it's perhaps not surprising since Futsal is the most popular within urban populations, as "street sport" or related to limited access to proper sport fields or clubs and (perhaps for that reason) internationally the most popular in South American and South European countries. And Indonesia too! So you might also have seen a social-economical reality? Without immigration from "darker" continents, you'd see perhaps poor fair skinned kids running behind that ball?

The people at the event that were employed by the government chose futsal because it was popular among the local children, who are now possibly a majority of muslim immigrants. The event was held at a complex that includes a normal size soccer field and a large oval that can be divided into normal sized soccer fields, so it wasnt chosen for space reasons.

In hindsight, i remember seeing two or three other whites, who were at a table playing a role in the government's organisation and scorekeeping of the event. They steadfastly refused to engage with me. I think the four whites were internally troubled about the endeavour. Judging from what the white guy said, it was not intended to be a muslim only event, it was intended to bring people together and give kids something to do and be involved in. But, i would hazard a guess that they were 100% muslim, from different muslim backgrounds. I have been around heaps of multiculturalism, but even i was uneasy about being there. It really felt like a different part of the world, which is a strange feeling when you are in your home.

My concern with this isnt to do with race, with DNA. Living in Australia with fair skin is very annoying, i wish i had darker skin.
My concern is to do with problematic culture, values and beliefs, with the potentiality for further conflict.

When i drive past the local school the kids seem to be more than 50% muslim.

[Rhett]

On a whimsical note, I'd like to disclose a bit of information about my background and hope to the gods that you guys won't be moronic enough to comment on its relevance or irrelevance to the thread. I'm an INTP, have parents of diverse Indian and Jewish ethnicity, and I come from a family of intellectual property technologists that has the largest single sole proprietorship firm in India dealing with thousands of independent inventors across all industries, Fortune 500 corporate clients, and other firms from over a 125 countries. Top 0.1% of national board examinations, schooled in the Indian equivalent of Philips Exeter Academy, studied EE in a top 10 worldwide program in Singapore and am currently working for Hewlett Packard Inc. (and soon Uipath). Have access to elites through my social networks that extend from the Ambanis to the sagely Edward Witten residing in IAS, Princeton (who worked for George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign and published an article in the Nation arguing that the New Left had no strategy). I don't really value much of it at all, with most of my experiences and life's choices being guided with a yearning for the Infinite that began to manifest when I was about 16. I consider the work expressed here and elsewhere by men of the infinite (particularly David) to be quite incredulous and a unique development in human history, and am pretty much determined to use my resources to cultivate the wisdom he expresses and carve out a foothold for it to get further embedded in the world.

I think you guys under appreciate the role of narrative and persuasion as a polarizing and driving force for macro events. Take a look at the narrative that somebody like Andrew Yang (2020 Democratic presidential candidate) consistently drives at, centred about automation and about how his solutions address the core problem and tie into other issues that people care about, despite the myriad of nuances that he both addresses and doesn't adequately address elsewhere. He noticeably contrasts it with the narrative the Trump campaign championed (and continues to do so), and apparently it's an effective narrative evidenced by its ability to peel conservatives, independents, libertarians and progressive liberals from their affiliations (albeit on a relatively small scale).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse ... 7a0882379b
https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-b7e ... d1533d9a62

To me, the most pressing issues are to deal with staving of existential threats felt in the U.S. caused by dwindling real wages and economic displacement that are driven largely by transformative industrial trends, irresponsible monetary policies (a criticism voiced by Raghuram Rajan who was labeled as a 'luddite' by Lawrence Summers in 2005), and partly due to foreign fiscal debt. As for the the threat of climate change (which according to polls in the U.S., the majority of university students regard as the most pertinent issue to solve), besides a multi-pronged approach, pretty much the only option the world has is to get behind carbon capture technologies powered by renewables that can set up a recyclable carbon-neutral (or even negative emissions for a certain period) ecosystem that costs less than extracted crude and won't require the massive infrastructural changes required by industrial sectors to decarbonize. Let's not forget the fact that current renewable technologies haven't solved the technological problems associated with energy storage requirements for various sectors such as shipping or aviation. Carbon Engineering in British Columbia, Canada is setting up its first commercial plant, backed by oil interests and Gates.

to Rhett,
reading your comments all I can say is you ought to read Lee Kuan Yew's 'from Third World to First' to gain better perspective on the problems you associate with globalization, trade, and immigration.

I have a mechanical engineering background, and i realise that while it could be said that a lot of the world's challenges and solutions relate to engineering, for engineers to actually be able to improve things and fix issues we need political support and representation, at the decisionmaking as well as implementation phases, which is often absent.

I think Australia needs to take a long hard look at itself, and realise that China has overtaken it economically, and learn from them.

If i was in control, the world would have transitioned heavily to renewables over thirty years ago. I have been, and in some areas still am, extremely "progressive" minded, even more so than Greta. I have been not only vegan, but raw vegan. I have lived in a caravan, and less. I have had no more possessions than what would fit in a backpack, including being carless. And much more. I have studied and somewhat lived the permaculture system, which seriously looks at long term sustainable living.

It has been sloppy of David to weigh in attacking his strawman of me. I dont think i should allow him to divert discussion towards me responding to or defending his strawman attacks.

Talking about Kelly, a key ingredient that created our relationship at the time was a mutual interest in sustainable and peaceful lifestyles.

If i get the time i will check out Lee Kuan Yew.

[Rhett]

The left represents too great a decline to the Last Man - it has become utterly feminine rather than working for the working class person.

They represent and support completely the weak non-disciplined 'anything goes' views of women. All the media I used to read, when I was sympathetic to the left, is now filled with feminine opinionators - they are all post-modernist gay softcocks or stupid women who have done gender studies type courses. They attack masculinity far, far too much. It has become like a communist force against masculinity.

Hey Jim, I think that sort of concern is completely overblown. Some men seem to be freaking out over what they see as an attack on their identity as males - but from what I can see, what is actually occurring is that women are simply flexing their new-found freedoms and correcting what they see as longstanding grievances.

And who can blame women for doing this? The sort of treatment they are dishing out to men is precisely the same treatment they have had to endure for millennia. A lot of men, it seems, cannot handle the tables being turned in this way.

I just can't take this anti-feminist movement seriously, at least not in its current form. What I see is a dishonest movement being facilitated by beta-males who are looking to blame others for their own inadequacies.

The battle of the sexes is morphing quickly. A common theme now is that women consider (and will tell you) that dick is cheap. A chunk of women have the approach that in their 20"s they will have a number of non serious interludes, they will deliberately avoid relationships, and will focus on career, girlfriends and travel. One upshot of that is that women ranked from say a 3 out of 10 and upwards can score with guys that are 8 or more out of 10. So there is a proportion of guys scored from 0 to 7 that in the past would have been getting married and having regular sex, that are instead relegated to jerking off to porn. On top of that, such men are denigrated, as "incels".

Interestingly, this trend and perhaps other influences has meant that i can attract women of all ages if i want to. Kinda freaky. The reason i mention this is because if i dont i typically get written off as an incel.

Anyway, women are thus conditioned through their 20's in this way, and then get into their thirties and either decide its too hard to have children, or that they can snag one of these 8+ out of 10 ranked guys even when they are ordinary and cant, and cant settle for what they are compatible with. Or they wait too long and become infertile.

One thing you should consider is the environment in which yourself, Kevin, Dan, etc, and myself grew up in. That is our best guide for what creates a foundation for wisdom in this current age. I am not sure that you are paying attention to that? If you dont think we should aim to create nurturing childhoods like these, what is your vision?

Despite changes to male-female relationship dynamics, women in western society are still primarily focused on selfishly dominating and exploiting men, women are still a long way from relationships based on rationality, reason and fair negotiation. There are few women these days that will choose a man they cannot dominate.

[jupiviv]

The left represents too great a decline to the Last Man - it has become utterly feminine rather than working for the working class person.

They represent and support completely the weak non-disciplined 'anything goes' views of women. All the media I used to read, when I was sympathetic to the left, is now filled with feminine opinionators - they are all post-modernist gay softcocks or stupid women who have done gender studies type courses. They attack masculinity far, far too much. It has become like a communist force against masculinity.

Hey Jim, I think that sort of concern is completely overblown. Some men seem to be freaking out over what they see as an attack on their identity as males - but from what I can see, what is actually occurring is that women are simply flexing their new-found freedoms and correcting what they see as longstanding grievances.

And who can blame women for doing this? The sort of treatment they are dishing out to men is precisely the same treatment they have had to endure for millennia. A lot of men, it seems, cannot handle the tables being turned in this way. <--LOL

I just can't take this anti-feminist movement seriously, at least not in its current form. What I see is a dishonest movement being facilitated by beta-males who are looking to blame others for their own inadequacies.

The battle of the sexes is morphing quickly. A common theme now is that women consider (and will tell you) that dick is cheap. A chunk of women have the approach that in their 20"s they will have a number of non serious interludes, they will deliberately avoid relationships, and will focus on career, girlfriends and travel. One upshot of that is that women ranked from say a 3 out of 10 and upwards can score with guys that are 8 or more out of 10. So there is a proportion of guys scoring from 0 to 7 that in the past would have been getting married and having regular sex, that are instead relegated to jerking off to porn. On top of that, such men are denigrated, as "incels".

Dick has pretty much always been cheap. It doesn't follow though that women leverage greater reproductive value to "dominate" men. Maternal mortality rates over time say otherwise. Men who unironically consider pua ratings a valid sociological concept (in 20-fucking-19 no less!) and then complain about female hypergamy are just begging the question.

Interestingly, this trend and perhaps other influences has meant that i can attract women of all ages if i want to. Kinda freaky. The reason i mention this is because if i dont i typically get written off as an incel.

Holy shit are you alt-right incels unimaginative. Come up with a more convincing narrative than "women have very high standards oh btw I'm a black swan floating on Pussy Lake (((pepe hands)))". Also remove your mugshot because, yeah...

On a positive note, I think all of us can share a good laugh at David's hilariously pathetic attempt at being "woke".

[David Quinn]

I believe it's time for a cleansing.

[To Diebert] I'm wondering if your cheering on the destruction of the West, and even the destruction of civilization itself, is a way for you wrestle back a feeling of control of a dangerous situation that has long frightened you.

Another rare opportunity to do some introspection, wasted! In any case, this is inaccurate. Diebert is using your Trumphobia as a vehicle for his critique of QRS philosophy in general. I as well of course, but unlike Diebert's my critique is correct and profoundly insightful.

Earlier in this thread, Vishesh made the observation that while you seem to offer “interesting insights and information that showcases a breadth of literature", the impressions you tend to leave are “thoroughly immemorable". He couldn't have put it any more succinctly. This has always been my experience as well.

While there is always a lot of splash and colour and razzle-dazzle in your verbosity, whenever one tries to drill down and find some actual meaning in your words, there tends to be nothing there. For the most part, your posts are all smoke and mirrors, and no substance. You’re like a younger version of Alex in this regard.

Let’s take your passage above as an example. According to you, Diebert is using my “Trumphobia” (apparently, my objection to rampant ignorance, stupidity, gaslighting and the constant mangling of A=A should be considered a disease) as a vehicle to critique QRS philosophy in general. Now I'm sure this probably sounds impressive to someone, somewhere, but it only takes a few seconds to analyze and realize that it is vacuous on every level.

Diebert, in fact, is doing the opposite. He is of the view that my “Trumphobia” (you know, this antiquated affliction I have that demands that people be intelligent, coherent and truthful), together with my alarm over the environment, is somehow causing me to abandon my past QRS principles. That’s the sin I am committing, in his eyes. It’s not the QRS philosophy itself which is at fault, says Diebert, but rather that I have been divorcing myself from it. (Diebert is wrong in thinking this, but I will address it in a separate post).

Just the fact that Diebert keeps pestering me to put my old work back on-line is a testament to this.

Okay, so after having misunderstood and misrepresented Diebert’s actions on this forum, you then proceed to mangle your own behaviour. Apparently, according to your comment above, you have been spending your time here critiquing QRS philosophy itself - in a “profoundly insightful” manner no less. ("In my great and unmatched wisdom", you could have also said, just to make it sound even more impressive. Or more inane).

I haven’t seen any evidence of this supposed critique, of course - for example, I haven‘t seen you mount an argument against the truth that all things are caused. But what I have seen from you is a complete lack of interest to use such truths (or “QRS principles", if you will) to push yourself into full consciousness of Ultimate Reality. In other words, I see a complete lack of spiritual impetus inside you. You are, in a word, spiritually lifeless.

What's worse, you use these great QRS principles, not to intensify your spirituality, but rather to dilute it. You use them to justify your attachment to nihilism. Hiding away in nihilism is what you like doing best. It feels safe in there. It's like a womb. You can use it to avoid reality.

This spiritual lifelessness infests everything that you do and say on this forum. For example, looking at one of your more recent remarks from the Is there anyone here genuinely seeking enlightenment? thread:

Seeking enlightenment is just a fancy name for trying to make sense of the world. I'd say all 8 of us currently posting semi/regularly seem to be genuinely doing that, each in their own way.

Has a blander, more insipid remark ever been made on the topic of enlightenment? It is hard to think of any. It is so insipid that a cereal company wouldn't include it on one of their boxes. It is so bland that a New Age publication would balk with embarrassment at putting it in one of their goofy calendars.

With the likes of you and Diebert in charge, it is no wonder that this forum, once a shining light in the infinite darkness, has become intellectually and spiritually dead. One can no longer distinguish it from the wider darkness outside.

[David Quinn]

Ok, now onto Diebert.

There is no question that Diebert is far more advanced than jupiviv in terms of his understanding of the Infinite. Nevertheless, he is trapped in a subtle form of illusion which not only greatly skewers his view of the world, but prevents him from fully realizing his true nature. I will explore this in more detail further down in this post.

The main concern I have about Diebert is that I don't know if he has the passion needed to escape this illusion. He has far more passion than jupiviv, but that isn't saying much. What I don't know is whether Diebert will ever summon up the energy needed to fully break through the Barrier. I find it a worry that he can't even seem to contemplate the matter without having to entertain apocalyptic fantasies of a Trumpian-type figure smashing down the civilized world or some other such global calamity. He creates the impression that he is feeble figure trapped in an oppressive system and lacks the inner gumption to do anything about it.

Here are two quotes of interest:

Besides harping about David's inadequacy of applying his wisdom to the complexities of the world, why don't you outline what systematic factors could actually aid the propagation and assimilation of wisdom in the world?

I don't need to outline systematic factors which help to spread the wisdom. It's not an academic course for the elites. The discussion you step in here has deeper roots, revolving around the question if one can load ultimate wisdom in a proverbial gun barrel and shoot conclusions at the political world, picking sides, praising one approach and demonizing the other in the most definite terms. And I'm with Kevin and others, to call this the improper, even delusional way to approach it. In some ways it's destructive towards one own wisdom and understanding, no matter what was achieved in the past. All we have are opinions on things that much steeped in causality, our opinions being part of those causes.

Now I hope you'll understand the deeper motives in the strong oppositional here, at least for me. Even when I'm sounding to some partially supportive of some "right" or fascinated by Trump's character, it's only a prodding stick into delusions forming elsewhere. There is no enlightenment in politics, no particular science either when it comes to making decision on the fate of millions, their economy, their minds, their hopes or dreams. This is because enlightenment, any ounce of it would take it all away in a blink of an eye. And certainly the ultimate doesn't care about anyone's prosperity or success.

And:

The extinction of all life could happen in our own lifetimes.

It matters nothing if timeless wisdom would be gained. We can postpone extinction for how long? The next Ice Age, collapse of our sun, the heat death of the universe. Why not be excited that you can witness the end of life in your lifetime? Of course I'm just challenging your faith here, not preaching my own as I don't have any left of that type.

Ok, so let’s examine these passages more closely, as they give a clear indication as to why Diebert is still deluded about the nature of Reality and why he has no real understanding of what it means to act wisely in the world - and thus why, as a result, this forum, under the stewardship of Diebert and jupiviv, has become intellectually and spiritually dead.

In essence, Diebert is expressing in these passages his view that wisdom is all about rigidly adhering to the “absolute perspective". From the absolute perspective, Nature doesn’t care about our goals and aspirations. She doesn’t even care if we exist or not. From Her point of view, nothing really matters. If the extinction of our species occurs tomorrow or in a billion years from now - so what? Nature doesn’t give a stuff one way or the other, so why should we? In light of this, it is irrational for a wise person to place value on anything. It is irrational for him to care for, say, the environment or the survival of the species. To value such things is to turn one’s back on wisdom. Thus spaketh Diebert van Rhijn.

These are not the words of an enlightened person. Rather, they are the words of someone who is still stuck in the formless realms. The formless realms are a stage of the intellectual path to enlightenment in which it is understood that all things are illusory and that Reality or God has no form. It is an advanced understanding, but still infinitely short of the enlightened wisdom of the buddhas. It is the understanding of someone who hasn't yet broken through the Barrier.

The flaws in Diebert's understanding are underscored by the contradictions that appear in his words the moment he begins to speak about it. For example, if nothing truly matters, then why does he object to the way I behave on this forum? Indeed, why would he object to anything at all? It's almost as though a part of him still believes that some things do in fact matter - even if it is simply to direct other people's attention to the supposed correctness of his point of view.

Kierkegaard also spoke about the limitations of formlessness. He spoke about the knight of infinite resignation, for example. The knight of infinite resignation is someone who understands that, from the absolute point of view, nothing has value, and he gives himself over to this understanding by renouncing everything in this world, including everything in his own life. But that's not the end of the story. As Kierkegaard goes on to say, there is someone who is even greater than the knight of infinite resignation - namely, the man of faith. The man of faith is someone who, after abandoning everything in a great act of renunciation, reintegrates into the world by grasping hold of the finite "on the strength of the absurd".

In other words, he begins to value things again. He begins to have a purpose in the world again. The man of faith is a God-filled man who strides the world with purpose, while the knight of infinite resignation is still just an aimless ascetic, an empty vessel, waiting passively for God to fill him.

I have explained many times over the years that my goal in life is the survival of wisdom. And for that goal to be facilitated, we need the continued existence of intelligent, sentient beings, such as those few that can be found within the human race. Thus, the human race needs to continue. Thus, we need to protect the environmental support systems upon which the human race relies. Thus my alarm at not only the precarious state of these environmental support systems, but also at the sheer indifference to this emergency by such large sections of the community, including, appallingly, by senior members of this forum.

But then again, given that this place has become intellectually and spiritually dead, it should come as no surprise that the main response to the environmental crisis is callousness and indifference.

Although being stuck in the formless realms can make one seem rational at times, it can also lead one into extreme bouts of insanity. For example, Diebert writes:

In any case, it seems that more and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that our climate and environmental troubles are far worse than they seemed even only a years ago - that global temperatures, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rates of deforestation and species extinction, etc, are accelerating at an increasingly faster rate.

Okay perhaps I've to spell it out more slowly.

The reason I introduced the topic of nuclear threats was precisely because scientists, experts, thought leaders, authors, activists and major politicians all warned for the near inevitable destruction this race to the bottom could ultimately deliver. The risk was just too big.

Although the race slowed down with some treaties, recently more deadly, powerful and fast nuclear delivery mechanisms are being built, tested and pointed again at each other from even closer distances. But never mind all that, we're used to it? Lets talk about another big urgent danger!

Why not talk about it? Your whole approach to this issue is very strange. In fact, it looks insane.

Imagine a grumpy old man who doesn’t want to deal with the fact that his house is suddenly on fire. “Look, you young whippersnappers,” he shouts at those around him, “I have been warning you for years that this house has been built on a geological fault-line and could be destroyed at any moment by an earthquake, and you all ignored me. So why are you suddenly getting so upset about a fire?”

One of the young whippersnappers shouts back, “But the fire is happening now! We have to deal with it! We could lose all of our possessions! We could all burn to death!”

“The house has to go some time", retorts the crazed old man. "Whether it is destroyed now by a fire or later by an earthquake - what does it matter? Our lives won't be around forever! We can postpone life for how long? The next Ice Age, collapse of our sun, the heat death of the universe. Why not be excited that you can witness the end of all of us right now? Why not enjoy the spectacle and smells of burning flesh? Of course I'm just challenging your faith here, not preaching my own as I don't have any left.”

The issue at hand is not whether an enlightened man is fazed, on a personal level, by the extinction of his own life or that of the species. Rather, it is to do with his concerns about how wisdom will continue to prosper into the future.

-

Another couple of quotes of interest:

It's even possible that rapidly changing energy supplies to "save' this world would be just as destructive and dangerous as building nuclear arms to counter some enemy. Another giant technical project to save the world again. while it's technology, large populations and modification of the surface which have been the major, obvious causes. And birth control is another thing that could solve the climate issue today if people wanted it but they prefer parks of high-tech turbines, panels, nuclear technology and more and more transforming elements with large unknowns and question marks attached, as the actual engineers and scientists deploying them are indicating. You never wonder where this might come from? As philosopher, like, you know, why not ask the tough questions, going against the holy cows of "progress", the "children" and "peace on earth"?

And:

In acknowledging that significant realms of (non-right) society are largely devoid of deception, paranoia and fear, I am not asserting that those who inhabit these realms are enlightened philosophers or near-Buddhas.

You are just inventing false distinctions between "somewhat ignorant" and "fully ignorant". As if you can portion enlightenment like a musical talent or physical dimensions of our body. It's almost like the esthetic version of enlightenment. It has little to do anymore with spirit or genius.

Are you seriously saying that you cannot distinguish between different levels of rationality in the world? For example, between the methodologies of, say, evolutionary biology and creation science? Are you saying that they both exhibit equivalent levels of rationality?

Constantly engaging in false equivalencies, unable to discriminate between different realities, unable to distinguish between truth and lies, demonizing those who hold onto ethical standards, constantly fostering a cynical form of nihilism that stresses that nothing matters - anybody reading this list would think that I am describing Donald Trump. But no, I am actually listing the traits of Diebert van Rhijn.

Fascinating, really. When Vishesh said that Trump is a symptom and not a cause, he was, of course, perfectly correct. Trump is indeed a symptom of a deadly cancerous disease that has infected huge swathes of the population. But what Vishesh didn't say is that this very same disease has long infiltrated the very depths of this forum.

[jupiviv]

Earlier in this thread, Vishesh made the observation that while you seem to offer “interesting insights and information that showcases a breadth of literature", the impressions you tend to leave are “thoroughly immemorable". He couldn't have put it any more succinctly. This has always been my experience as well.

Firstly that's not what 'immemorable' means; secondly those are contradictory ideas. Wtf is his point? He seems to have no strong opinion of me but wrote some vague admonitory drivel because apparently he's your fanboi and wants to 'defend' you. And that pleases you at a time when your 'philosophy' is confronted with the sort of criticism you cannot rebut with bland deductive arguments and unconventional interpretations of bible verses. Because, big surprise, you're nowhere near as wise as you wax.

While there is always a lot of splash and colour and razzle-dazzle in your verbosity, whenever one tries to drill down and find some actual meaning in your words, there tends to be nothing there.

This is mud-slinging but also *accidentally* introspective!

apparently, my objection to rampant ignorance, stupidity, gaslighting and the constant mangling of A=A should be considered a disease

Yes, deluded opposition to delusions is dangerous and repulsive.

Apparently, according to your comment above, you have been spending your time here critiquing QRS philosophy itself - in a “profoundly insightful” manner no less. ("In my great and unmatched wisdom", you could have also said, just to make it sound even more impressive. Or more inane).

I haven’t seen any evidence of this supposed critique, of course - for example, I haven‘t seen you mount an argument against the truth that all things are caused.

Just a stupid red herring because QRS philosophy isn't just about causality (wouldn't be a philosophy if it were), and isn't what I'm criticising to begin with.

I haven’t seen any evidence of this supposed critique, of course - for example, I haven‘t seen you mount an argument against the truth that all things are caused. But what I have seen from you is a complete lack of interest to use such truths (or “QRS principles", if you will) to push yourself into full consciousness of Ultimate Reality. In other words, I see a complete lack of spiritual impetus inside you. You are, in a word, spiritually lifeless.

What's worse, you use these great QRS principles, not to intensify your spirituality, but rather to dilute it. You use them to justify your attachment to nihilism. Hiding away in nihilism is what you like doing best. It feels safe in there. It's like a womb. You can use it to avoid reality.

Reads like you were drunk when writing it.

Seeking enlightenment is just a fancy name for trying to make sense of the world. I'd say all 8 of us currently posting semi/regularly seem to be genuinely doing that, each in their own way.

Has a blander, more insipid remark ever been made on the topic of enlightenment? It is hard to think of any. It is so insipid that a cereal company wouldn't include it on one of their boxes. It is so bland that a New Age publication would balk with embarrassment at putting it in one of their goofy calendars.

Your "evidence" is a two-sentence post taken out of context? Fucking hell I'll even admit that I've written a lot of really dumb shit on this forum!

Now here's some ACTUAL evidence of self-defeating, inane performative toxic masculine rationality. Bona fide reactionaries are, in fact, posting on this forum right now. One of them started this thread. Let's see how your initial response to him compares with mine in its perspicacity and usefulness:

JFC another 'race realist'!

I believe that preventing illegal and problematic immigration is a positive thing. Excessive immigration increases the supply of labour and hence keeps wages low, which drags down the lower and middle class.

Nothing is inherently a positive thing. Your argument boils down to "more people take up more resources than less people, hence we should have less people", which can be used to banish or keep out any sentient being from any spatial location in the universe. It's totally irrelevant to Trump's racist, intentionally cruel and unreasonable policy towards illegal immigrants in the US.

A lot of the problems we are seeing these days with leftist views is their beta type personality trying to gain power over the remnants of institutionalised alpha.

The fact you think "alpha" and "beta" are concepts that can be used to analyse world-history says more about you than the rest of your post.

Speaking of which, the biggest problem in the world - both now and throughout human history - is the vapid pretense of "balance" and "reasonableness" reeking from the nonsense you've written.

Hey Rhett,

Good to see you’re still alive. What has happened to Kelly Jones, do you know? I haven’t heard a peep from her in a long time.

I know very little about Greta Thunberg, but she appears a very strong alpha type personality, that is doing a lot of good for the world.

Yep, Greta is great. I really like her. Her recent speech to the UN was very impressive, particularly the way she spoke the truth to world leaders in an uncompromising manner. Her words were simple, pure and direct. Such a breath of fresh air.

In many ways, the science of climate change has come to assume the role of the spiritual philosopher. It proclaims harsh truths and makes demands on people’s lives, and has to endure widespread condemnation as a result. Greta provides a perfect example of this. The way she is mocked, vilified, dehumanized and abused by large segments of society - simply for urging people to take science seriously - echoes the treatment that the likes of Jesus and Socrates had to endure in the past.

Unlike the fraudulent Trumpian movement, she actually represents a genuine threat to the status quo. Her message and her movement are in direct opposition to the elites and their swamp, and they clearly do not like it.

Incidentally, if any of you think that Greta might be over-reacting, here is an interesting read: Facing Extinction

When Vishesh said that Trump is a symptom and not a cause, he was, of course, perfectly correct.

Weren't you calling me a Breitbart psy-op victims when I was saying that 3 years ago? You tell me I've nothing important to say and yet your current Trumpinions are just recycled versions of mine!

Anyway, only the individual can determine whether something is real. And that is precisely why the very idea of "valuing" rationality is utter nonsense, and why the incessant chatter about the "value" of rationality which characterises much of this forum has since 2016 devolved into the fractal self-parody we see before us. All it took was a disagreement over the correct interpretation of a world event. A disagreement, it should be noted, that would be out of the question if even a single one of the QRS trio valued reason as much as they claim.

For the hypothetical impressionable young lurker who discerns what differentiates me from David: stop searching for reasons to be truthful; there aren't any. There is no enlightenment. Anyone who says otherwise is deceiving both themselves and you. If something looks like a good reason to value truth, avoid it like the plague. Rather, be meek! Be feminine! Become fragile and sensitive like a little lost girl! Man's a heap of horrid lies. If you love other people you can't love lies.

[visheshdewan050193]

Unmemorable is considered a synonym by some sources, probably a better word. The context of the usage of the word is pretty clear.

The piece on Diebert was interesting. I personally find him to be clear in whatever he expresses most of the time. Given Diebert's description of his levels of insight (expressed in an email infused with his own idiosyncratic linguistic style) , the Kierkegaardian distinction described above makes sense.

[David Quinn]

Reads like you were drunk when writing it.

Ah, interesting. That explains a lot.

For the hypothetical impressionable young lurker who discerns what differentiates me from David: stop searching for reasons to be truthful; there aren't any. There is no enlightenment. Anyone who says otherwise is deceiving both themselves and you.

And there is your nihilism in a nutshell.

But hold on. How are we now supposed to interpret your recent bland comments on enlightenment?:

Seeking enlightenment is just a fancy name for trying to make sense of the world. I'd say all 8 of us currently posting semi/regularly seem to be genuinely doing that, each in their own way.

And thus, without any prompting, the bland dissolves into the nonsensical.

And now we are back to where we started:

Earlier in this thread, Vishesh made the observation that while you seem to offer “interesting insights and information that showcases a breadth of literature", the impressions you tend to leave are “thoroughly immemorable". He couldn't have put it any more succinctly. This has always been my experience as well.

Rinse and repeat ......

[visheshdewan050193]

For the hypothetical impressionable young lurker who discerns what differentiates me from David: stop searching for reasons to be truthful; there aren't any. There is no enlightenment. Anyone who says otherwise is deceiving both themselves and you.

And there is your nihilism in a nutshell.

That just came off as sardonic waxing really.

Wtf is his point? He seems to have no strong opinion of me but wrote some vague admonitory drivel because apparently he's your fanboi and wants to 'defend' you.

Ah interesting, explains a lot. :)

[jupiviv]

Reads like you were drunk when writing it.

Ah, interesting. That explains a lot.

It does. A philosophy that if confronted directly can only fall back on a handful of syllogisms and pretentious phrases like "breaking through to enlightenment" belongs to obscurity.

For the hypothetical impressionable young lurker who discerns what differentiates me from David: stop searching for reasons to be truthful; there aren't any. There is no enlightenment. Anyone who says otherwise is deceiving both themselves and you.

And there is your nihilism in a nutshell.

Your disapproval doesn't make things nihilistic. Come up with some arguments. For example, why is saying "there is no enlightenment" nihilistic? The vast majority of Trump-hating people in the world would agree with that statement. Are they nihilistic? Does hating Trump make you stop believing in the concept of existence?

Seeking enlightenment is just a fancy name for trying to make sense of the world. I'd say all 8 of us currently posting semi/regularly seem to be genuinely doing that, each in their own way.

And thus, without any prompting, the bland dissolves into the nonsensical.

Arguments, David. Chop chop. What does "bland" mean and why is that quote bland? Are people who hate Trump evil and bland? Trump certainly thinks so!

[jupiviv]

For the hypothetical impressionable young lurker who discerns what differentiates me from David: stop searching for reasons to be truthful; there aren't any. There is no enlightenment. Anyone who says otherwise is deceiving both themselves and you.

And there is your nihilism in a nutshell.

That just came off as sardonic waxing really.

Wtf is his point? He seems to have no strong opinion of me but wrote some vague admonitory drivel because apparently he's your fanboi and wants to 'defend' you.

Ah interesting, explains a lot. :)

bhaisahab arhat ka janan se nirvan nahi niklega. angrezi ka fuhare se awaaz ki dhulai nahi hoga. labon ko biglao, firangi mat bano. apne paros se bhi kuch seekh lo janab!

[Avolith]

What exactly is ideal of spreading truth? I'll have a go at putting down some arguments why I think this ideal might be problematic:

*I'd say that spreading truth is something different from truth itself, and if truth is the highest value, then spreading truth at least comes in second place or later. Thereby it can't be the primary focus of the genius
*The execution of spreading truth is a subjective business. The ideal seems abstract to me, but the word 'spreading' implies that there's places and people to be changed from what they are now - in the finite world, which also means it could be done in a million different ways, depending on finite perspectives.
*The ideal of actively spreading truth seems to be more or less directly linked to the valuation of personal ambition. An energy required to achieve goals, generated by a strong desire. And then desire in turn isn't compatible with and enlightened perspective

What about this: the ideal that we won't be contented until all humans are enlightened. It's different from the idea of spreading truth, because:

*It makes it clear that literally achieving this goal is outside of any one human's personal power, making it both ambitious and not ambitious at the same time
*It doesn't focus attention on the 'activity of spreading'. So, the ideal allows for the spreading to happen more spontaneously with less desire/attachment, without forcing you to consciously come up with, say some method or plan of manipulating the finite that will inevitably fail or lead to unforeseen consequences.
*It makes more clear that the end goal is abstract and has no clearly defined definitive form, so the work is endless

I hope someone can point out all the inevitable faults in the above

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Ok, now onto Diebert.

There is no question that Diebert is ..

Hello? I'm here, trying to dialogue with grownups. Of course you are free to jump on a table and pretend you never were. To tune the participant out like that seems a bit of passive-aggressive move and somewhat self-aggrandizing. But I'll just continue with the dialogue nevertheless.

What I don't know is whether Diebert will ever summon up the energy needed to fully break through the Barrier.

But this was about discussing feeble worldly matters, the ten thousand things. It should be clear you find them way more interesting, fascinating and of crucial importance than me. Which makes it so ironic when you start about illusions and the "Barrier". But please do carry on!

The extinction of all life could happen in our own lifetimes.

It matters nothing if timeless wisdom would be gained.

Please note the word "if" which has a different meaning from "when" or "after".

this forum, under the stewardship of Diebert and jupiviv, has become intellectually and spiritually dead.

And we did all of that when you were "taking a break from philosophic activism and writing for around three years"? The participation of Jupiviv over the last years have been modest though and mostly inside Trump discussions. He's one of the more critical and alive minds here, for the best or the worst. But for you, being the new Hillary Clinton of the Liberal Enlightenment establishment, all you have left is to declare dead, insane or plain stupid all who dare to oppose your own frame. Let me say this: you are not insane, not stupid and not dead yet. And the problem is not that you attack others but you are increasingly contradicting mostly your own thoughts and writings.

The flaws in Diebert's understanding are underscored by the contradictions that appear in his words the moment he begins to speak about it. For example, if nothing truly matters, then why does he object to the way I behave on this forum?

Perhaps because I never said that "nothing truly matters". As that would mean being truthful doesn't matter. All I maintain is that being truthful should never be eclipsed by fears for the end of this planet or concerns for the future of the human race. Sobriety is something entirely different from disinterest or carelessness.

I have explained many times over the years that my goal in life is the survival of wisdom. And for that goal to be facilitated, we need the continued existence of intelligent, sentient beings, such as those few that can be found within the human race.

And I've challenged that goal here before mainly because it puts the one, the facilitator, the "responsible" on a way too high of a position. It's a classical ego trap. Trying to save humanity for whatever reason. One of the biggest illusions that bugged humanity for centuries. The most monstrous and murderous systems came out of the desire. And yet you succumbed to another tarted up variety.

It's a thought, a belief which still has to die in you. David. Without it you will remain captured with that fever and it will spiral into voicing and supporting greater and greater delusions, erratic attacks and contradictory reasoning. This, in my view, you appear to demonstrate increasingly.

Thus my alarm at not only the precarious state of these environmental support systems, but also at the sheer indifference to this emergency by such large sections of the community, including, appallingly, by senior members of this forum.

Maybe there's a message in there, that you might have to re-examine your own position? How are you sure it's still adhering to truth? To err is to be human and you are still human. Trusting ones own mind is crucial but we should not sacrifice our self-correcting and self-questioning ability.

Imagine a grumpy old man who doesn’t want to deal with the fact that his house is suddenly on fire. “Look, you young whippersnappers,” he shouts at those around him, “I have been warning you for years that this house has been built on a geological fault-line and could be destroyed at any moment by an earthquake, and you all ignored me. So why are you suddenly getting so upset about a fire?”

Thanks, you are just sabotaging your own argument. The "fire" in your example would be closer to the real chance of a nuclear holocaust here and now as it only needs a few buttons to be pressed or some slight malfunction. But the geological fault-line is more like the fear on climate change, that within the next century some catastrophe might occur and we don't know yet if we're able to cope with it exactly , if at all.

“The house has to go some time", retorts the crazed old man. "Whether it is destroyed now by a fire or later by an earthquake - what does it matter? Our lives won't be around forever! We can postpone life for how long? The next Ice Age, collapse of our sun, the heat death of the universe. Why not be excited that you can witness the end of all of us right now? Why not enjoy the spectacle and smells of burning flesh? Of course I'm just challenging your faith here, not preaching my own as I don't have any left.”

And yet, on another level, the old man is wise. Our bodies, our minds, are perpetual "burning" and start dying after the first twenty years. Seeking truth starts dealing with that reality which is of all ages and times. It's truly universal and eclipses any other issue by far.

Who was the one writing "If the world can be compared to a house on fire, slowly consuming everything that we cherish inside it, then a spiritual teacher is like a fireman trying to direct people to safety outside"? Or even just Chuang Tzu on the "precariously perched" and thousands of others spiritually sane people who stopped worrying about putting out fires out there while letting it rage further inside.

Are you seriously saying that you cannot distinguish between different levels of rationality in the world? For example, between the methodologies of, say, evolutionary biology and creation science? Are you saying that they both exhibit equivalent levels of rationality?

If you'd start reading my words, imperfect as they are, with a bit more attention and open mind, you'd have realized that I was not addressing the notion of "different levels of rationality" but "different levels of ignorance" in your context which was "enlightened philosophers or near-Buddhas". The rationality employed by Buddha is not like the rationality employed by a psychopath or mathematician.

Constantly engaging in false equivalencies, unable to discriminate between different realities, unable to distinguish between truth and lies, demonizing those who hold onto ethical standards, constantly fostering a cynical form of nihilism that stresses that nothing matters - anybody reading this list would think that I am describing Donald Trump.

One possibility is that you are suppressing the idea that you are seriously engaged in that behavior but you need to displace to some convenient enemy, some opponent who can function as coat hanger. The idea of poison having infiltrated this forum provides perhaps that function for you personally, not unlike how in the United States many Democrats are projecting their own increasing insecurity, divisiveness and misinterpretations on anyone opposing them, generally the Conservatives although increasingly they will start attacking and devouring their own. Mark that up as a prediction. It's very interesting to those desiring to understand psychology of modern minds. For enlightenment there's less to learn.

[visheshdewan050193]

bhaisahab arhat ka janan se nirvan nahi niklega. angrezi ka fuhare se awaaz ki dhulai nahi hoga. labon ko biglao, firangi mat bano. apne paros se bhi kuch seekh lo janab!

The discourtesy of not using the lingua franca of the forum notwithstanding, you extend your brand of vacuous rhetoric to bi linguistic usage as well. You've played the race card against David and use it in reverse on me, even in jest. But I'll be neighbourly jups, and humour you. Setting your diatribes aside, try to succinctly summarize your essential criticism of QRS philosophy/ views in relation to worldly current affairs, your own interpretation of them, and your views on the wisdom expressed here and its relevance in shaping the future course of world. I'll muster my reserves of interest in what you have to say before deciding to write you off as a bore. :)

Actually, on second thought, never mind.

[visheshdewan050193]

Imagine a grumpy old man who doesn’t want to deal with the fact that his house is suddenly on fire. “Look, you young whippersnappers,” he shouts at those around him, “I have been warning you for years that this house has been built on a geological fault-line and could be destroyed at any moment by an earthquake, and you all ignored me. So why are you suddenly getting so upset about a fire?”

Thanks, you are just sabotaging your own argument. The actual "fire" in your example is the very real chance of a nuclear holocaust right here and now as it only needs a few buttons to be pressed or some slight malfunction. But the geological fault-line is more like the fear on climate change, that within the next century some catastrophe might occur and we don't know yet if we're able to cope with it exactly , if at all.

Totally predicted Diebert catching onto that. I'm not sure why you're so fixated with nuclear holocaust, Diebert. Or are you just trying to make the point that there are other issues besides climate change that need to be dealt with, and that one ought not to demonize an entire political faction because of their lack of addressing the one issue David is mostly concerned with?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Totally predicted Diebert catching onto that. I'm not sure why you're so fixated with nuclear holocaust, Diebert. Or are you just trying to make the point that there are other issues besides climate change that need to be dealt with, and that one ought not to demonize an entire political faction because of their lack of addressing the one issue David is mostly concerned with?

Lets start with going back to the initial statement I was commenting on:

By far and away the biggest issue confronting us is climate change and the world-wide destruction of the environment.

Which I challenged then by asking:

You mean nuclear weapons ready to be launched and destroy the planet many times over within the hour are fully accepted by now?

Instead of trying to make it look like might be focusing on all things nuclear, lets first ask who is focusing on holocaust, destruction, poison, rampant criminal politicians and copious amounts deception, paranoia and fear infecting one particular part of the population or forum, driving us to Armageddon and doing that consistently and nearly every contribution lately?

Once you have pondered that question, I think you don't need me to answer your question and you might also understand the criticisms I've leveled against Quinn's posts in this thread and elsewhere on similar topics. It really seems to need some opposition.

[visheshdewan050193]

What exactly is ideal of spreading truth? I'll have a go at putting down some arguments why I think this ideal might be problematic:

I'd be interested in David addressing Avolith regarding what he wrote.

The only half baked thing I'd have to say is that we ought to seriously look into cognitive skews that we are all suspect to regardless of our individual development and levels of enlightened insight. Keeping in mind our discussion on cognitive functions and id (which I haven't worked out yet), Kierkegaard's (probably INFP) stab at publishing pamphlets that directly attacked cultural Christianity could have been his id Fe-Se workings shaping his values and actions. Buddha's (probably INTP) actions of setting up a monastic order that competed with other orders of the day could be his id Te-Se workings shaping his values and actions, besides rationales that David has pointed out in previous threads (such as primarily being a means to preserve and transmit his thoughts for the future generations)

[Pam Seeback]

Hi David,

I am not going to address your critique of Diebert, however, I am challenging some of your wisdom premises that came to light in your critique of Diebert:

David Quinn: Kierkegaard also spoke about the limitations of formlessness. He spoke about the knight of infinite resignation, for example. The knight of infinite resignation is someone who understands that, from the absolute point of view, nothing has value, and he gives himself over to this understanding by renouncing everything in this world, including everything in his own life. But that's not the end of the story. As Kierkegaard goes on to say, there is someone who is even greater than the knight of infinite resignation - namely, the man of faith. The man of faith is someone who, after abandoning everything in a great act of renunciation, reintegrates into the world by grasping hold of the finite "on the strength of the absurd".

The higher perspective than the above account of man AND God is the perspective that there is no way to separate the absolute (the infinite causality) and its consciousness of its relativity of caused effects. In other words, there is no such awareness as formlessness. Which means there is always value present, i.e., to be conscious of form is, by default, to value form/to value Oneself. Your view of God AND man is valid vis a vis the realm of having to separate God from Himself so as to realize Himself, but once realized, the subtle duality of God AND disappears, as does the dualistic idea of 'grasping hold of the finite.'

In other words, he begins to value things again. He begins to have a purpose in the world again. The man of faith is a God-filled man who strides the world with purpose, while the knight of infinite resignation is still just an aimless ascetic, an empty vessel, waiting passively for God to fill him.

From the perspective of (the Son of) Man as the conscious infinite causality valuing/loving itself, it is irrational to 'wait to be filled' because, of course, it was never without form.

I have explained many times over the years that my goal in life is the survival of wisdom. And for that goal to be facilitated, we need the continued existence of intelligent, sentient beings, such as those few that can be found within the human race. Thus, the human race needs to continue. Thus, we need to protect the environmental support systems upon which the human race relies. Thus my alarm at not only the precarious state of these environmental support systems, but also at the sheer indifference to this emergency by such large sections of the community, including, appallingly, by senior members of this forum.

It is true that God realization is dependent on sentience and that to ensure the continuum of the causality of sentience is in God's best interest, but is it in God's best interest (or logical) to hate or be appalled by any of its/his sentient formations, i.e., God-as-Trump, God-as-the forum members?

But then again, given that this place has become intellectually and spiritually dead, it should come as no surprise that the main response to the environmental crisis is callousness and indifference.

Please reconsider your thinking of a spiritually dead anything.

[jupiviv]

@Avolith I turned my response to you into a series of articles, only the first of which is currently visible due to a glitch caused by Diebert's administrative incompetence.