Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment process

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:22 am

Sphere70 wrote:Well, that Truth can't either be spoken or shown is maybe the only Truth - which itself is untrue.

You are correct, the first part of this sentence is untrue, but obviously not as a logical consequence of itself, since that would mean it is true.
All words are false

Again, not true. Words are neither true nor false. What they convey may be either. If you are implying the truth can never be conveyed in words, then you are saying it can never be conveyed, which would make all teaching impossible. If you are implying truth can be conveyed, just not in words, then can this be true:
All images are false.
It would logically not follow from the previous statement, but if it were somehow the sole exception to "all words are false," then both words and images would be false. What's left? Hand gestures?

If you are saying the truth cannot be conveyed in any fashion - and I accepted that as true - how did you just convey it to me, since I previously did not think that?
It's all a matter of taste of entertainment.

Pictures vs. words may be a matter of taste, certainly, both on the issuing and receiving ends. But entertainment? It seems in many if not most cases, words and pictures are not intended solely as entertainment. For instance, a red octagonal sign with the word STOP on it should not be regarded as entertainment, should it?
Debating if a picture shows the Truth (or truth) more than words is really the wrong discussion, that is to say there isn't a right discussion.

I think there are plenty of right discussions, but that is probably not what you meant. You meant that the one we are having isn't an example of one. That's for you to decide, I suppose - but at least an actual discussion might keep David from from getting trigger-happy.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:35 am

jupiviv wrote:
That whole idea about cameras not being able to portray "reality" is just hogwash.

hogwash?

This should clarify your reference.

http://www.markstechnologynews.com/wp-c ... ricity.jpg
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:40 am

Cahoot wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
That whole idea about cameras not being able to portray "reality" is just hogwash.

hogwash?

This should clarify your reference.

http://www.markstechnologynews.com/wp-c ... ricity.jpg

I checked it out - not bad for about $116 USD!
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:52 am

Cahoot wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
That whole idea about cameras not being able to portray "reality" is just hogwash.

hogwash?

This should clarify your reference.

http://www.markstechnologynews.com/wp-c ... ricity.jpg


So...sarcasm? That's great!
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:06 am

User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:42 am

Cahoot wrote:Maybe you prefer to see this?

http://amazingdata.com/mediadata/Image/ ... 123780.jpg

I don't know what that is a picture of, but it looks like every smokestack in New Jersey - except for the blue sky behind it.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby David Quinn » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:54 am

cousinbasil wrote: Maybe David could take the pains to be a hands-on administrator. Instead of axing an entire thread, target those instances in which the pictures are not being rightly used.

Fair enough. Since the thread has finally started to become a little interesting, I'll delete the pictures and leave the rest of the thread intact.


cousinbasil wrote: BTW, this would answer Kunga's objection that Leyla's were allowed. First, they were her own work. Second, they were in Worldly Matters. Third, they are high-quality and not attempts at being clever or ridiculous. Besides, David probably never saw them, since it is my guess he avoids Worldly Matters chatter.

I saw them at the time and let it go because the pictures were interesting and because Leyla is an intelligent long time member who is unlikely to abuse the privilege by posting junk pictures of the kind we have seen in this thread.


jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:The main reason the forum is exclusively text-based is that words force people to think, even if it's just to express themselves with some clarity.

Pictures, when rightly used, also force people to think and express themselves clearly. Kevin Solway uses pictures often enough in his site. Hakuin used to paint. Just because you can't see any meaning in pictures doesn't mean everyone can't.

The key phrase here is "when rightly used". Most people can't be trusted to post informative, interesting pictures, sparingly and in the right places - especially the hordes of kids who infest the net.


jupiviv wrote: Words also encourage banality, and this can also be seen in this thread itself.

They can do, but I prefer to make it as hard as possible for people to let things slide that way. At least with words people have to put in the effort to type their banalities, as opposed to simply pasting pictures they have seen elsewhere.


Speher70 wrote: Why the hell should we control banality and so-called irrationality?

Perhaps because we - or some of us at least - value truth and rationality and quality thinking ..... ?


Speher70 wrote: To control things into a specific idea of importance and 'seriousness' is contrived and non-wise.

I obvously disagree. As any good parent knows, boundaries are needed when children are around.


Speher70 wrote: Well, that Truth can't either be spoken or shown is maybe the only Truth - which itself is unTrue.

All words are false.

All images are false.

It's all a matter of taste of entertainment.

These views are completely false on all levels, even though they are very popular with young people nowadays.

There is a world of difference between the words spoken by a Buddha or a Nietzsche - strong, powerful words that point directly at the Truth - and the reams of banal words spewed mindlessly by immature kids.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Bob Michael » Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:32 am

David Quinn: There is a world of difference between the words spoken by a Buddha or a Nietzsche - strong, powerful words that point directly at the Truth - and the reams of banal words spewed mindlessly by immature kids.

Quite frankly, David, I seriously question your own maturity, manliness, courage, human integrity, and capacity to be a fully living embodiment of the Truth. I think you're very largely talk and very little walk. But then it's never to late to grow up - or is it?
User avatar
Bob Michael
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:46 pm

No threats to claim Carnegie’s legacy going on, no siree Bob.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-I ... 403&sr=8-1
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:53 pm

David Quinn wrote:Most people can't be trusted to post informative, interesting pictures, sparingly and in the right places - especially the hordes of kids who infest the net.


The same can be said about words, really. I think "kids" should be allowed to do what they want, unless it's too dangerous for them, and then left to face the consequences of their actions. Repressing a person's emotions isn't a good idea. I don't think many people here will post completely irrelevant pictures.

Besides, there isn't any option in phpBB(to my knowledge) that allows you to technically disallow posting pictures, so that's another reason the no images rule makes no sense.
Last edited by jupiviv on Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:56 pm

Cahoot wrote:Maybe you prefer to see this?

http://amazingdata.com/mediadata/Image/ ... 123780.jpg


Maybe you prefer to eat it?
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Sphere70 » Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:10 pm

Cousinbasil:

I'm just trying to say that for me Truth (even calling it this is to much but for better terms it's ok) is the being - the perceiving quality. Therefore Truth would be defined as what I really am, prior to what can be perceived. All that I am not is therefore untrue / false in the furthermost definition (the me then being the blank canvas of perception - of course even this is saying to much). And because all that is experienced and known is dependent on that entity which perceives it (and vice versa) - all thoughts, information from the senses, emotions and so forth - is per definition claimed as untrue.
But of course in this world of transient perceptions things, thoughts, emotions and events have it's own relative truths and untruths - but i would never label that Truth (with the famous capital T). Hence the word, the image (and so forth) can never be the Truth - only at best a pointing finger crooked with severe arthritis.
Sphere70
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Sphere70 » Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:35 pm

David:

Perhaps because we - or some of us at least - value truth and rationality and quality thinking ..... ?


Your importance to relative value indicates an identifying principle. The quality of your thoughts will never recognize the beauty of the state you're already in. See through the identifier and the rest will follow.

I obvously disagree. As any good parent knows, boundaries are needed when children are around.


Any good parent is not a parent.

These views are completely false on all levels, even though they are very popular with young people nowadays.

There is a world of difference between the words spoken by a Buddha or a Nietzsche - strong, powerful words that point directly at the Truth - and the reams of banal words spewed mindlessly by immature kids.


Well, praise the young then! Let them hold a mirror to the masochistic suffocation of the old. Let them see their lifeless limbs strained and pale, with their bodies hurdled under the seven re-editions and commentaries of Weininger, Kant & Kierkegaard. Let them see their shivering blue lips and glare-less eyes under the dripping ceilings of ascetic libraries - chanting silently about a formulated Truth and the evils of women. But, for the love of God, don't let them call it Enlightenment!

By the way, I think Buddah (if he ever even lived) would find The Gay Science quite shitty, actually.
And Nietzsche was not all that happy about Buddhism (even though he apparntly found it better than Christianity) - it was still to Nihilistic for him.
Sphere70
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Blair » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:58 pm

I was a Pokemon.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby David Quinn » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:52 pm

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Most people can't be trusted to post informative, interesting pictures, sparingly and in the right places - especially the hordes of kids who infest the net.

The same can be said about words, really. I think "kids" should be allowed to do what they want, unless it's too dangerous for them, and then left to face the consequences of their actions.

It is too dangerous for them. Have a look at KIR, where pictures run rampant. The place is spiritually dead.


Repressing a person's emotions isn't a good idea.

I see it as channelling, rather than repressing. The presence of restrictions is often far more conducive to productive work than the absence of them.


I don't think many people here will post completely irrelevant pictures.

That's only because a strong culture has been in place here for a long time. Over time, left to itself, with all boundaries removed, this forum would invariably deteriorate to the gutter level of most other forums out there.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:15 pm

jupiviv wrote:
Cahoot wrote:Maybe you prefer to see this?

http://amazingdata.com/mediadata/Image/ ... 123780.jpg


Maybe you prefer to eat it?

Not even virtually.

Duh.
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:20 pm

David Quinn wrote:Have a look at KIR, where pictures run rampant. The place is spiritually dead.


That's because they're a bunch of old hags who were spiritually dead to begin with. I think "spirit", where it is in fact present(which is in itself extremely rare), must be allowed to be free. If it dies as a result, then too bad. If it doesn't, then it will grow to be strong. There is a teaching in the Bible which goes something like - "let no man on earth call himself father." It's most profound meaning is basically what I'm saying here.

I see it as channelling, rather than repressing. The presence of restrictions is often far more conducive to productive work than the absence of them.


When you channel water it looses its force and sometimes grows into a reservoir or swamp. Emotions must be allowed free reign. It is precisely in that way that way they can be ended, and understood. Not even a Buddha can stop the wheel of karma if it is already in motion. All emotional thinking, violent behaviour etc., is a result of suppressing or channelling emotions.

Over time, left to itself, with all boundaries removed, this forum would invariably deteriorate to the gutter level of most other forums out there.


I don't want to remove all boundaries, but only useless ones. You can force people to do many things, but you can't force them to think rationally.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:27 pm

Cahoot wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Cahoot wrote:Maybe you prefer to see this?

http://amazingdata.com/mediadata/Image/ ... 123780.jpg


Maybe you prefer to eat it?

Not even virtually.

Duh.


Since the sarcasm battle has gone nowhere, let me ask you a direct question - how exactly is a camera unable to portray reality? And please provide your own response instead of some random quote.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:29 pm

David Quinn wrote:
I see it as channelling, rather than repressing. The presence of restrictions is often far more conducive to productive work than the absence of them.

That seems like a paradox but it is true. One can go beyond limitations only when limitations exist. The confines of a picture frame, word count, relationship, or physical laws of nature, are doorways.
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:52 pm

jupiviv wrote:
Cahoot wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Cahoot wrote:Maybe you prefer to see this?

http://amazingdata.com/mediadata/Image/ ... 123780.jpg


Maybe you prefer to eat it?

Not even virtually.

Duh.


Since the sarcasm battle has gone nowhere, let me ask you a direct question - how exactly is a camera unable to portray reality? And please provide your own response instead of some random quote.

Oh, I thought sarcasm was your preferred method of communication, given that you originally posted that photo. I was simply returning it to you.

A photograph is a form of communication.

Communication requires two, or more. Sender and receiver(s), to keep it simple.

With a photograph, the sender is a human being and the receiver is a human being.

In nature the receiver is a human being. Who is the sender?

A photograph cannot encompass reality. At best it’s a doorway that requires the memory of the viewer to be other than a scrap of paper, or an organization of pixels.

Besides:
virtual reality is virtual reality
reality is reality
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:30 pm

Another quote, though hardly random, as the basis for much cynicism, and many criticisms, derives from comparing what is, to a conceptual imaginative fantasy. And who implants the fantasies/conditioning that the cynical critical receiver feels he must defend, sometimes with a thuggish lack of grace?
To say that ‘the camera cannot lie’ is merely to underline the multiple deceits that are now practiced in its name. Indeed, the world of the movie that was prepared by the photograph has become synonymous with illusion and fantasy, turning society into what Joyce called an ‘allnights newsery reel’, that substitutes a ‘reel’ world for reality. Joyce knew more about the effect of the photograph on our senses, our language, and our thoughts process than anybody else.

- Marshall McLuhan
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:39 pm

Cahoot wrote:Oh, I thought sarcasm was your preferred method of communication, given that you originally posted that photo. I was simply returning it to you.


I suppose you regularly observe my modes of communication? Besides, I wasn't even being sarcastic when I posted that picture. I really think that the no images rule is like a piece of shit, i.e, worthless.

Communication requires two, or more. Sender and receiver(s), to keep it simple.

With a photograph, the sender is a human being and the receiver is a human being.

In nature the receiver is a human being. Who is the sender?


In "nature", there is no communication to begin with, so the last statement is meaningless. In a communication, a person may communicate falsity or truth - it's up to the other person to decide. It is impossible to know for sure whether the other person intends to tell the truth or not, since it is an empirical matter, but it is possible to know for certain whether what is being communicated says something true or not.

Besides:
virtual reality is virtual reality
reality is reality


Precisely. If we define the contents of a photograph as "virtual reality", then that is what they are. If we define them as "reality", then that is what they are.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:03 pm

jupi wrote:
I suppose you regularly observe my modes of communication? Besides, I wasn't even being sarcastic when I posted that picture. I really think that the no images rule is like a piece of shit, i.e, worthless.

Gives reason to wonder what you might unsarcastically do on the floor of a restaurant as an expression of your dislike for the food.


jupi wrote:
In "nature", there is no communication to begin with, so the last statement is meaningless.

Of course there’s communication, and you’re receiving it via the senses. How you interpret it is determined by your capacities.
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:04 pm

jupiviv wrote:In "nature", there is no communication to begin with, so the last statement is meaningless.

Not sure what you mean by this, jupiviv. "Nature" includes living things. The natural world is replete with communication.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:24 pm

Cahoot wrote:Gives reason to wonder what you might unsarcastically do on the floor of a restaurant as an expression of your dislike for the food.


Yes, you do seem like a moron.

jupiviv wrote:
In "nature", there is no communication to begin with, so the last statement is meaningless.

Of course there’s communication, and you’re receiving it via the senses. How you interpret it is determined by your capacities.


I thought you defined communication as dialectic, i.e, interaction between two conscious beings with the goal of knowing the truth. Now it seems you are defining it as the receiving of sensory information. In that case, the "sender" is the thing in nature which my senses are detecting. But going by this definition, your idea about cameras not being able to convey reality becomes meaningless. A person who is not me shows me a photograph, and I see the photograph. End of story.

jupiviv wrote:
cousinbasil wrote:In "nature", there is no communication to begin with, so the last statement is meaningless.
Not sure what you mean by this, jupiviv.


You'll understand what I mean by that would if you read the previous posts.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron