Talking Ass wrote:I desire to point in the direction of creative thinking, creative spiritual and emotional contact with 'texts'
I think there is a major major downside of proposing Absolutisms: it leads to slavish devotion to this 'Absolute', to the establishment of 'correct' ways of seeing and viewing, to intellectual work that begins to look like little more than 'sharing agreements', and even to minor personality cults.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Cory Duchesne wrote:And right on cue, the mother type rushes to protect her boys from a healthy tussel!
My own now revised psychoanalytical theory would be more in the lines of the Duchesne persona having parental issues inside a complex triangle of masculinity: Kevin seen by you for some reason as motherly type ("gentle", "love for folk" "in-tune", "no angry") while David was the distant father ("possessive", analytical, undiplomatic, angry-dad). And now you have to kill dad before you can stand alone, take his place and get Kevin... it's understandable. :-)
Talking Ass wrote:It might help you to understand that my role is as a sort of symbiote. I see and hear things (those facts and assembled facts that are our thinking) and let them act on me and in me. It seems that the main difference is that I have a BODY and I live in a physical world.
I have expressed myself here I think cogently and clearly. It is not an 'irrational position' it is just that it [seems to] operate from different predicates. Still I would SO MUCH like to have you tell me about this Absolute and the 'use of the absolute'. Perhaps you can help me... ;-)
Talking Tick wrote:It might help you to understand that my role is as a sort of symbiote. I see and hear things (those facts and assembled facts that are our thinking) and let them act on me and in me. It seems that the main difference is that I have a BODY and I live in a physical world.
You mean like this?Talking Tick Tock wrote:No, because that is a parasite, or looks like one in any case.
Talking Ass wrote: tangible and real,
You too, Kunga, are mystified. Anyone can understand the concept or the fact of infinity (in lower case), though 'absolute' has never made much sense to me. You can recite all these things and you can do it in Dennisese 'poetry' (though I liked what you wrote), but the real and tangible concern is how you live and what you do with your ideas. That is what I call 'tangible' reality. The main problem as I see it with these pseudo-Buddhist contructs is that they are used in a 'game' of undermining one's relationship to one's very self, and to one's life however impermanent.Kunga wrote: "You can trace the doors' reality back into infinity..."
Yes, I guess you're right. It is all self-sacrifice on my part. Such is the fate of the Bodhisattva!Diebert wrote: And from your description on how you are taking things in & let them act on "you" it doesn't sound there's much mutualism involved anyway.
Talking Ass wrote: Yes, I guess you're right. It is all self-sacrifice on my part. Such is the fate of the Bodhisattva!
And you, Diebert? How seriously do you take it? (I think you'd have to admit: not very)(I am preparing myself for one of those Diebertesque elliptical answers...with a barb...)
Reminds me of a segment of the Wilhelm/Baynes I-Ching:Diebert wrote: "If understanding more of human affairs is ones goal, the sacrificial as fundament has to be understood at some point. As above so below.
David Quinn wrote:If a fool be associated with a wise man even all his life, he will perceive the truth as little as a spoon perceives the taste of soup.
TA wrote:That is rather pessimistic. SOME of what I say MUST get through. Even if no one lets on. I even think you are beginning to learn a little.
The schlemiel spills the soup on the schlemazel
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Gustav Bjornstrand and 4 guests