suffering tends towards enlightenment

[Brian]

I am curious -- would you abandon a family member as quickly as you would a friend if your dogmatic single-threaded approach failed.

[Brian]

It is interesting, I think, that you consider the possibility, the suggestion, that your recently embraced trivium method might not be the be-all/end-all approach to comprehending reality is analogous to eating rotten meat.

[Karl]

I am curious -- would you abandon a family member as quickly as you would a friend if your dogmatic single-threaded approach failed.

 

Abandon ? Where the heck did that find its way in to the conversation ?

What has learning to do with personal relations ? That's a very confused response.

[thelerner]

Absolutely for problem solving and skill activities a mind full of turmoil is pretty limiting.

I'm not saying turmoil.  I'm saying thoughts, the kind one 'hears' and assumes 'that's me'.  The thoughts that are recognized, directed, driven then put on autopilot until (like breathing) we're distracted away from them. 

 

Its a simple but vital practice to go periods consciously dropping thoughts, letting them settle and keeping the mind as quiet as possible.  Even in the midst of decision making.   For some people deciding without conscious thought works beautifully for others not so much.  Such choices aren't made mindlessly or through chance, rather the powerful subconscious is active and at your command. 

 

Its a way to experience life without weighing options or using logic.  It can make life noticeably better because too often our 'intelligence' is used to rationalize our desires and prejudices.  

Edited August 23, 2015 by thelerner

[Karl]

It is interesting, I think, that you consider the possibility, the suggestion, that your recently embraced trivium method might not be the be-all/end-all approach to comprehending reality is analogous to eating rotten meat.

 

Swallowing bullshit because someone tells you that you should is analogous to eating rotten meat.

 

I reviewed your links on animal intelligence. The first one I clicked on 'scientists are rapidly coming to the consensus..."

What has 'consensus ' to do with science Brian ? Are you swallowing this rubbish ? You were a physicist with a first class mind, you know science isn't about consensus. This is Hegels dialectic in action. It's trying to get us all used to the idea that 'synthesis' is the only thing necessary. As long as there is a common ground we have no reason to doubt the propaganda" yet anyone with a smattering of understanding knows full well that a 'consensus' is simply an appeal to authority.

 

[Karl]

I'm not saying turmoil.  I'm saying thoughts, the kind one 'hears' and assumes 'that's me'.  The thoughts that are recognized, directed, driven then put on autopilot until (like breathing) we're distracted away from them. 

 

Its a simple but vital practice to go periods consciously dropping thoughts, letting them settle and keeping the mind as quiet as possible.  Even in the midst of decision making.   For some people deciding without conscious thought works beautifully for others not so much.  Such choices aren't made mindlessly or through chance, rather the powerful subconscious is active and at your command. 

 

Now, I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. If I'm trying to concentrate and focus I clear my mind of distractions. What's all this 'that's me' stuff.

 

You can't do this if you are actively listening or reading only when something is task oriented. It's not something that I have to really work to do. If I'm not actively learning my mind is blank. I use it to actively process, or its quiescent. It's just not an issue so I don't have to go through the day actively dropping thoughts, or emotions.

 

The subconscious is better, faster, more accurate if it is fed a diet of non contradictory conceptualisation. The conscious mind can get on without the heartburn, indigestion and bloating. The hard disc is purged of virus and defragmented. The less rubbish stored the better everything operates.

[Brian]

Swallowing bullshit because someone tells you that you should is analogous to eating rotten meat. I reviewed your links on animal intelligence. The first one I clicked on 'scientists are rapidly coming to the consensus..."What has 'consensus ' to do with science Brian ? Are you swallowing this rubbish ? You were a physicist with a first class mind, you know science isn't about consensus. This is Hegels dialectic in action. It's trying to get us all used to the idea that 'synthesis' is the only thing necessary. As long as there is a common ground we have no reason to doubt the propaganda" yet anyone with a smattering of understanding knows full well that a 'consensus' is simply an appeal to authority.

You are sadly mistaken, Karl. Science is entirely about consensus -- so is "logic." You are operating under the delusion that "logic" is about "what is 'true'" when it is really about a small group of people establishing a set of rules and then playing by them. Reality doesn't care about your trivium method, Karl, and reality doesn't require the logicians blessing.

 

Similarly, "science" is a procedural method for developing models to simplify reality in order to explain "how" and to accurately predict the outcome of future experiments. The objective is to convince groups of similar scientists to duplicate your experiments, get similar results and publish reports confirming same. In this manner, consensus is formed and the body of scientific opinion is swayed.

 

Surely you understood this, right?

 

I mean, a logical scientific type might proclaim than grasshoppers come from dew and, if enough other "really smart people" agree that, well, of course he's right, then he's right -- even if he sets the course of scientific discovery back a thousand years or more in the process. I trust you understand me here?)

 

You think I used to be a physicist but now I am delusional because I fail to fully embrace term logic. I have news for you...

 

My toolbox holds many tools yet is empty. Your toolbox is full with only a single hammer.

 

I have repeatedly asked you to learn the basics of the history of natural philosophy -- you've told me you don't need to because you already know it and you've told me you don't need to because you don't believe it, even though you don't understand what it is you don't believe.

 

You have told us that you are an amateur astronomer -- I urge you to accept this challenge: learn why I tell you now that Newton had to explode Aristotelian logic to describe the behavior of a falling apple.

 

I'll then be thrilled to take you seriously in a discussion about natural philosophy. Until then, though, I see your posts as those of a pedantic sophomore reciting memorized rules.

 

You see this forum as a place where people come to prove their linguistic kung full but you are very much in the minority in this regard. Most of us consider it a haven in which to exchange experiences and understandings. Until you comprehend this, you are very much the amateurish interloper here.

[Karl]

Science is about evidence. Consensus has never been required. Neither has 'convincing' scientists.

Logic is about integrating concepts, but it is useless without grammar. It isn't about consensus either.

 

I've had a look for the Newton Aristotle conflict, but I can't find anything pertinent to the discussion. You would have to lay that argument down so I could understand what you are getting at. Remember that Aristotle used logic ahead of grammar ( the classic trivium), he saw it as a means to an end. He taught politicians the art of persuasive discourse. The trivium method uses Aristotelian rules but restores grammar to its rightful place prior to logic. That is how we learn. We read books and listen to argumentation. If we are asking the 'why' of a thing first it creates a logic loop-begging the question. I think you might have learned the classic trivium ?

 

The rest of your discourse is more ad hominems which don't support any argument I can see.

 

You didn't expand on 'abandon' either so I can't answer that question. I don't make any judgement about you Brian, you can be very certain of that. I will discuss and argue the facts that's all.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

Brian - there is an undercurrent to Karl's frantic faith in logic which if you read his posts you will discern.  Karl's worldvew is the fearful paranoia of the man who firmly believes that we are all puppets being manipulated by a cartel of Malevolent Beings whose sole aim is to keep us obedient and deluded so that we serve them better.

 

He has no concept of spiritual liberation.  The only liberation he can understand is the political liberation from the Overlords that control us.

 

He can conceive of only one method of liberation and that is to try and expose the lies we are being fed on a daily basis.  If you believe you are being lied to, its stands to reason that you believe that there must be a truth we can attain.

 

In his frantic despair, Karl is placing all his hopes on this thing he calls Logic.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Nikolai1

[3bob]

lets get back to shrinking the title of, "suffering tends towards enlightenment" instead of shrinking each other...  

[Karl]

Brian - there is an undercurrent to Karl's frantic faith in logic which if you read his posts you will discern.  Karl's worldvew is the fearful paranoia of the man who firmly believes that we are all puppets being manipulated by a cartel of Malevolent Beings whose sole aim is to keep us obedient and deluded so that we serve them better.

 

He has no concept of spiritual liberation.  The only liberation he can understand is the political liberation from the Overlords that control us.

 

He can conceive of only one method of liberation and that is to try and expose the lies we are being fed on a daily basis.  If you believe you are being lied to, its stands to reason that you believe that there must be a truth we can attain.

 

In his frantic despair, Karl is placing all his hopes on this thing he calls Logic.

 

Faith is something I would apply to 'spiritual liberation' as no such thing has ever been discerned. Logic isn't freedom from anything but fallacy, it therefore is the truth of reality and nothing more.

 

There is no 'paranoia' Nikolai. Yet, you would believe in such things as spiritual liberation and the primacy of conscious creation. Who gave you that idea and what convinced you they were real ? Did you ever know what is was you were searching for, or were you only required to search ? These things you should answer. I could point you to texts but I think you either wouldn't read them, or dismiss them-from my own experience that's how it would have been for me.

 

Being frantic isn't something I'm good at and despair is a word to be replaced by that of action. Calculated action.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

I could point you to texts but I think you either wouldn't read them, or dismiss them-from my own experience that's how it would have been for me. Being frantic isn't something I'm good at and despair is a word to be replaced by that of action. Calculated action.

I'd be happy to read anything. Why don't you start a thread for them?

[Brian]

lets get back to shrinking the title of, "suffering tends towards enlightenment" instead of shrinking each other...  

I would opine that occasions of hardship provide opportunities for reflection and change. Whether these opportunities are taken, at what level, and whether the reflection leads to change towards "enlightenment" are not certitudes in the short-term.

[3bob]

Agreed Brian,  we often repeat or get into repeating a circle of suffering...

[Brian]

Agreed Brian,  we often repeat or get into repeating a circle of suffering...

Yes. The patterns are recursive and the harmonics ring on many levels. We hear what we have remembered being able to hear and relaxing into this clears more debris, permitting us to unforget something new again.

 

If we choose to.

[Karl]

I'd be happy to read anything. Why don't you start a thread for them?

 

That isn't what you are trying discover is it ? You are looking for spiritual liberation and I would be posting clods of soil which you would use to justify your own beliefs.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

That isn't what you are trying discover is it ? You are looking for spiritual liberation and I would be posting clods of soil which you would use to justify your own beliefs.

Actually that's not really my style.  I recognise that the search for liberation takes many forms according to the nature of the seeker.  For some it is liberation from their own mental tendencies, for another it is liberation from the oppressive tendencies of others.  

 

Neither of these is better or higher than the other.

 

So I would be more than happy to hear how you think we could gain political liberation.

[Karl]

Actually that's not really my style.  I recognise that the search for liberation takes many forms according to the nature of the seeker.  For some it is liberation from their own mental tendencies, for another it is liberation from the oppressive tendencies of others.  

 

Neither of these is better or higher than the other.

 

So I would be more than happy to hear how you think we could gain political liberation.

 

What if I said they were the same, identical thing ?

What if it isn't about the oppressive tendencies of others, but purely of the self and that the self same liberation is reflected in the need for liberation from mental tendencies. What if it's the same thing but you are trying to treat the symptom and not the cause ?

[zerostao]

lets get back to shrinking the title of, "suffering tends towards enlightenment" instead of shrinking each other...  

i think suffering and experiencing along those lines is what leads to understanding and empathy towards others.

allowing relational understanding

this is why some shamans look like crap, because they have been thru it interdimensionally ---really thru a twisted wringer.

speaking dimensions; if the universe is ten dimensions, i am not saying the universe is ten dimensions, i think the universe is however many dimensions it requires, but let's say ten, is geometry then confined to 3 dimensions? as was posted previous by a member.

also maybe one could look at kaufmann's comments about the hegel dialectic.....

[Karl]

i think suffering and experiencing along those lines is what leads to understanding and empathy towards others.

allowing relational understanding

this is why some shamans look like crap, because they have been thru it interdimensionally ---really thru a twisted wringer.

speaking dimensions; if the universe is ten dimensions, i am not saying the universe is ten dimensions, i think the universe is however many dimensions it requires, but let's say ten, is geometry then confined to 3 dimensions? as was posted previous by a member.

also maybe one could look at kaufmann's comments about the hegel dialectic.....

 

Kauffmanns comments were a good read. Discovering that he believes it was Popper who propagated much of the myths really throws a curved ball.

[Spotless]

My reference in an earlier post to:

 

[ "Geometric mathematical visual language of "no mind" and "knowing" ]

 

we're references to my personal experience - they were not related (to my knowledge) with Gurdjieff or Ouspensky.

 

It is a kind of experiential "language" of extraordinary clarity and speed - it is experienced communication - whole being understanding - also very beautiful.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Spotless

[Karl]

My reference in an earlier post to:[ "Geometric mathematical visual language of "no mind" and "knowing" ]we're references to my personal experience - they were not related (to my knowledge) with Gurdjieff or Ouspensky.It is a kind of experiential "language" of extraordinary clarity and speed - it is experienced communication - whole being understanding - also very beautiful.

 

How can there be knowing if no mind ? How can there be 'language' with no mind. Do you mean something else because clearly mind is needed for any form of language or knowledge retrieval.

[3bob]

partly depends on far one is willing to have their mind blown and let go of seemingly safe constructs...

 

Koans are along that line, for instance:

 

"what is the sound of one hand clapping?"

[3bob]

Spotless,  I made the earlier correlation with your use of of the word "geometry" in relation to Mr. O. laying out information about the speed of "impressions", which I believe also has some correlation with the word, "quickening", both in terms of it taking place with our physical bodies and also our souls.

 

...not unlike the idea of mathematically squaring a number and then squaring the result again and again giving a very rapid increase in count.

Edited August 25, 2015 by 3bob

[Karl]

partly depends on far one is willing to have their mind blown and let go of seemingly safe constructs...

 

Koans are along that line, for instance:

 

"what is the sound of one hand clapping?"

 

easy, one hand cannot clap. This is what I meant by controlling definitions. You can get people to believe completely contradictory things. Once they have sufficient contradictory experiences you can tell them anything. I have an example put forward by, Dewey (I think) in modern education, in which he wonders exactly what it would take to get children to believe snow is black.

 

Koans are about control in which the student will look to the master for the masters version of reality. It gets obedience from the student and gives power to the master. It's a Svengali.