Split from Awakening versus enlightenment

[Karl]

It's possible to be very liberated at the emotional level; after years of turmoil, to finally feel at peace with yourself, To stand talll, and know that you are of equal worth, and that you don't need to bow and scrape- To be independent and self-actualised in the Maslow sense.

 

But intellectually, you can be very much trapped in the same old worldview of self and other, real vs not.real, truth and falsehood.

 

This needs to be mentioned in this thread. That whatever breathroughs we make, they must be integrated into all aspects of our identity.

 

Those who have followed a path always bear the fruit they were aiming for first, and the rest needs to catch up.

'Intellectually' is all we have Nikolai. I know you will dispute that idea. This is why I say that we must be certain that what we know is sound and accurate. It is easily possible to produce an intellectual trap if reasoning ability isn't propagated. The proof of the pudding is really in the way we think and act. We can know when we are sufficiently settled ( some would say bliss) by a feeling of elemental grounding, a lack of any concern with anyone else's views of us, power, money or control. It is a steadfast knowing of who we are with total integrity. I can say that this is entirely different to any other false dawn I have experienced up to this point, and I expect that this will continue to refine as I age further. There is perhaps a good reason why the wise men of the village were also elders. Younger people make good leaders, but older people shrug off leadership and that need for others to follow. They become independent.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Karl

[3bob]

Om Tat Sat

[Nikolai1]

 We can know when we are sufficiently settled ( some would say bliss) by a feeling of elemental grounding, a lack of any concern with anyone else's views of us, power, money or control. It is a steadfast knowing of who we are with total integrity. I can say that this is entirely different to any other false dawn I have experienced up to this point, and I expect that this will continue to refine as I age further. There is perhaps a good reason why the wise men of the village were also elders. Younger people make good leaders, but older people shrug off leadership and that need for others to follow. They become independent.

Yes I agree with this, and I also sense in you that you are speaking from experience.  But because you haven't made the equivalent intellectual breakthrough you will stay powerless to transmit the peace and inspire others to seek it.  We see you day in day our trying to promote a method that is obviously inadequate.  And because you haven't made the breakthough so many others have made, you are the last to see it.

 

Your achievements to date are in no doubt, and your own, and I think you can be confident that no-one can take them from you.  It may be that for you, after a hard-knock life, this is attainment enough and you are content to rest on your laurels until you die. Or, you will find yourself frustrated by all those who who cannot see as you do.  This compassionate frustration will wake you from your slumbers and make you try to find a truth that you can share with people - to help and liberate.

[Karl]

LOL :-)

 

Go study the seven liberal arts as the Trivium method Nikolai. Anyone can do it and the effort required is worth it. It will take you around 2 or 3 months working in your own time. It's estimated a further 2 years is needed before it becomes a natural part of reasoning. You cannot be brainwashed or compromised because it's this process which is how we naturally think and not as we have been taught to think.

 

That you have embolded 'obviously inadequate' is a clear indication that you still have a long way to go. Your ego stands out like a raw potato in a plate of chips. you feel you are enlightened, but you are not, you are following a process which may take you there. Doing a study of the seven liberal arts right now would give you a leg up which I didn't have the advantage of discovering.

[Nikolai1]

Obviously inadequate to anyone who has realised the truth that cannot for a moment be spoken about.  There is a truth that is vast and fundamental.  The logical truth is nothing but the faintest metaphor for the actual truth.  The actual truth can be known directly and concretely, but never intellectually.  The intellectual truth cannot not be anything more than an infinite perversion and distortion.

 

Do not try to tell me that studying the liberal arts are important or even necessary.  Real truth will only come when we despair of the liberal arts.

 

Please stop pinning all your hopes on educational reform.  Whatever you replace it with will be exactly as misguided when it comes to truth.

[Karl]

Obviously inadequate to anyone who has realised the truth that cannot for a moment be spoken about.  There is a truth that is vast and fundamental.  The logical truth is nothing but the faintest metaphor for the actual truth.  The actual truth can be known directly and concretely, but never intellectually.  The intellectual truth cannot not be anything more than an infinite perversion and distortion.

 

Do not try to tell me that studying the liberal arts are important or even necessary.  Real truth will only come when we despair of the liberal arts.

 

Please stop pinning all your hopes on educational reform.  Whatever you replace it with will be exactly as misguided when it comes to truth.

 

Go do it and then report. If you are already so enlightened then it won't be an issue will it ? I'm saying that what you think you know is pre-planned, it is what and how you are supposed to think if you are trying to extricate yourself from the imposed social hierarchy. It's a kind of stray dog catcher. If you do it and discover it's a waste of time then report that it was so and in what ways it wasn't useful. I know it looks too base for you, it doesn't appear to be spiritual, but you are like a person who takes mind opening drugs-everything that isn't a mind expanding drug can't possibly be anywhere need as efficacious and direct.

[Brian]

LOL :-) Go study the seven liberal arts as the Trivium method Nikolai. Anyone can do it and the effort required is worth it. It will take you around 2 or 3 months working in your own time. It's estimated a further 2 years is needed before it becomes a natural part of reasoning. You cannot be brainwashed or compromised because it's this process which is how we naturally think and not as we have been taught to think. That you have embolded 'obviously inadequate' is a clear indication that you still have a long way to go. Your ego stands out like a raw potato in a plate of chips. you feel you are enlightened, but you are not, you are following a process which may take you there. Doing a study of the seven liberal arts right now would give you a leg up which I didn't have the advantage of discovering.

1.Grammar

2.Logic

3.Rhetoric

4.Arithmetic

5.Geometry

6.Music

7.Astronomy

 

Studied them, Karl. Literally, formally, extensively -- plus a few dozen more disciplines​ to boot. Processed them for decades. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

 

This is why I feel quite comfortable in telling you they are inadequate. A wonderful foundation for intellectualism but insufficient for grasping reality. It seems like Trivium and Quadrivium is comprehensive because it presents itself that way but it is a form of self-deception in which anything not fitting the mold is dismissed as fallacy and illusion and its not fitting the mold is considered proof of its fallacy and illusion.

 

No, I don't expect you to believe me but I'll state it again nonetheless.

[Nikolai1]

The trouble is, Karl, anyone who doesn't agree with you is 'pre-planned, it is what and how you are supposed to think if you are trying to extricate yourself from the imposed social hierarchy'.

 

For you, the only possibility is that I am deceived and deluded.  You use that device to dismiss anything that anyone says. 

 

All i can say is that you're a familiar type. A bit frantic, low on discernment, capable of total conviction.

 

From what we know of you there was

 

a) NLP - took to it like duck to water, learned it all, became a teacher.

then

b AYP - heard about it, practised it frantically, was the website mod, then moved on

 

Now we have:

 

c Trivium - Again you are totally utterly convinced that this the solution to everything.  Total adherence, zero discernent.  Zero insight into the pattern that is in your life.  Everything else disregarded - Trivium is defintely the thing.  Honestly, forget all esle. Trivium is where its at.  Dismiss critics of Aristotle's Logic - assume they've been brainwashed.

 

You're like a child. Totally brainwashable yourself.  And the wise ones who've been round the block can see credulous ninnies like you a mile off.

 

It is high time you stopped playing the preacher and actually started listening to the sensible people we have here.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

1.Grammar2.Logic3.Rhetoric4.Arithmetic5.Geometry6.Music7.AstronomyStudied them, Karl. Literally, formally, extensively -- plus a few dozen more disciplines​ to boot. Processed them for decades. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.This is why I feel quite comfortable in telling you they are inadequate. A wonderful foundation for intellectualism but insufficient for grasping reality. It seems like Trivium and Quadrivium is comprehensive because it presents itself that way but it is a form of self-deception in which anything not fitting the mold is dismissed as fallacy and illusion and its not fitting the mold is considered proof of its fallacy and illusion.No, I don't expect you to believe me but I'll state it again nonetheless.

 

Of course lots and lots of people have studied them Brian and many are very accomplished, but not the Trivium method approach. The church, the masons and elite schools have taught the backward form referred to as the classic Trivium method which is different. I asked you about this in another thread. The Trivium method is the antidote to the classical Trivium. Its a reversal.

 

I wasn't taught either method like you, so perhaps I'm less indoctrinated to begin with. You have learned the attacking form of the art, I have learned it purely as a defensive.

[Karl]

The trouble is, Karl, anyone who doesn't agree with you is 'pre-planned, it is what and how you are supposed to think if you are trying to extricate yourself from the imposed social hierarchy'.

 

For you, the only possibility is that I am deceived and deluded. You use that device to dismiss anything that anyone says.

 

All i can say is that you're a familiar type. A bit frantic, low on discernment, capable of total conviction.

 

From what we know of you there was

 

a) NLP - took to it like duck to water, learned it all, became a teacher.

then

b AYP - heard about it, practised it frantically, was the website mod, then moved on

 

Now we have:

 

c Trivium - Again you are totally utterly convinced that this the solution to everything. Total adherence, zero discernent. Zero insight into the pattern that is in your life. Everything else disregarded - Trivium is defintely the thing. Honestly, forget all esle. Trivium is where its at. Dismiss critics of Aristotle's Logic - assume they've been brainwashed.

 

You're like a child. Totally brainwashable yourself. And the wise ones who've been round the block can see incredulous ninnies like you a mile off.

 

It is high time you stopped playing the preacher and actually started listening to the sensible people we have here.

Go do it. That's all I will say.

 

NLP is effectively the backwards form of the Trivium. It's the classical version mixed with Kantian and the Hegelian dialectic. The idea is to use rhetoric as a method of breaching the minds conscious defences. I could have made a lot of money doing just that. I was very good at it.

 

You are equally taken in by the stuff you believe, we are exactly the same, neither impervious nor superior in any way. Your ad hominem attacks (the great we of the forum you like to constantly refer to) is an attempt to strong arm any dissenters. You should know it isn't going to happen you may as well kick a mountain or grab air with your hands. You could be so much more and put away these childish tools.

 

That you think this is anything to do with Aristotlian logic shows how much of a mistake that you are making. Forget Aristotle, he is as much of a manipulator as Plato, but he did investigate the form of thinking and we get his written method of how the mind works to absorb experience.

 

Neither did I say it was the be all and end all, it's just a way of putting things in order in order to avoid being taken for a ride by those who can use it in reverse. Effectively confidence tricksters. Learning the method is about questioning everything including the tutors of the method. I learned using Peikoff, but I'm clear from learning the Trivium exactly where his logic goes wrong. Even the recommended books are deliberately drawn from clever logical argument which presents a difficult puzzle for learner logicians. The idea is that at first that those learning the Trivium will be attracted to what these arguments expound- only to find that they are just as fallacious.

 

Anyway, whatever you want. I'm not going to be around much longer so you can get back to whatever you have been doing and get a bit of welcome peace :-)

Edited September 11, 2015 by Karl

[Brian]

Since you joined the forum, I looked into your vaunted "Trivium Method" as opposed to the classical Trivium and Quadrivium. I see it as primarily a New Age marketing scheme, honestly, claiming to have unlocked some carefully hidden secret to ancient wisdom. The Method claims that the order has been intentionally switched but this is simply not the case. The truth is, though, that these foundational elements of grammar, logic and rhetoric must be taught, and must be applied, in a circular and iterative fashion in which layers are progressively established. I demonstrated the fallacy of the rigid "Trivium Method" in the first of several recent threads about "suffering" when I showed that the carefully crafted definitions proposed were, in fact, reverse-engineered to lead inexorably to the preconceived conclusion which the "thinker" intended the process to logically and rationally reach. Not recognizing this looping nature allows one to believe that the thought-process is linear and therefore believe that the conclusions are sound because they were clearly based on solid foundation. By ignoring biases and unstated assumptions, the process seems objective and reasoned but that is the endless game of armchair philosophers.

[Nikolai1]

 I demonstrated the fallacy of the rigid "Trivium Method" in the first of several recent threads about "suffering" when I showed that the carefully crafted definitions proposed were, in fact, reverse-engineered to lead inexorably to the preconceived conclusion which the "thinker" intended the process to logically and rationally reach. Not recognizing this looping nature allows one to believe that the thought-process is linear and therefore believe that the conclusions are sound because they were clearly based on solid foundation. By ignoring biases and unstated assumptions, the process seems objective and reasoned but that is the endless game of armchair philosophers.

Yes, any logical agument is like this.  Seeing this is a major, major intellectual leap forward that also distances you from the formal intellectual method.

 

Now we see that faith in logic is like believing we can lift ourselves up by our bootstraps.  The logical argument, we now see, is nothing more than the verbal demonstration of a conclusion we have already reached.

 

Communicating this to someone who believs in logic is impossible.  This is because they are blindly believing in the axioms of the arguments they like to make, and therefore take them as plain facts from which other useful facts can be deduced.  

 

Logic is only deconsctructed when we start to sense a reality that is cannot be conceptualised.  We are then able to see conceptual axioms as provisional, not something to be believed in blindly.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

Since you joined the forum, I looked into your vaunted "Trivium Method" as opposed to the classical Trivium and Quadrivium. I see it as primarily a New Age marketing scheme, honestly, claiming to have unlocked some carefully hidden secret to ancient wisdom. The Method claims that the order has been intentionally switched but this is simply not the case. The truth is, though, that these foundational elements of grammar, logic and rhetoric must be taught, and must be applied, in a circular and iterative fashion in which layers are progressively established. I demonstrated the fallacy of the rigid "Trivium Method" in the first of several recent threads about "suffering" when I showed that the carefully crafted definitions proposed were, in fact, reverse-engineered to lead inexorably to the preconceived conclusion which the "thinker" intended the process to logically and rationally reach. Not recognizing this looping nature allows one to believe that the thought-process is linear and therefore believe that the conclusions are sound because they were clearly based on solid foundation. By ignoring biases and unstated assumptions, the process seems objective and reasoned but that is the endless game of armchair philosophers.

 

No it doesn't claim anything of the sort. It's just how we do thinking. No more or less than that. It doesn't promise any unlocking of ancient wisdom anymore than learning to correctly pedal a bike will lead to being a famous Tour de France winner. If you have read anything that has promised that then you have most definitely alighted on some new age site. What's stunning is that you don't believe that what you are studying isn't new age. There is no 'trade mark' on the trivium method either, you are trying to create an impression of a cult so please quit doing so as it is no more a cult than the Tao method ( TM)

 

Neither did you 'prove' anything. You believed that you did because you convinced yourself you had.

[Brian]

Logic is a wonderful and powerful tool. Sledgehammers and chainsaws are, too.

[Karl]

Yes, any logical agument is like this.  Seeing this is a major, major intellectual leap forward that also distances you from the formal intellectual method.

 

Now we see that faith in logic is like believing we can lift ourselves up by our bootstraps.  The logical argument, we now see, is nothing more than the verbal demonstration of a conclusion we have already reached.

 

Communicating this to someone who believs in logic is impossible.  This is because they are blindly believing in the axioms of the arguments they like to make, and therefore take them as plain facts from which other useful facts can be deduced.  

 

Logic is only deconsctructed when we start to sense a reality that is cannot be conceptualised.  We are then able to see conceptual axioms as provisional, not something to be believed in blindly.

 

Your arguments are based on your 'faith'. You believe it is some form of competitor for your religious faith and are acting to defend your belief system. Why are you so concerned ? I have not said you should drop Tao or Buddhism or that they are a waste of time in any sense. Study it alongside all your other practices. Indeed most of those who have come to the Trivium method ( which I would prefer it not to be called as it's just what we all do ) have done Tao, Buddhism etc and have been teachers of both methods. None have abandoned it completely, but they have been able to discern the bad teachings (power motivated) from the good.

 

Google Gene Odening and look up his background.

[Karl]

Logic is a wonderful and powerful tool. Sledgehammers and chainsaws are, too.

 

Yet another fallacious statement by the supposed master of logic :-/

 

Logic is useless without grammar, it has no use on its lonesome and I have never claimed it was, it isn't a chainsaw or a sledgehammer . Come on Brian you can do better than that. You are trying desperately to prove your advanced superiority like a peacock showing its tail. I already accept you are far cleverer than I am, there is no dispute, you are likely far more successful in your career and have a great deal of respect from those you know so why the fluffing ?

[C T]

Either discuss the topic or keep quiet. 

 

Im choosing the latter..

[Brian]

For those who are interested in following this rabbit hole:

http://parentsforliberty.org/youth-education/the-trivium-method-vs-the-classical-trivium.html

http://www.gnosticmedia.com/049-the-t-r-i-v-i-u-m-an-interview-with-gene-odening-part-1/

[Nikolai1]

Your arguments are based on your 'faith'. You believe it is some form of competitor for your religious faith and are acting to defend your belief system. Why are you so concerned ? I have not said you should drop Tao or Buddhism or that they are a waste of time in any sense. Study it alongside all your other practices. Indeed most of those who have come to the Trivium method ( which I would prefer it not to be called as it's just what we all do ) have done Tao, Buddhism etc and have been teachers of both methods. None have abandoned it completely, but they have been able to discern the bad teachings (power motivated) from the good. Google Gene Odening and look up his background.

I don't have a belief system to defend! You'll scour three years of posts and never find any adherence to any faith in particular...I write about and quote philsophers east and west, and spiritual teachers east and west.

 

I can do this becuase the truth I refer to is something I have personally experienced.  It is the pure awareness within which verything happens, of whatver religion or creed.  This truth has not and cannot be captured by any system - though the various systems are noble and honest attempts, I can see that.

 

The teachings that most clearly address the specific problem of logic are the Buddhist teachings, though we see informal examples in writers like Cuang-tzu.

 

If you and your brethren assume these teachings to be 'bad (power motivated)' then there is nothing more that can be said.  It is true that you cannot and will not abandon logic until you have found the truth that compensates for it.  Evidently, anyone who reverts to Trivium never found the truth that supplants it.  I can't justify this statement logically, but at least I don't claim to.

 

There is sincerity in me at least!

[Brian]

Yet another fallacious statement by the supposed master of logic :-/ Logic is useless without grammar, it has no use on its lonesome and I have never claimed it was, it isn't a chainsaw or a sledgehammer . Come on Brian you can do better than that. You are trying desperately to prove your advanced superiority like a peacock showing its tail. I already accept you are far cleverer than I am, there is no dispute, you are likely far more successful in your career and have a great deal of respect from those you know so why the fluffing ?

Not my intent at all, Karl. Merely trying to get you to see that those who encourage you to not accept "The Trivium Method" as the be-all/end-all of understanding reality are not necessarily unaware of the grammar-logic-rhetoric trinity and have not necessarily been brainwashed. You've discovered a wonderful toolbox and you believe it contains all the tools anyone might need but you react very badly when others try to call your attention to other toolboxes or to tools that aren't in your current collection.

 

You might want to examine that.

[Brian]

BTW, the word "logic" (from a Greek term curiously meaning "uncountable") is generally used as a shorthand reference to a system or methodology for reasoning unless used in a context which distinguishes it as referring to a single element or step within such a system.

[Nikolai1]

BTW, the word "logic" (from a Greek term curiously meaning "uncountable") 

So often etymology reveals an ancient understanding more savvy than our own.  The important thing about logic is that the operators of any argument do not and cannot map onto reality.  

 

1) First we think that logic arguments mirrot the way reality is.

 

2) Then we see that the logical argument is a kind of parable, from which we infer practical know-how through something like intuition.

 

3) The we see that the compelling logical argument is the way truth appears in reality.  But it is a truth which is transient, and tomorrow we may be bewetiched by the compelling logical argument for the opposite.

 

Logic compels when our scepticism fails.  Logic convinces when we are at our most stupid, when the Gods have veiled our eyes.

[Karl]

Not my intent at all, Karl. Merely trying to get you to see that those who encourage you to not accept "The Trivium Method" as the be-all/end-all of understanding reality are not necessarily unaware of the grammar-logic-rhetoric trinity and have not necessarily been brainwashed. You've discovered a wonderful toolbox and you believe it contains all the tools anyone might need but you react very badly when others try to call your attention to other toolboxes or to tools that aren't in your current collection.You might want to examine that.

 

I have clearly shown that I do not believe it to be 'the be all and end all' which you insist I do. It is not that there isn't much to read, experience, think about, but that our exposure to new material and ideologies is entirely predicated on our ability to understand what is said or written. Our comprehension is built on the same use of words. The Tao does not how to teach how to read the Tao does it ? You must be able to read and discriminate correctly or you mill mistake glass for diamonds.

 

A man who cannot understand an argument relies on the man who says he does. Those that be

Believe they are infallible are the easiest to fool.

 

Do you believe we should learn to read and write and that the spoken Tao or Buddhist philosophy is sufficient ? Surely not.

 

[Jetsun]

Yet another thread turned into Karl's views on logic, aren't we lucky. In Zen trying to get enlightened through the regular mind is considered one of its cardinal sins: 

 

"To seek Mind with the discriminating mind is the greatest of all mistakes" Hsin-Hsin Ming - Verses on the faith-mind

 

So I guess we can say that all this talk of logic is a good example of how to avoid awakening and enlightenment. 

[Karl]

So often etymology reveals an ancient understanding more savvy than our own.  The important thing about logic is that the operators of any argument do not and cannot map onto reality.  

 

1) First we think that logic arguments mirrot the way reality is.

 

2) Then we see that the logical argument is a kind of parable, from which we infer practical know-how through something like intuition.

 

3) The we see that the compelling logical argument is the way truth appears in reality.  But it is a truth which is transient, and tomorrow we may be bewetiched by the compelling logical argument for the opposite.

 

Logic compels when our scepticism fails.  Logic convinces when we are at our most stupid, when the Gods have veiled our eyes.

 

No. This is the classical Trivium. I noticed Brian thanked you for it. That's because this is the way he was taught to do it.

 

The first part is to be able to understand the grammar. Everyone glosses over this most important part because they believe this is an elementary thing which they learned at primary school. It is the most important thing and most people are unable to do it because they have had an education which has ensured they cannot really think the way that tells a person what is being said. Logic only works once that stage is past, it is a transitory stage for integrating concepts.