Ping Slider.
Akhet
Here, I've got a beautiful apple on your desk.
It's all I could bring back really, it won't satisfy the stomach
but the intent is higher. :)
Have a good one, and many more.
slider
Akhet wrote
...
### - they say it's the thought that counts, or in our case : the silence :)
---------------
"Man cannot discover new oceans until he has the courage to lose sight of the
shore" --unknown
Akhet
>
>"Man cannot discover new oceans until he has the courage to lose sight of the
>shore" --unknown
>
Then again... :D
�The problem with speeches isn't so much not knowing when to stop, as knowing when not to begin�
- Frances Rodman
�Just think how happy you would be if you lost everything you have right now, and then got it back again.�
- Frances Rodman
�
"What is the meaning of life? To be happy and useful."
-H.H. the Dalai Lama:
"Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact."
-Henry James:
"Life is rather like a tin of sardines - we're all of us looking for the key."
-Alan Bennett:
"Everything has been figured out, except how to live."
-Jean-Paul Sartre
"Life is like an onion: You peel it off one layer at a time, and sometimes you weep."
-Carl Sandburg
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive."
-Elbert Hubbard
"Life is a succession of moments. To live each one is to succeed."
-Corita Kent
�
"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
(Oct. 1986) "
-Elie Wiesel
"Love doesn't make the world go 'round; love is what makes the ride worthwhile."
-Franklin P. Jones
"And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.
And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------
"I think somehow we learn who we really are and then live with that decision."
-Eleanor Roosevelt:
slider
Akhet wrote...
> "Everything has been figured out, except how to live."
> -Jean-Paul Sartre
### - exactly! (and written i bet 'after' his experience in the park, i.e. quite
naturally observed with the benefit of hindsight :)
Akhet
slider selected his favorite quote from Akhet's long list...
��� smile; ....You incessant slider you.. ;)
The energizer bunny, one day, might have you as an idol. :)
Here.. I'm reading some, just because your 'intent' is too strong and good
for me to resist..
-----
I recall this super old advertisment for a chocolate bar named 'crunchie'..
There was this 'Frankenstein stiff, on the table, being given a chocolate
bar.. The 'mad scientist' would insist... "eat... eat....eat...."...
Frankenstein would hold the bar, barely able to move the hand an inch
closer and moan, and moan.... Then... 'smack'...(puch) The monster
misses the mouth and sticks the bar into the forehead.... Hahaha !
While mad Dr Frank nodding his head from the failed attempt.
----- Hahaha.
... From this quick search; I think the 'book' you refer in part to is 'nausea'..
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mr.king/writings/essays/kwns/s3.html
Interesting part I quote:
"For Rumi, if we remember, one is guilty of the sin of existing only if one does not strive
to come to God; what would he say if God came to a person and that person says
'no thank you'? Because, using theistic terminology (and only as terminology),
that is what Sartre does. He says 'no thank you' to the divine suchness in the park
and turns to art as his salvation. Through art the artist attempts to achieve
the goal of Pure Consciousness Mysticism: an expansivity and immortality,
but through fame; unfortunately looking for the right thing in the wrong place. "
Ah... I found out that's Sartre park is "Bouville Park"... More clues for research.
(Until I get my hands on the book.... eventually.. ^^ )
Another quote from this page:
"We have all known moments when words disappear, generally when confronted with the sublime
or ecstatic, perhaps the sunset, music, or sex, though it is easy to labour this point however,
especially if one has had any exposure to Eastern philosophy. Sartre's description of this state
is so exquisite that perhaps we can use his imagery to recapture for ourselves the unusual moments
of being wordless, thoughtless. Sartre brings our attention to the black knotty root of a chestnut tree
that plunged into the ground by the bench he was sitting on clearly it occupied his whole frame of vision,
and it was simply and irrevocably there. We now are presented with lesson number three in
the pursuit of nothingness: the experience of suchness, or da-sein. We have become temporarily lost,
aimless, we have time; we note that the park smiles at us, we can lose our sense of fear
and be ready to encounter anything (or nothing), we lose words for the time being,
and we are faced with the suchness of some simple object. Lesson four: we watch the struggle
of the mind to defeat this suchness. The Buddha once compared this struggle to that
of a fish thrashing about on the shore: we are out of our customary milieu,
and we thrash around hopelessly. Sartre dissects with great insight all
the possible avenues for denial of the suchness of existence. "
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mr.king/writings/essays/kwns/s1.html <-- Page one of all that analysis.
================== Here is the scene from Sartre Nausea book ======
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mr.king/writings/essays/kwns/s2.html
(( The little numbers in text are references to annotations you can find on this
link above; That
The Park Scene from Nausea
Six o'clock in the evening
I can't say that I feel relieved or happy: on the contrary, I feel crushed. Only I have achieved my aim: I know what I wanted to
know; I have understood everything that has happened to me since January. The Nausea hasn't left me and I don't believe it will
leave me for quite a while; but I am no longer putting up with it, it is no longer an illness or a passing fit: it is me.
I was in the municipal park just now. The root of the chestnut tree plunged into the ground just underneath my bench, I no longer
remembered that it was a root. Words had disappeared, and with them the meaning of things, the methods of using them, the feeble
landmarks which men have traced on their surface. [1] I was sitting, slightly bent, my head bowed, alone in front of that black,
knotty mass, which was utterly crude and frightened me. And then I had this revelation.
It took my breath away. Never until these last few days, had I suspected what it meant to 'exist'. I was like the others, like
those who walk along the sea-shore in their spring clothes. I used to say like them: 'The sea is green; that white speck up there
is a seagull', but I didn't feel that it existed, that the seagull was an 'existing seagull'; usually existence hides itself. [2]
It is there, around us, in us, it is us, you can't say a couple of words without speaking of it, but finally you can't touch it.
When I believed I was thinking about it, I suppose that I was thinking nothing, my head was empty, or there was just one word in my
head, the word 'to be'. [3] Or else I was thinking ... how can I put it? I was thinking appurtenances, I was saying to myself that
the sea belonged to the class of green objects, or that green formed part of the sea's qualities. Even when I looked at things, I
was miles from thinking that they existed: they looked like stage scenery to me. I picked them up in my hands, they served me as
tools, I foresaw their resistance. [4] But all that happened on the surface. If anybody had asked me what existence was, I should
have replied in good faith that it was nothing, just an empty form which added itself to external things, without changing anything
in their nature. And then, all of a sudden, there it was, as clear as day: existence had suddenly unveiled itself. It had lost its
harmless appearance as an abstract category: it was the very stuff of things, that root was steeped in existence. Or rather the
root, the park gates, the bench, the sparse grass on the lawn, all that had vanished; the diversity of things, their individuality,
was only an appearance, a veneer. This veneer had melted, leaving soft monstrous masses, in disorder naked with a frightening,
obscene nakedness. [5]
I took care not to make the slightest movement, but I didn't need to move in order to see, behind the trees, the blue columns and
the lamp-post of the bandstand, and the Velleda in the middle of a clump of laurel bushes. All those objects ... how can I explain?
They embarrassed me; [6] I would have liked them to exist less strongly, in a drier way, more abstract way, with more reserve. The
chestnut tree pressed itself against my eyes. [7] Green rust covered it half way up; the bark, black and blistered, looked like
boiled leather. [8] The soft sound of the water in the Masqueret Fountain flowed into my ears and made a nest there, filling them
with sighs; my nostrils overflowed with a green, putrid smell. All things, gently, tenderly were letting themselves drift into
existence like those weary women who abandon themselves to laughter and say: 'It does you good to laugh', in tearful voices; they
were parading themselves in front of one another, they were abjectly admitting to one another the fact of their existence. I
realised that there was no half-way house between non-existence and this rapturous abundance. [9] If you existed, you had to exist
to that extent, to the point of mildew, blisters, obscenity. In another world, circles and melodies kept their pure and rigid
lines. [10]
---------------------------
Thanks for the morning smile slider...
And the piece of cake you always generously offer.
Thank you and Mike King (author of this comprehensive web site for an)
attempt to introduce these important philosophers to persons like me.
WE shall talk again later slider.
I do think all these philosophers are overdue for an 'upgrade'.. ^^
CHEERS.
slider
tempy goes right to the top of his class :)
### - smile, i can remember reading that above passage of sartre's and being
perceptually and intellectually stunned for days afterwards, excellent :)
although of course you must surely realise by now that philosophy is wholly
inadequate in touching (or connecting with) the 'reality' of existence... and that
words (language) is actually a way of stepping back from the immediate reality in
order to feel like it is being held in the hand/mind... only of course that is
only an illusion and not the reality itself... iow the world we take for granted
on a daily practical basis, the one based entirely on language, is a vastly
simplified version of nature we invented ourselves...
consequently, the only way to 'upgrade' our philosophies... is by throwing them
away altogether and being obscenely naked (unclothed of words and language ;-)
and because in reality, there IS no... 'philosophy' - or even a need for one :)
-----------------------
Our bodies are given life from the midst of nothingness. Existing where
there is nothing is the meaning of the phrase, "Form is emptiness." That all
things are provided for by nothingness is the meaning of the phrase,
"Emptiness is form." One should not think that these are two separate
things.--from Hagakure, the book of the Samurai :)
Akhet
Akhet wrote sharing humor and references to slider's seeming
favorite philosopher; named Jean Paul Sartre.
>>
>> Thanks for the morning smile slider...
>> And the piece of cake you always generously offer.
>> Thank you and Mike King (author of this comprehensive web site for an)
>> attempt to introduce these important philosophers to persons like me.
>>
>> WE shall talk again later slider.
>> I do think all these philosophers are overdue for an 'upgrade'.. ^^
>> CHEERS.
>>
Slider replied:
>### - smile, i can remember reading that above passage of sartre's and being
>perceptually and intellectually stunned for days afterwards, excellent :)
>
>although of course you must surely realise by now that philosophy is wholly
>inadequate in touching (or connecting with) the 'reality' of existence... and that
>words (language) is actually a way of stepping back from the immediate reality in
>order to feel like it is being held in the hand/mind... only of course that is
>only an illusion and not the reality itself... iow the world we take for granted
>on a daily practical basis, the one based entirely on language, is a vastly
>simplified version of nature we invented ourselves...
>
>consequently, the only way to 'upgrade' our philosophies... is by throwing them
>away altogether and being obscenely naked (unclothed of words and language ;-)
>
>and because in reality, there IS no... 'philosophy' - or even a need for one :)
>
Hello again slider.
I'm glad if this made you 'feel good' about whatever this situation is about....
(Two friends exchanging ideas.)
Maybe some of your hopes are that I come out and learn so I can agree with you,
and your interpretation of Sartre's words. I have mine about you both , and
still can reconciliate what people such as H.H. Dalai Lama is saying:
"What is the meaning of life? To be happy and useful."
-H.H. the Dalai Lama
But it's clear that if you stick to your present understanding and interpretations,
you just cannot agree with the Lama and 'experience' 'being useful' further than
having provided a lot of people distraction and serious clues into your gifts..
i.e.. I say that after meeting me.. Knowing me, understanding me.. You can evolve,
and get onto higher achievements; If only you could believe in the future of our kind.
Of that our kind have still to evolve... And not just sit.
I notice you enjoy quoting the famous A.Einstein for what you agree with,
somehow.. Yet, none of these people will say things that you or I could
entirely agree all the time, one way or the other. Like:
Albert Einstein
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile."
Because nomatter what you try to fix from all your previous statements,
you cannot reconciliate the idea of ACTION other than convince other people
of the INACTION required to become silent, unimaginative, uncreative, just
observers of an "obscenely naked" world.
For myself; I can understand YOU, I can understand Sartre; I can understand
the Dalai Lama, I can understand Jesus and all the most fundamental teachings
of the Vedas, and the list goes on; All without needing to be pretentious and
claim belonging to any specific religion, philosphy, even society and languages.
I'm happy to be using the least of English language, and call upon the
most basic intelligence of the reader to get past grammar and typos and all.
That's also a teaching I offer on the fly... The understanding is ours to make.
It's all there and sufficient for now.
Or maybe you think I enjoy your charrades and short-tirades when you say things like,
and just repeat the cassette, with i.e and iow, and otoh.
--
>### - smile, you really don't reason so well hehe... i am sure you're more smart
>than this, or maybe it's just the language barrier creating the illusion of
>stupidity? (i will try harder hehe :)
----
But to come back to Sartre and you.. I'm not interested in becoming a pain
to you since I don't agree that's where, reasonning and intellect should get
a clue it's time to stop; And why not get into some buddhist litterature and
poetry and consider 'throwing out the chain of birth alltogether'...
Good riddance !... That's not me; It will never be me, but I can still respect
your 'decision' to be who you want to be; Until the 'ethics' are broken and
then I'm not entering into my own beliefs and philosophy here.
Albert Einstein
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities.
The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit
to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
Albert Einstein
"The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
Albert Einstein
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
The mind is sacred and eludes our efforts to rationalize into something
less than it actually is. Miracla ! would say Frederich Lenz.
Think about this, as I am trying to make you see what could lie beyond Sartre.
This is a true story about a man (American I believe); Quite ordinary person,
until one day he got hit on the head by a baseball ball.. Got a serious commotion,
and after he recovered never felt quite the same... He was both diminuished
for some things I don't remember now; But after a while, he realized he could
remember just all the sports results (he was baseball fan), and weather of just
about every day since.. Just say the year, month and day and he can tell you
all this... Many years after.. His mind could also do all sorts of things;
But we know of other people with stunning abilities; Mostly the 'mental'
prodiges, calculating at phenomenal speed, of with memories that allows
them to remember content of books, integral text, by the page.
IMO; Sarter, as many of us 'experientially', go through certain states of mind that
allows for a different perception of the world; We know from the usual way
we are 'growing'. A child has little sense of balance, so he crawls, younger age,
his vision is not developped, so it's blurred and so on.. Later in life we have
'endoctrinated' ourselves from a strict and simplified way of dealing with our
sensible perceptions.. Then not because the 'mind' and body cannot perceive
'MORE' than what we generally consider 'normal' and sufficient from generalisation
over a given population.. In short; We tend to teach that we cannot grow higher
abilities, and that people are mostly of equal 'mental abilities'; Or we accept
that 'intelligence' as poorly defined it already is; IS the main intellectual variant,
(ie. reasonning abilities).
What Sartre and others experienced already is a 'function' of the brain that is
capable of providing a radically different perspective of the 'many things' that
are 'extra-sensory' and 'outside-reasonning', while becoming a functional
tool/stem of the mind for a purpose that still eludes our attempts to rationalize;
As in creatine a righteous philosophy about it all..
Then one temptation is to experience this and think it's so formidable and
helpful and revealing the whole that it's the only 'REAL' way to 'live'.
I suggest that this state of awareness could be compared to a view of the
same good'old world; But from a much higher balcony. Or maybe looking through
some sort of 'kaleidoscope' of otherwise previously thought 'unrelated'
perceptions, giving an entirely new and 'enlightening' perspective again.
All that while these new 'mind abilities' at work can also become crippeling
to the others we have learned to 'multiplex'/'coordinate' through our mind
and body maturation... ex: Learning to walk straight, think of complex matters,
and maby do some other things 'at once'...
contrary-example: To get into some states of mind, one generally has to seek
quiet places, and even quiet the body as much as possible while doing this
'mental' exercise.
Can it be considered that with enough time, practice and talents; One individual
could juggle, resolve mathematical computations mentally and be alert for
any specific or particular emergence of thought into an area such as 'intuition'.
And we could realize that telepathy is also just a more focused ability of this
intuitive area; As telepathic transmission is also requiring the brain to have
the 'antenna' developped and hooked properly.
But of course; Some people will be contempt to train, meditate to just a few
levels of their possible growth. All these can become confusing as well.
And through training; All sorts of 'MAKYOS'/illusions can trouble us consciously
or not.. Same as in the reasonning field of our abilities.. Some thinkers can
work of a lot of ideas and 'concepts' and the mind provides new 'links' and
relations between all of them; To a point where confusion derived from an
overwhelming newer complexity emerges as potentially reachable and
usable by awareness to reach a 'conscious' goal.. These experiences can
lead to temporary neurosis, or obscessions that seem hard to get pass by.
So; You decide to stop at Sartre somehow slider... And I can understand.
I'm not here to 'change' you.. I'm not here to say that 'stupid' people; are
worthless or of less importance..(because it's a fact, there are stupid people
with talents in various qualities)... I like people, nature, art, and I consider myself
just ignorant in the face of everything.
On the other hand; I think you have fulfilled something her for me, through these
years.. I wish you go onto NEW and higher prospect
than waiting for the next sitting duck. ;)
----------
I'm not gonna waste your time argueing pass that, moreover since I have
resolved a number of things for myself; And that leaves a notion of urgency.
The urgency to 'make good use' of the talents' I bare, and make sense of the
'ideas' I have that I realize intuitively they could just change this world for the
better.. I have worked hard on the aspect of 'Ethics' and 'True/Higher emotions',
so this even manifested 'outside my mind' and came as a synchronous
series of events to answer my honest call.
Some of my favorite singers are still seeing flashes of lights from the bliss, or halo.
^_^
And If that's not crazy enough for you;
The rest looks more like a Science Fiction novel than the kind of material
you would consider discussing.
Part of the PLAN I have:
* New source of Energy, cheap to make, unlimited amount, zero pollution or produces;
And not 'explosive' reaction (as in atomic reaction).. i.e You can't blow yourself with it.
* System to realize a fully function A.I. system and tools for an interactive philosophical
database.
* Actual music and graphical art; Also 'games'.. Yes (to play)/(not killing simulators) ...
....
* Find myself a nice extraterrestrial woman with a true alien-mind and raise
many many beautiful mutants in the future. <:o)
Merry Christmas !..
Because the plan is ambitious and times flies like an arrow.
slider
### - i can't agree with this poor assessment of yours hehe... because what sartre
suggests does not clash with the DL in any way, and in fact complements it if one
understands sartre correctly...
e.g. what sartre suggests is not an end in itself but a beginning... for although
it is the end of the entirely rational approach to life and living, it is also the
beginning of a new path of experience that goes far beyond reason and its
reasonable limitations, and indeed touches the 'gift we have forgotten' (actually
provides access to it)
iow what sartre is suggesting is that his new existential approach is 'inclusive'
of the world of reason, not exclusive... even though the boundary line between
them is clearly and sharply defined...
where the DL comes into it being that sartre is pointing at the exact same thing
the buddhists point to (and thus the DL points to also) being the inner silent
approach where according to the DL true happiness resides... the usefulness (in
the world) he refers to being that of assisting others to discover the same thing
in themselves so they can find happiness too... it is his injunction to 'share'
such understanding with our fellow mankind instead of keeping all to oneself...
sartre is sharing, the DL and the buddhists are sharing, and what they are sharing
is the knowledge that there is more (much more abundant) to life and living than
the rational approach can account for... that there is in fact 2 distinct sides to
our nature : the original silent one + the humanly invented rational one... and
that the world of unhappiness resides entirely on the rational side alone...
to clarify... i mentioned before in our comparison between JC and sartre for
example, that perhaps sartre is only on the bottom rung of that climbing ladder,
while JC has obviously climbed much higher... the point being that sartre is
showing the way to other, already high-climbing intellectuals, the way to 'begin'
to climb even higher by going 'beyond' reason into the realm of pure intuition
(the gift we have forgotten according to einstein's observation)
after which sartre returns to the daily world (of reason) in order to share this
discovery with the rest of us... iow you are wrong if you think sartre spells the
end of all rational endeavours and activities in the world... however one will
find that one's reason has been modified to now include the world of the intuition
in its vocabulary instead of just totally ignoring it... which if you understand
actually represents an 'advance' in human awareness as opposed to you're
interpretation: a place (in awareness) where all activity comes to a halt...
the proof of that being the original buddha who found inner silence (came to a
complete rest etc) and yet set in motion a movement that has lasted, and grown,
for the last 2600 years!!!
so then the adopting of inner silence (the way of the buddhists for example) does
not preclude also being useful in the world or the current DL would not be
suggesting it's good to be useful, no? (this is why i suggested that you don't
reason too well hehe, plus i was kind of joking about it but (because of your ego
etc) you took offence instead (i can't help grinning here at your silly mistake
hehe, but then that's just my personal sense of humour, a bit like laughing when
someone falls over? not cruel, more like a rolling of the eyes as though to say oh
for goodness sake! etc etc, teasing etc hehe, friendly laughing:)
something which i put down to the limitations of reason and logic per se, in that
reason likes everything to be either black or white or it easily becomes confused?
e.g. someone suggests turning reason off, and immediately reason jumps to the
logical conclusion that this would mean the end of all its activities and plans in
the world, so it rebels and asserts itself and refuses to examine the matter any
further (possibly because it feels threatened?)
and thus you can confidently state that my pov/sartre's pov clashes with the dalai
lama (the world's representative of inner silence) who says it's good to be useful
in the world... which seems like a rational contradiction, but in fact isn't...
the real question here being... how can one maintain inner silence and still be
useful in the world at the same time, no?
a very good question, an intelligent question... a question great men (including
buddha and JC, and even sartre + many-many others) have struggled over time and
centuries to answer intelligently... each in his own particular way!
iow (and i've said this to you before) there's only one truth, one story, being
told and re-told over and over again in oh so many different ways... each
person/writer/observer having their own personal experience of that enlightening
(to reason) experience of inner silence and thus the reality behind the familiar
every day reality that people are generally pinned down to because of their total
dependence and reliance upon reason alone which should have been a servant but
which we instead elevated to the level of despot dictator/tyrant... a tyrant that
does not trust the 'gift' in any shape or form because it's not something it can
ever control in the usual sense...
and if i seem to be belabouring the point hehe... that's because i AM belabouring
the point... and because i'm kinda getting tired of you repeatedly
misunderstanding such a simple thing...
e.g. on the one hand you easily accept to see/agree that the universe (and
everything in it) arrived here without any help whatsoever from reason or logic...
basically because it's obviously so that everything in the universe (including us,
'and' our language of reason) somehow arrived here out of absolutely nothing...
out of the silence... but then on the other hand you imagine that to return to
that silence means that nothing could then ever come out of it again when
something as vast and as complex as the 'whole universe' came out of it
originally?? :)
the fact that 'reason' is somehow incapable of grasping this doesn't surprise me
however, and is the source of much amusement on my part when i often see it
struggling to make sense of something that's impossible to make sense of hehe :)
so when you think i'm laughing at you, it's not really 'you' i'm laughing at but
that of your struggling reason and the contortions it puts itself to and gets into
:)
we are more than just reason alone tempy... there is also the forgotten/lost gift
remember?
that gift not being something reason can ever control, all reason can ever learn
to do about it being to 'acknowledge' its existence and to 'allow' it to function
on its own level without any rational interferences on its part... which IS the
discipline: to learn to deliberately 'hold back' reason for short periods in order
to allow the 'gift' to surface from time to time so we can explore that area also!
how else can i say this.... 2 halves make a whole! - one half is reason, and the
other half is the 'gift' - and each is perforce useless/corrupt without the
other...
besides... turning reason off does not destroy reason per se... it just enlightens
it :)
PS... you will please notice/note that i am always very 'selective' in my added
quotes depending on the 'context/aim' of the conversation... e.g. einstein said a
great many things about many different subjects, but i'm only interested in what
he said in relation to awareness and some of the observations he made about our
societies and cultures...
i also particularly enjoy quoting einstein to staunch rationalists because he's
not someone they can just immediately rubbish and ignore (he's highly respected by
men of reason everywhere) and so if old einstein said it then they might just have
to listen a bit more before dismissing it (something which usually annoys them to
hell ha ha ;)
sartre too was a real 'brain' + no one can ever say he wasn't a reasonable man
hehe, and is/was actually one of the best!
i.e. rational and logical people typically like things to be completely spelled
out or they just don't get it... and sartre actually went to all the trouble of
painfully spelling it out to them! (he leaves absolutely no room for error!)
which is also kinda why the rationalists hate him (grin) because here's a fellow
rationalist, a solid club member, telling them to stop rationalising in order to
experience another complete and separate pov altogether... possibly an even better
(more abundance) one!
which lol isn't exactly what reason 'wants' to hear! :)
personally i say... first see the whole/complete picture... and only 'then' make
our plans for the world and humanity... or risk just making a bad situation (in
the world) even worse than it already is, no?
the world (and humanity) not really being something to gambol/take blind chances
with imho as it's already suffered enough from the hands of so many
well-intentioned but unenlightened fools...
--------------------
God, Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
"Discernment is about learning to separate truth from lies, illusion from reality,
fantasy from facts. It is about learning the difference between: emotional truth
and Spiritual Truth; emotional impulse and intuitive guidance; being victimized
and feeling like a victim. It is about recognizing the difference between a
person that can be trusted and one who will betray us - between a soul connection
and a emotional attraction to a person who is emotionally unavailable."
http://joy2meu.com/Serenity_Prayer.html
Akhet wrote...
Akhet
>
>### - i can't agree with this poor assessment of yours hehe...
>
makes it so compelling, and honest from the start. There is a strong
message of Love in there, you know.
> because what sartre
>suggests does not clash with the DL in any way, and in fact complements it if one
>understands sartre correctly...
>
I leave all of your sartre's interpretations to you. I was talking about you slider
and not sartre. But if you insist on validating sartre against the Dalai Lama,
I would not mind; Plus I recall sartre left behind quite a testimony of his own,
in writings mostly.. otoh. I recall you have no ambition of writing any of yours.
Don't deny; I kept that post of yours from years ago, and it's fresh in my memory.
Then if I did not understood already; I would think you're doing all this just for me. ^^
..Now if that's not the biggest proof of Love, I wonder what is. :D
>
>e.g. what sartre suggests is not an end in itself but a beginning... for although
>it is the end of the entirely rational approach to life and living, it is also the
>beginning of a new path of experience that goes far beyond reason and its
>reasonable limitations, and indeed touches the 'gift we have forgotten' (actually
>provides access to it)
>
If I was not in such a 'rush' to resume my humble affaires; I would rush the same,
just to get that book and read it through; consciously.
If sartre suggests that there is something after, then I'm already onto it. haha.
Maybe all he needed is Love. ;) For a clue.
>
>iow what sartre is suggesting is that his new existential approach is 'inclusive'
>of the world of reason, not exclusive... even though the boundary line between
>them is clearly and sharply defined...
>
That's fine... Sartre is fine... I was questionning you ! :D
What kind of use can you make of that reasoning power we can develop;
and how can it become a 'useful' part of the manifestation of the whole. aka: mind.
otoh. Sartre is dead, he left his heritage, I do not question that; But you still have
a 'future', so I question 'you'.. What do you make of the intellect and reasonning,
in the context of a unified approach.... (P.S. I don't expect an answer.)
>where the DL comes into it being that sartre is pointing at the exact same thing
>the buddhists point to (and thus the DL points to also) being the inner silent
>approach where according to the DL true happiness resides... the usefulness (in
>the world) he refers to being that of assisting others to discover the same thing
>in themselves so they can find happiness too... it is his injunction to 'share'
>such understanding with our fellow mankind instead of keeping all to oneself...
>
I agree, this is a very significatice 'coincidence' of experiencing.
This kind of 'silencing the incessant thoughts' is indeed also one of the most
basic instinct anyone could have given he is 'obscessed' with a given situation.
Recall sartre's omnipresent nausea feeling just as he would go to this park.
He was into some sort of 'nevrosis', I would say... Buddha went throug also a very
difficult path, and got through quite traumatic episodes... Many less 'gifted' people
go through them and seek some 'peace of mind'.. That's the silencing of all those
questions and fears, and hopefully all the ardaches..
i,e It becomes clear that while Buddha and Sartre's reaction are nothing new
by themselves; They both could come back with 'reasonnable' assesments of
their experiences. I see honesty in this first, then generosity and maybe a touch
of tha love and care.
i.e. And then if that has any clear relationship with the methods of achieving happyness,
it makes it clearer that each one of us has that ability in himself and natural intent
to 'evolve' his state of mind just like they said; without any words or known logic.
So we could also bring along Rama's words on the topic of happyness:
"Happiness is just being you, where you are right now.
Allow yourself to be you.
Shut off all the silly thoughts and desires and crazy emotions." -Frederick Lenz
iow. In the quest of finding yourself.. Also meaning restoring the balance of self,
one can practice the deliberate action of putting both hands together; as in common
prayers; In the conscious effort of balancing all the aspects of one...
A place where, unresolved questions meet equally unresolved answers, and where
unavoidably the intellect leaves room for silence.
What else is new. ;)
>sartre is sharing, the DL and the buddhists are sharing, and what they are sharing
>is the knowledge that there is more (much more abundant) to life and living than
>the rational approach can account for... that there is in fact 2 distinct sides to
>our nature : the original silent one + the humanly invented rational one... and
>that the world of unhappiness resides entirely on the rational side alone...
>
I also eat nice a nice pizza and all sorts of good things from time to time, and
that's not to mention all the other abundant perceptions I get from this world.
If you reason with my assesment here, you just are too rational and possibly
unhappy about one aspect or the other; That should not bother you.
It certain does not bother me; I'm quite happy with all the sides considered, and
even just symply just brought harmoniously together... Reason included. :)
>
>to clarify... i mentioned before in our comparison between JC and sartre for
>example, that perhaps sartre is only on the bottom rung of that climbing ladder,
>while JC has obviously climbed much higher... the point being that sartre is
>showing the way to other, already high-climbing intellectuals, the way to 'begin'
>to climb even higher by going 'beyond' reason into the realm of pure intuition
>(the gift we have forgotten according to einstein's observation)
>
>
Well;
I knew that.. It was just pure intuition to me already.
>
>after which sartre returns to the daily world (of reason) in order to share this
>discovery with the rest of us... iow you are wrong if you think sartre spells the
>end of all rational endeavours and activities in the world... however one will
>find that one's reason has been modified to now include the world of the intuition
>in its vocabulary instead of just totally ignoring it... which if you understand
>actually represents an 'advance' in human awareness as opposed to you're
>interpretation: a place (in awareness) where all activity comes to a halt...
>
Of course that's nice, as long as one does not proclaim his 'intuition' self
righteous ofer the next guy; Because then it would just be a new doctrine.
But of course you silly slider must be deaf to my words because I consider
intuition very high in the scale of 'named' mind activities; Yet I reserve my
rights to doubt people noticable from their earkening disabilities, not to
name any.
otoh. I'm glad to know your understanding has not come to an halt;
Because you know I'm running, and I'm running for evolution as the song says. :D
>the proof of that being the original buddha who found inner silence (came to a
>complete rest etc) and yet set in motion a movement that has lasted, and grown,
>for the last 2600 years!!!
>
I 'tongue in cheek' say; I have to agree.
2600 years is not such a long time for foolproofing the theories.
Considering the disosaurs lasted sbout 250 million years, and they also were
mostly vegetariens. ;P ,, But seriously, there is room for improvements; I can say
just for myself now because that' what's I've done already. ^_^
How about considering my theories; And that's to say that LOVE exists, beyond
the love we can 'experience' in the most natural and obscenely naked part of the reality
as well.
This LOVE is some kind of 'holy water' from 'above'.. I dare not try to convince you
there is such a thing as a 'God' of everything. Even if this 'concept' is the focal point
of my particular path... And you can keep your faith slider and brothers, because it's
all bound to come down soon enough with what you could describe as even better than
sartre's words:
"and sartre actually went to all the trouble of painfully spelling it out to them!
(he leaves absolutely no room for error!) " -slider
'intuition'; That's all I can tell you now ! :D
Also as in 'dreams' and 'visions'.
>so then the adopting of inner silence (the way of the buddhists for example) does
>not preclude also being useful in the world or the current DL would not be
>suggesting it's good to be useful, no? (this is why i suggested that you don't
>reason too well hehe, plus i was kind of joking about it but (because of your ego
>etc) you took offence instead (i can't help grinning here at your silly mistake
>hehe, but then that's just my personal sense of humour, a bit like laughing when
>someone falls over? not cruel, more like a rolling of the eyes as though to say oh
>for goodness sake! etc etc, teasing etc hehe, friendly laughing:)
>
Oh; Stop that slidy... You're getting too personal on your assumtions of me now
and again. i.e. Isn't that your own ego creating this 'imaginary' character that is
part time 'student of yours' and a stupid time for you to laugh at at leisure...
I'm not offended; I'm just noticing that this 'sense of humor' tends to obscure
your judgement on the value I bring and the honest questions I offer..
But I can laugh as well; And every opportunities you offer are a good one.
That's LOVE. :D
>something which i put down to the limitations of reason and logic per se, in that
>reason likes everything to be either black or white or it easily becomes confused?
>e.g. someone suggests turning reason off, and immediately reason jumps to the
>logical conclusion that this would mean the end of all its activities and plans in
>the world, so it rebels and asserts itself and refuses to examine the matter any
>further (possibly because it feels threatened?)
>
You really are flueling-up your own theories, but that's also quite acceptable if
I only had the time to go through another generalisation of the general attitudes;
Though I think it's just to simplistic to resume the process as that;
Even if you had me in mind here.
Like I already told you: I'm not too much concerned about your particular beliefs
or interpretation of Buddhist teachings, along sartre's litterature. It's what you
intend to do with it that I question... When someone talks about 'turning off reason',
it could lead to some to a self stalmate. Because you would not be the first.
But go ahead, and move on and up Sartre's ladder.
Rejoice as well that I have passed this interesting step and only for myself
can suggest intuitively that "higher love" is then reachable. And that's to
become a father to all, with the love of the father caring for all children.
Even if the children would rather have a toy for christmas. :)
If you want to be a father of peace, or a father of love or a father of care,
or a father of other higher buddhist values you share; Then be so and
do so; Even if you don't have a 'plan' like me.. Let your intuition run.
But if you climb up; I know you are bound to find the light, and from that
'loving peaceful state' you will laugh.. Laugh at all the time you spend
offering sarcastic views of the news and world affairs.
You will peek into the potential to see behind and love them all, and
still juggle with the gift you can bring to them... That's your surprize.
Your choice.
>and thus you can confidently state that my pov/sartre's pov clashes with the dalai
>lama (the world's representative of inner silence) who says it's good to be useful
>in the world... which seems like a rational contradiction, but in fact isn't...
>
>the real question here being... how can one maintain inner silence and still be
>useful in the world at the same time, no?
>
>a very good question, an intelligent question... a question great men (including
>buddha and JC, and even sartre + many-many others) have struggled over time and
>centuries to answer intelligently... each in his own particular way!
>
Yeah, well; Of course it's a nice wayto bring the subject up once more; If it was
not already obvious from all our discussions.. But I already asked many times;
What's your particular way, indeed... Then again;.. No need to answer now
if you feel you are already doing it 'intuitively' as in 'best under the circumstances'.
I can understand..... Give it time.. It will come to sense, in a more tangible fashion
eventually.. It always does. You'll figure it for yourself, and possibly be amazed
you just did it all, by yourself; Or maybe I'm just optimistic now.
>iow (and i've said this to you before) there's only one truth, one story, being
>told and re-told over and over again in oh so many different ways... each
>person/writer/observer having their own personal experience of that enlightening
>(to reason) experience of inner silence and thus the reality behind the familiar
>every day reality that people are generally pinned down to because of their total
>dependence and reliance upon reason alone which should have been a servant but
>which we instead elevated to the level of despot dictator/tyrant... a tyrant that
>does not trust the 'gift' in any shape or form because it's not something it can
>ever control in the usual sense...
>
>and if i seem to be belabouring the point hehe... that's because i AM belabouring
>the point... and because i'm kinda getting tired of you repeatedly
>misunderstanding such a simple thing...
>
It is indeed such a simple thing, and I wonder why you are belabouring
the point, imagining I misunderstand it while I just have a very free spirit way
about the meaning 'rational'+'intuitions'+'everything else' of my own such
experiences.. To the point I don't need to seek particular conditions to 'induce'
such a state of mind.. i.e. I don't need to go to Bouville's park and observe an
old tree for a while, as sartre did. What 'exists' in my mind that the silencing helped
brought in perspective, now can 'coexist' with my normal intellectual functions;
Most of the time.. I'm rather 'inspired' and intuitive; And words just 'pop',
because the intent is higher and fully alert.
But I'd rather not stay enlightened for too long... I save energy for other things. :)
>e.g. on the one hand you easily accept to see/agree that the universe (and
>everything in it) arrived here without any help whatsoever from reason or logic...
>basically because it's obviously so that everything in the universe (including us,
>'and' our language of reason) somehow arrived here out of absolutely nothing...
>out of the silence... but then on the other hand you imagine that to return to
>that silence means that nothing could then ever come out of it again when
>something as vast and as complex as the 'whole universe' came out of it
>originally?? :)
>
Can I just not agree here with your reasonning. Because I rather observe a more
comprehensive concept, straight out of the Mimansa sage teachings..
"ex nihilo nihil fit" .. e.g. "Out of nothing comes nothing."
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Mimansa/id/201201
iow. I believe I came from the light and I return to the light.
That 'nothing' you talk about seems like an illusion of the rationals we use to avoid
the paradox of creation, while being it's own paradox. But I respect your current
state of beliefs, and let you find 'what's next' for yourself.
Somehow, even at the conceptual level, in order to introduce the idea of something,
we have to consider the idea of nothing/'nothingness'. But it's just another
separation I do not do... Everything is just everything; Nothing less, nothing more;
'thoughts included'.
>the fact that 'reason' is somehow incapable of grasping this doesn't surprise me
>however, and is the source of much amusement on my part when i often see it
>struggling to make sense of something that's impossible to make sense of hehe :)
>
>so when you think i'm laughing at you, it's not really 'you' i'm laughing at but
>that of your struggling reason and the contortions it puts itself to and gets into
>:)
>
Or is it just you that thinks that I think you are laughing at me ? Haha.
Then again; Laughing is often the best thing we could ever do under the circumstances.
LOL.
>we are more than just reason alone tempy... there is also the forgotten/lost gift
>remember?
>
Come one slider.. Do you really have to presume (character assasination?)
so much about me, notwithstanding the facts of all I have already told you
about the mind, reason, intuitions, higher sentiments ... ???
Sometimes I wonder if you could be accused of poor hearkening, or just blame
it on a fluctuation of the honesty; Motivated by a fantasm of your ego that I should
be just 'less smart' than you. ;)
>that gift not being something reason can ever control, all reason can ever learn
>to do about it being to 'acknowledge' its existence and to 'allow' it to function
>on its own level without any rational interferences on its part... which IS the
>discipline: to learn to deliberately 'hold back' reason for short periods in order
>to allow the 'gift' to surface from time to time so we can explore that area also!
>
Nice recipie.. Good idea.,, I might consider it again, since I do need to
quiet down my thoughts at times.. Admitting here there are times more
difficult than other to find 'inner peace'.. Then, indeed.. It makes perfect sense,
and my intuition agrees with you.. Taking little steps is already better than
try the leap of enduring silence through 'strong' meditation..
... You are right.. It can serve me good in the near future slider.
I could take a moment in the waiting line at the store to 'clear my mind'...
Oh.. But I already do that all the time.. Jeez..
There must be other moments I could use.. Hmm... I'll think of it later. ^_^
(SNIP)
>PS... you will please notice/note that i am always very 'selective' in my added
>quotes depending on the 'context/aim' of the conversation... e.g. einstein said a
>great many things about many different subjects, but i'm only interested in what
>he said in relation to awareness and some of the observations he made about our
>societies and cultures...
>
Well; I offered you lots of rightfully signed quotes, of great value and forming
a comprehensive group, while you had just quoted something that seems to
just agrees with your pov, all from an unknown guy.
So; I agree you are selective, but not from the quality of the author, but just
to your own purpose... Which is okay; I don't know why you make a fuss of
it just because I tell you that I personally would not agree on everything that
this one or the other says; Even if he's named Einstein or Buddha.
(SNIP)
>personally i say... first see the whole/complete picture... and only 'then' make
>our plans for the world and humanity... or risk just making a bad situation (in
>the world) even worse than it already is, no?
>
Yes and No. :D
Because you still have to consider that we're still just 'humans' in form and
evolving in the same fashion every living things do... So, the 'complete' picture
is somehow out of reach from the intellect's perspective.. So I can't argue about
it much; Yet I intuitively have resolved a number of things that comes through a
honest quest, introspection and observation of the whole.
If there is a plan I just offered, it would be plan B... But it's always open for
Plan C and above.. ^^
I was even realizing that the extraterrestrial woman of my dreams, can just
be every woman of the earth for now. But then, that LOVE becomes abstract
to reason, and when I extend the concept to all gender, even species;
It becomes the most beautiful love I can offer.
If I'm a fool to use words hewre again to describe what's next, I'd use the metaphor
of the flower being pulled from the ground for something higher.
Imagine how happy an extraterrestrial woman could be knowing she took
the only earth flower that can both smell good and fart from holding much beer. ;)
>the world (and humanity) not really being something to gambol/take blind chances
>with imho as it's already suffered enough from the hands of so many
>well-intentioned but unenlightened fools...
>
You are welcome to all of us, unenlightened fools.. It's just your unavoidable fate.
Even if you hide in your room all your life, thinking you can't get hit by a car;
There is the possibility a car might just go right through your room and hit you
all the same...
i.e. If life looks like a gamble; Living it holds all the true rewards; You can bet on it.
Or was that just part of my Plan Z. ?..
hahaha.
Plan L is my favorite... It's all about 'LOVE'... Higher and higher..
slider
Akhet wrote...
> That's fine... Sartre is fine... I was questionning you ! :D
> What kind of use can you make of that reasoning power we can develop;
> and how can it become a 'useful' part of the manifestation of the whole. aka:
> mind. otoh. Sartre is dead, he left his heritage, I do not question that; But
> you still have a 'future', so I question 'you'.. What do you make of the
> intellect and reasonning, in the context of a unified approach.... (P.S. I
> don't expect an answer.)
### - it's a good question and deserves answering, although it may not be exactly
what you (or people) might expect + i have already covered this some time ago in
conversation to others)
i.e. in order to really understand the answer (btw it's not really just me that
this applies to, but to reasonable people/men of reason everywhere, each of which
may use it slightly differently depending on their personality and personal
predilection etc) it requires being able to see/understand how the state of reason
first came about, and from what already existing aspect of awareness it was
fashioned from, and/or out of... and which is something that can only really be
truly understood/appreciated with the benefit of hindsight, as in looking back at
it from the pov of another complete state of awareness for example...
iow, this information, which you deem so difficult to imagine and/or that appears
to be so obscure (unimaginable) to reason per se (i.e. from the pov of reason
itself) is immediately available to just about 'anyone' who deliberately
shifts/changes into another/alternate state of awareness/consciousness... the only
proviso being that the altered state pov be not induced by for example: drugs
(sartre didn't need/use drugs to turn off his internal dialogue i mean, as he
accomplished this with the discipline of pure reason alone + drugs only distorts
the experience)
basically... it appears that what we call reason and logic is just a standard
form-building aspect of awareness that has been deliberated over-inflated and
enlarged until it basically took-on a life of its own... plus seeing as we've all
learned to completely identify with it, it is directly from this that we then
borrow/create our false sense of independent self (ego and the illusion of free
will etc: false self)
the only condition to this (if you can call it a condition exactly) being that
reason per se has to 'necessarily' be blind to it's own antecedence and inner
workings lest it bursts apart the illusion of independence created by deliberately
not realising how we constructed it in the first place...
e.g. plato (for example only) writes of a time (unproven + associated in part with
mythical atlantis) of huge floods that also totally devastated the Mediterranean
area, leaving the few survivors there to 'begin again from scratch with no
knowledge whatsoever of their past history and culture' (or his words to that
effect)
the point being that a similar state of a certain loss of past memory and culture
is included in the recipe for the state of awareness called reason, as without it
the state of reason could never have sufficient force to generate the 'seeming'
independence of its own nature!
iow, it's like the old cult movie 'Logans Run', in which whole generations of
people have lived and died never realising that their completely familiar world is
totally artificial and nothing like the real world that exists outside of their
completely enclosed and artificially built city... (which is what i think the
author of logans run was actually trying to tell us in parable-form)
of course when Logan and his girlfriend escape the city and finally arrive back in
the real world (washington dc:) logan realises that he has to go back and
tell everyone what's been really going on... and at which point in the movie we
even get a paraphrased sartre quote along the lines of logan stating to his
girlfriend... 'but i have to go back, they're killing people every day there for
nothing... his girlfriend replying, let's just stay here and live in peace etc,
but logan states 'how can i live in peace anywhere when i know all that is
still going on' (i.e. how can i ever really be free when even one slave remains in
chains etc)
reason then... is just our own human lie/invention, fabricated and promoted to the
level of automaton dictator in order to create a fake sense of independence from
nature... iow reason per se (especially the way we humans use it) is actually a
rebellion against nature and the way things are for the rest of the universe, and
is only worshipped and taken for granted by all because having forgotten our true
nature in harmony with the rest of the universe, reason is basically all we now
know and are aware of...
i.e. reason is purely mechanical/pertains only to mechanical-type aspects of the
universe... which is fine if you think/believe the universe is entirely just like
some big mechanical ticking clock and nothing more... only that same universe
arrived 'without' the benefit of reason to assist it in becoming/appearing... so i
rather think there's a bit more (lots more actually;) to it all than newtons
clockwork toy-factory approach... which sophisticated though it is/appears, is
actually a vastly simplified (very human) version/model of the whole that in
no way even gets anywhere near to the whole truth of the matter... and is
actually a diametrically opposed move 'away' from reality in favour of itself
and its own principles and projections, which reason then takes as being
sacrosanct...
(newton was just a rational religious nutcase who stood more on the shoulders
of dwarfs than giants and so saw nothing else but the obscuring heads and
shoulders of his fellow peers and nutcases... imho ;-)
slider
> (newton was just a rational religious nutcase who stood more on the shoulders
> of dwarfs than giants and so saw nothing else but the obscuring heads and
> shoulders of his fellow peers and nutcases... imho ;-)
### - smile, the only thing i can possibly 'add' to that... being that Sartre, the
great and genuine intellectual that he was, perforce would have been in exactly
the same boat as Newton... only you see, unlike Newton, Sartre was smart enough to
actually find a way out! (Newton did look/search for one, but he looked in all the
wrong places :)
Akhet
>
But since you introduced and used Newton for momparisons;
I agree both were somehow 'under a tree' in the park.
Newton received the 'apple' and from the 'legend', thought of resolving
the 'gravitational' problem... Can you believe than an 'apple' could be
involved really. Of course there are coincidences.
What about the coincidence I just offered you a 'virtual apple' on your desk.
Haha.. Plus somehow that makes me think about my current 'ideas', for a
legacy of some sort.. The 'fruit' being also somehow related to 'gravitational',
new use I precognize... But that's still just a 'theory' of mine for now..
It makes as much sense to me as 'Gravitational' solution was to him.
(Except I don't have his kind of genius, of course..)
... Then Sartre was maybe unfortunate not to receive a 'fruit' on his head.
Don't you think ?... Oh, well, that's as far I can go with a metaphor just to
relativize things.. :)
I'm personally quite fond of Newton's theories and work.. Very honest
work, and as Einstein would put it:
Albert Einstein
"The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
IMHO; What really matter more is not to insist on determining if this one
or the other better achieved; But what we can 'make of it all' from
understanding... Because Just imagine that you cannot derive anything
if you do not accept the natural mecanism of learning, and don't expect
to 'shut everyone's reason off' as soon as something seems to satisfy yours;
Or Sartre, or Buddha for that matter.
Is this really true ?, when you say:
--
i.e. reason is purely mechanical/pertains only to mechanical-type aspects of the
universe... which is fine if you think/believe the universe is entirely just like
some big mechanical ticking clock and nothing more..
--
Or is it that only reason can organise 'thoughts' in a way to become more 'compatible',
with the physical operations needed to interact with this part of reality you call
'mechanical-type aspect of the universe'.. Does that makes 'reason' any less a 'gift'
of the mind to you ? ..Or just maybe somehow you're telling me that you found pass
a certain 'degree' of 'Enlightenment' of the mind, you found that through your own
'intuition' you can proceed 'best under the circumstances'... Then I cannot argue,
and you are free to do so. You must agree that it's rather delicate to offer any
rationales to 're-active' the 'Curiosity'/'Questionning' since you are 'intuitively'
mostly done.... In my case; I just agree to disagree reason is of any less 'importance',
to 'function even if I pretend I am fully aware and using my intuition better already.
If you 'disagree' just from a certain type of 'use of reason'; As in, making inventions,
and/or just producing any creative work that might challenge others.. Then it's
'my intuition' against yours maybe. Or your 'interpretations' of these individuals you
consider more 'favorable' to your ideas.. Still, quite easy for me to accept and
suggest it's another part of a possible code of 'ethics' that is more based on
'commonalities' than divergences of 'opinions'/'actions'.. It's all part of a general
theorie I have about 'ethics of mental divergences' and that this ethic can be
mostly resumed to an intuitive application/action of the intent, through the intuition
that 'harmony' is never short of 'new ways' to interact. :)
... I might comment more eventually.
I'm running out of 'apples' now.. So I'm considering a nice pizza with a rizing crust...
Yum, yum..
And then I have to fix the Hioover electrical cleaner... Some sort of problem with
the transmission strap for the brush gears.... And of course; I need my reason to
work on a 'full stomach', for that and more.. :)
Seeya.
slider
tempy askes...
> Is this really true ?, when you say:
> --
> i.e. reason is purely mechanical/pertains only to mechanical-type aspects of the
> universe... which is fine if you think/believe the universe is entirely just
> like some big mechanical ticking clock and nothing more..
> --
>
> Or is it that only reason can organise 'thoughts' in a way to become more
> 'compatible', with the physical operations needed to interact with this part
> of reality you call 'mechanical-type aspect of the universe'.. Does that
> makes 'reason' any less a 'gift' of the mind to you ? ..
### - smile, what it means is that the rational mind pertains only to the physical
universe and the purely materialistic aspects of it and nothing more... and
although reason attempts to approach the metaphysical via various philosophies,
none of them actually get anywhere near to 'truth' beyond the moronic argument of
just what that truth is supposed to be about... sartre and camus being the only
ones to suggest leaving philosophy and rational philosophic constructions behind
altogether in order to cross over into unknown and actually experience it directly
for oneself instead of pissing about with hypothetical constructs that accomplish
naught but to further stimulate the rational mind... ok? :)