|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 3, 2022 12:29:48 GMT -5
I have always been a reader. I remember picking out 2 books from the public library, a local branch, the summer before 1st grade. I couldn't read them, I don't remember if my parents or sister read them to me. I think in elementary school we had to read a certain number of books, we got to choose the extra reading. I remember liking Robin Hood, I think we had 3 different versions in the library. I liked biographies mostly, the old west mostly. I read about the western heroes, Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Kit Carson, Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill Hickok, Buffalo Bill, Jim Bowie, others. I especially liked stories about Mountain Men. That was me, I was sure when I could, I would live alone, I have always been a loner. Tarzan was my hero, the film Tarzan, I never read the books. I was sure I would some day live alone, like Tarzan. I didn't read much fiction, other than assignments. I was about 20 when I first read science fiction, Isaac Asimov, The Foundation trilogy. I think I've written about, later, I read to try to understand myself. And I came to like science. That probably came from my 9th grade Earth Science teacher. The year previous he taught HS science. I knew because he told us about teaching at one of the all Black high schools. 9th grade was the first year Charlotte had integration, the first year I went to school with Africa Americans. He told us about the poor, some kids went to school in the winter with shoes that had holes in them, in the bottom. He taught stuff apart from the text book. I figured out later he had taught us college chemistry, probably from his college notes. He made science interesting, chemistry was like a puzzle. Mr. Henderson. I just liked to learn about people and the world, the universe. I didn't read The Catcher in the Rye in school. I read it later, I wished we had read it in HS. I discovered Walker Percy in 1980. I browsed his new hardback book, The Second Coming. It was a sequel to his second book, The Last Gentlemen. Then, it took a year for a book to come out in paperback, so I decided to read all of Percy's novels within a year and read The Second Coming when it came out in paperback. He is still my favorite novelist, I think he wrote only one other novel after The Second Coming, The Thanatos Syndrome, that was about 1987. It was a sequel to an earlier book also, Love In the Ruins. The other book in there was Lancelot, it was a study of evil. Percy was an MD. He inherited a depressive disorder, his father and grandfather both committed suicide. He fought depression periodically throughout his life. He died in 1990, not suicide, I still have the newspaper clipping somewhere. He was about ten when his father died, he and his brother went to live with their Uncle Will Percy, who was rich. So basically Percy could do anything with his life he wanted. He decided to become a doctor. He finished medical school, decided he wanted to do research. Doing research he contracted TB, I think that was in the '40's. The treatment then, he was bedridden. So he read. He liked the existentialists. He most liked Kierkegaard, also liked Dostoyevsky. When he got over TB he decided to become a writer, he never practiced medicine. He basically became a philosopher, but decided to do philosophy in literature, novels. His Kierkegaard was his model. His first two were never published. Then he wrote The Moviegoer, I think that was 1961. In 1962 it won the National Book Award having never been nominated. One of the judges on the panel said, Hey, I found this book I think we need to look at. They all liked it. It's still my favorite novel. I wish I had found it at 13, 14 or 15, instead of 28. The main character is Binx Boiling, he has an ordinary job, likes films, is on a search. It's an existential search, he can't quite define it. But all the while also Percy wrote essays on philosophy and semiotics. His first collection was The Message in the Bottle. Another, Signposts In A Strange Land. Another came out just a couple of years ago, Symbols & Existence. But the last book he published while alive was a popular book on philosophy and psychology, Lost In the Cosmos, The Last Self Help Book (You Will Ever Need). The full subtitle (or first sentence, don't exactly recall) is a full page long. It's actually a very interesting and funny book. it sold pretty well. But Percy describes himself as an ex-suicide, I think it's in The Message in the Bottle. An ex-suicide has contemplated suicide but chosen not to. He says an ex-suicide gets up, takes a shower, gets dressed, fixes some breakfast, walks out on his porch, looks out into the day, and then goes to work, because he doesn't have to. When I read that sentence (paraphrased), I understood it immediately. The Outsider by Colin Wilson is also a favorite, still. I had learned about it, but didn't special order. Sometimes even if I had found out about a book, I would wait to chance upon it. Going back to Colorado to visit once, probably 1978, there it was in a bookstore, I think it was in Boulder, possibly Denver. It was a significant book. These days, for about 8 years, I read a Lee Child-Jack Reacher book about every 6-9 months. It's like 3 days blown to hell, but sometimes necessary. Books are my friends. Krishnamurti did read detective novels sometimes. I read all the Lutyen's biographies, I think that's in there somewhere. In the Moviegoer, Binx found the answer in the mundane. He did not spin spiritual fairy tales. He was appalled by the "everydayness" of reality and came to embrace it. Good for Binx, but that won't work for Momo. Binx was not boxed in by life. He was just profoundly unhappy in much the same situation as Bourdain's, and perhaps yours also. Why were you down in the dumps in Colorado?
I am not boxed in by life. I can be if I am not cautious and live like Bourdain. Living in this world is like playing chess with the Devil. Sooner or later, the Devil will close in. Have you ever played chess with a computer? The Devil is IBM's Big Blue. Every move you make eliminates avenues of escape when you get checked. Bourdain was checkmated.
No one can beat the Devil. He is the human mind.
Interestingly, I just watched a film about the Devil, played by Claude Rains, and a guy, Eddie, who was just murdered by his best gangster friend Smiley, and ended up in hell, Angel On My Shoulder, 1946, on TCM. Mephistopheles makes a deal with Eddie to go back to ground level and get revenge and kill Smiley. But Eddie has to do a favor for "Nick", the Devil, first. He gets the body of Judge Parker so as to destroy Parker's career, basically by just being Eddie. Quite an interesting film. Eddie is quite ignorant and illiterate and doesn't know he's made a deal with the Devil, who calls himself Mephistopheles, or Nick for short. But Eddie falls in love with Judge Parker's fiancee, who loves Judge Parker. God is never seen, or is even seen in action, but we know from the beginning that God is the Devil's adversary. So seemingly inadvertently, Eddie becomes a good man, and spoils all Nick's plans. Eddie eventually falls in love with Barbara, the fiancee. Near the end Eddie as Judge Parker realizes he has made a deal with the Devil, and backs out. In the end Nick looks up into the sky and recognizes he has been defeated. The only real hint of an actual battle is the title, which is almost a throwaway line from the film. Things just get worked out against Nick's plans. Basically, we learn that the Devil has very little power of his own, he only has lies and manipulation and deceit. Your analogy of the Devil as a supercomputer is way over the top. Yes, basically, the devil is the human conditioned mind, the conditioned mind. But we are not our conditioning. sree, you are never going to get anywhere here peddling your nihilism. Have you actually read The Moviegoer? Walker Percy was a existential philosopher who crafted novels to make philosophy palatable, and almost hidden. He succeeded pretty well with The Moviegoer. For anybody interested > this< is a pretty good synopsis. But it's not short. Because Binx's life works out does not mean he gave up the search. Why are you afraid to contact your parents after ten years? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 3, 2022 13:05:10 GMT -5
In the Moviegoer, Binx found the answer in the mundane. He did not spin spiritual fairy tales. He was appalled by the "everydayness" of reality and came to embrace it. Good for Binx, but that won't work for Momo. Binx was not boxed in by life. He was just profoundly unhappy in much the same situation as Bourdain's, and perhaps yours also. Why were you down in the dumps in Colorado?
I am not boxed in by life. I can be if I am not cautious and live like Bourdain. Living in this world is like playing chess with the Devil. Sooner or later, the Devil will close in. Have you ever played chess with a computer? The Devil is IBM's Big Blue. Every move you make eliminates avenues of escape when you get checked. Bourdain was checkmated.
No one can beat the Devil. He is the human mind.
Interestingly, I just watched a film about the Devil, played by Claude Rains, and a guy, Eddie, who was just murdered by his best gangster friend Smiley, and ended up in hell, Angel On My Shoulder, 1946, on TCM. Mephistopheles makes a deal with Eddie to go back to ground level and get revenge and kill Smiley. But Eddie has to do a favor for "Nick", the Devil, first. He gets the body of Judge Parker so as to destroy Parker's career, basically by just being Eddie. Quite an interesting film. Eddie is quite ignorant and illiterate and doesn't know he's made a deal with the Devil, who calls himself Mephistopheles, or Nick for short. But Eddie falls in love with Judge Parker's fiancee, who loves Judge Parker. God is never seen, or is even seen in action, but we know from the beginning that God is the Devil's adversary. So seemingly inadvertently, Eddie becomes a good man, and spoils all Nick's plans. Eddie eventually falls in love with Barbara, the fiancee. Near the end Eddie as Judge Parker realizes he has made a deal with the Devil, and backs out. In the end Nick looks up into the sky and recognizes he has been defeated. The only real hint of an actual battle is the title, which is almost a throwaway line from the film. Things just get worked out against Nick's plans. Basically, we learn that the Devil has very little power of his own, he only has lies and manipulation and deceit. Your analogy of the Devil as a supercomputer is way over the top. Yes, basically, the devil is the human conditioned mind, the conditioned mind. But we are not our conditioning. sree, you are never going to get anywhere here peddling your nihilism. Have you actually read The Moviegoer? Walker Percy was a existential philosopher who crafted novels to make philosophy palatable, and almost hidden. He succeeded pretty well with The Moviegoer. For anybody interested > this< is a pretty good synopsis. But it's not short. Because Binx's life works out does not mean he gave up the search. Why are you afraid to contact your parents after ten years? I am not afraid to contact my parents. I don't talk about my "personal" life. You have been open about yours and that obligates me to be open to you also. Since I don't do private messaging, I will spill my guts here.
"My parents", as we will refer to them, were people in my life. Have you ever been in love with a woman who is someone else's wife now? Situations changed, and if you were to run into her at a store someplace, she recognizes you and vice versa. You both know that you are not the same people now. You can no longer relate as before even though the memories are still vivid. You can't go back to where you were before. My parents could probably resume our relationship as though I never left. And I have been out of their lives for more than ten years now. But I can't go back. I love them still but am no longer in love with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 3, 2022 13:41:57 GMT -5
Interestingly, I just watched a film about the Devil, played by Claude Rains, and a guy, Eddie, who was just murdered by his best gangster friend Smiley, and ended up in hell, Angel On My Shoulder, 1946, on TCM. Mephistopheles makes a deal with Eddie to go back to ground level and get revenge and kill Smiley. But Eddie has to do a favor for "Nick", the Devil, first. He gets the body of Judge Parker so as to destroy Parker's career, basically by just being Eddie. Quite an interesting film. Eddie is quite ignorant and illiterate and doesn't know he's made a deal with the Devil, who calls himself Mephistopheles, or Nick for short. But Eddie falls in love with Judge Parker's fiancee, who loves Judge Parker. God is never seen, or is even seen in action, but we know from the beginning that God is the Devil's adversary. So seemingly inadvertently, Eddie becomes a good man, and spoils all Nick's plans. Eddie eventually falls in love with Barbara, the fiancee. Near the end Eddie as Judge Parker realizes he has made a deal with the Devil, and backs out. In the end Nick looks up into the sky and recognizes he has been defeated. The only real hint of an actual battle is the title, which is almost a throwaway line from the film. Things just get worked out against Nick's plans. Basically, we learn that the Devil has very little power of his own, he only has lies and manipulation and deceit. Your analogy of the Devil as a supercomputer is way over the top. Yes, basically, the devil is the human conditioned mind, the conditioned mind. But we are not our conditioning. sree, you are never going to get anywhere here peddling your nihilism. Have you actually read The Moviegoer? Walker Percy was a existential philosopher who crafted novels to make philosophy palatable, and almost hidden. He succeeded pretty well with The Moviegoer. For anybody interested > this< is a pretty good synopsis. But it's not short. Because Binx's life works out does not mean he gave up the search. Why are you afraid to contact your parents after ten years? I am not afraid to contact my parents. I don't talk about my "personal" life. You have been open about yours and that obligates me to be open to you also. Since I don't do private messaging, I will spill my guts here. "My parents", as we will refer to them, were people in my life. Have you ever been in love with a woman who is someone else's wife now? Situations changed, and if you were to run into her at a store someplace, she recognizes you and vice versa. You both know that you are not the same people now. You can no longer relate as before even though the memories are still vivid. You can't go back to where you were before. My parents could probably resume our relationship as though I never left. And I have been out of their lives for more than ten years now. But I can't go back. I love them still but am no longer in love with them.
I asked because you did mention earlier that you hadn't been in touch with your parents in ten years. No problem (as we say). I can speak about my (past) 'personal' life, because it's not that personal, anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 3, 2022 14:15:13 GMT -5
Yeah, just conversation for him I guess. And money can't buy happiness or peace of mind.. but it sure can take a few of the more unpleasant aspects of life out of play, which is fine but doesn't matter.. and focus on the body is a double edged sword perhaps, absolutely fine.. but also potentially the work of a narcissist  the modern world is too much to handle these days, people overwhelmed, stressed out.. seeking momentary comfort by losing themselves to soothing distractions A question worth pursuing, especially for Sree, would be: Will a purely intellectual approach to life inevitably lead to a predominantly pessimistic perspective on life? If yes, why? If no, why not? What do you mean by an intellectual approach to life?
The Collins dictionary says "intellectual" means involving a person's ability to think and to understand ideas and information. Are you questioning sree's ability in this regard?
And what do you mean by "life"? Are you referring to things that people do and experience that are characteristic of a particular place, group, or activity?
If spiritual discourse is meant for illuminating the way to live in freedom of disharmony, then you need to be clear about the question you are posing to me.
I look forward to this exchange.
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 3, 2022 14:51:12 GMT -5
I am not afraid to contact my parents. I don't talk about my "personal" life. You have been open about yours and that obligates me to be open to you also. Since I don't do private messaging, I will spill my guts here. "My parents", as we will refer to them, were people in my life. Have you ever been in love with a woman who is someone else's wife now? Situations changed, and if you were to run into her at a store someplace, she recognizes you and vice versa. You both know that you are not the same people now. You can no longer relate as before even though the memories are still vivid. You can't go back to where you were before. My parents could probably resume our relationship as though I never left. And I have been out of their lives for more than ten years now. But I can't go back. I love them still but am no longer in love with them.
I asked because you did mention earlier that you hadn't been in touch with your parents in ten years. No problem (as we say). I can speak about my (past) 'personal' life, because it's not that personal, anymore. You guys talk about conditioning. What do you think it is? It is what you see: perception is reality. My father is not just a human being living on planet earth. This is just the foundational conditioning template. There are more layers of conditioning on top of that. He is a psychological creation fashioned over a period of thirty years of relationship. It is the same the other way round in a two way relationship as his kid. I see through all that. He cannot. It would be extremely cruel on my part to reincarnate as his son to partake in a one-way relationship with me faking it.
Freedom from conditioning is more than being impersonal, which - apart from emotional detachment - is a spiritual idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 4, 2022 4:16:37 GMT -5
Please explain what spirituality is about? Getting your head out of your butt, ideally. Good luck Always with the bottom line.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 4, 2022 4:19:16 GMT -5
Didn't offer that .. .. re-read what I did offer ... Sree asks: “Isn't spirituality about the ending of desire?” Laffy replied: “No, and I can explain more if you want.” (The offer.)Sree: “Please explain what spirituality is about?” Laffy: “Didn't offer that .. .. re-read what I did offer ...” I have re-read the above three times or more. Just what did you offer? To explain what I meant by answering "no" to your question "Isn't spirituality about the ending of desire?". Please understand, that I'm not trying to be clever. Not playing a game with you. Just taking a little extra care to be sure you understand what I mean by what I'm writing. I didn't write a blank check to explain spirituality, just to explain by that particular opinion, that particular .. "no". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 4, 2022 4:36:07 GMT -5
Always with the bottom line. well I just had a weird month, as you might of noticed  What? really? nah .. wouldn't 'a known ... |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Oct 4, 2022 7:55:22 GMT -5
I have always been a reader. I remember picking out 2 books from the public library, a local branch, the summer before 1st grade. I couldn't read them, I don't remember if my parents or sister read them to me. I think in elementary school we had to read a certain number of books, we got to choose the extra reading. I remember liking Robin Hood, I think we had 3 different versions in the library. I liked biographies mostly, the old west mostly. I read about the western heroes, Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Kit Carson, Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill Hickok, Buffalo Bill, Jim Bowie, others. I especially liked stories about Mountain Men. That was me, I was sure when I could, I would live alone, I have always been a loner. Tarzan was my hero, the film Tarzan, I never read the books. I was sure I would some day live alone, like Tarzan. I didn't read much fiction, other than assignments. I was about 20 when I first read science fiction, Isaac Asimov, The Foundation trilogy. I think I've written about, later, I read to try to understand myself. And I came to like science. That probably came from my 9th grade Earth Science teacher. The year previous he taught HS science. I knew because he told us about teaching at one of the all Black high schools. 9th grade was the first year Charlotte had integration, the first year I went to school with Africa Americans. He told us about the poor, some kids went to school in the winter with shoes that had holes in them, in the bottom. He taught stuff apart from the text book. I figured out later he had taught us college chemistry, probably from his college notes. He made science interesting, chemistry was like a puzzle. Mr. Henderson. I just liked to learn about people and the world, the universe. I didn't read The Catcher in the Rye in school. I read it later, I wished we had read it in HS. I discovered Walker Percy in 1980. I browsed his new hardback book, The Second Coming. It was a sequel to his second book, The Last Gentlemen. Then, it took a year for a book to come out in paperback, so I decided to read all of Percy's novels within a year and read The Second Coming when it came out in paperback. He is still my favorite novelist, I think he wrote only one other novel after The Second Coming, The Thanatos Syndrome, that was about 1987. It was a sequel to an earlier book also, Love In the Ruins. The other book in there was Lancelot, it was a study of evil. Percy was an MD. He inherited a depressive disorder, his father and grandfather both committed suicide. He fought depression periodically throughout his life. He died in 1990, not suicide, I still have the newspaper clipping somewhere. He was about ten when his father died, he and his brother went to live with their Uncle Will Percy, who was rich. So basically Percy could do anything with his life he wanted. He decided to become a doctor. He finished medical school, decided he wanted to do research. Doing research he contracted TB, I think that was in the '40's. The treatment then, he was bedridden. So he read. He liked the existentialists. He most liked Kierkegaard, also liked Dostoyevsky. When he got over TB he decided to become a writer, he never practiced medicine. He basically became a philosopher, but decided to do philosophy in literature, novels. His Kierkegaard was his model. His first two were never published. Then he wrote The Moviegoer, I think that was 1961. In 1962 it won the National Book Award having never been nominated. One of the judges on the panel said, Hey, I found this book I think we need to look at. They all liked it. It's still my favorite novel. I wish I had found it at 13, 14 or 15, instead of 28. The main character is Binx Boiling, he has an ordinary job, likes films, is on a search. It's an existential search, he can't quite define it. But all the while also Percy wrote essays on philosophy and semiotics. His first collection was The Message in the Bottle. Another, Signposts In A Strange Land. Another came out just a couple of years ago, Symbols & Existence. But the last book he published while alive was a popular book on philosophy and psychology, Lost In the Cosmos, The Last Self Help Book (You Will Ever Need). The full subtitle (or first sentence, don't exactly recall) is a full page long. It's actually a very interesting and funny book. it sold pretty well. But Percy describes himself as an ex-suicide, I think it's in The Message in the Bottle. An ex-suicide has contemplated suicide but chosen not to. He says an ex-suicide gets up, takes a shower, gets dressed, fixes some breakfast, walks out on his porch, looks out into the day, and then goes to work, because he doesn't have to. When I read that sentence (paraphrased), I understood it immediately. The Outsider by Colin Wilson is also a favorite, still. I had learned about it, but didn't special order. Sometimes even if I had found out about a book, I would wait to chance upon it. Going back to Colorado to visit once, probably 1978, there it was in a bookstore, I think it was in Boulder, possibly Denver. It was a significant book. These days, for about 8 years, I read a Lee Child-Jack Reacher book about every 6-9 months. It's like 3 days blown to hell, but sometimes necessary. Books are my friends. Krishnamurti did read detective novels sometimes. I read all the Lutyen's biographies, I think that's in there somewhere. In the Moviegoer, Binx found the answer in the mundane. He did not spin spiritual fairy tales. He was appalled by the "everydayness" of reality and came to embrace it. Good for Binx, but that won't work for Momo. Binx was not boxed in by life. He was just profoundly unhappy in much the same situation as Bourdain's, and perhaps yours also. Why were you down in the dumps in Colorado?
I am not boxed in by life. I can be if I am not cautious and live like Bourdain. Living in this world is like playing chess with the Devil. Sooner or later, the Devil will close in. Have you ever played chess with a computer? The Devil is IBM's Big Blue. Every move you make eliminates avenues of escape when you get checked. Bourdain was checkmated.
No one can beat the Devil. He is the human mind.
Is yours excluded somehow? Seems pretty devilish and persistent. You know there's no difference between social conditioning and anti-social conditioning. Pucker factor induced are equal judging by your hand wringing. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 4, 2022 10:25:52 GMT -5
I'd say most of it is just an act to get attention, which he seems to seek and enjoy. It's basically just addiction to thinking. And the topic his mind got stuck on is suffering. Could as well get stuck on thriving instead or any other random topic. It probably wouldn't make much of a difference to him, because he seems rather content with his life. Nothing serious going on here, IMO. Mostly just noise, making conversation. That's all. It never goes deeper than mere mental commentary, and if it does, he quickly shuts it down. There's nothing genuine or sincere about it. Just compare Sree to other folks here in the past who were truly in a state of existential suffering or desperation, like let's say Midnight. And money can't buy happiness or peace of mind.. but it sure can take a few of the more unpleasant aspects of life out of play, which is fine but doesn't matter.. and focus on the body is a double edged sword perhaps, absolutely fine.. but also potentially the work of a narcissist the modern world is too much to handle these days, people overwhelmed, stressed out.. seeking momentary comfort by losing themselves to soothing distractions And what are you here for if it is not for conversation? This forum, as all spiritual forums are, is a talk shop. Reefs dismisses me as a talk addict. Why me? Are we all not talk addicts? I am not the worst addict here. I don't think you are that bad as well because your posts are not long-winded. My posts are not either. Reefs can talk up a storm and have much to say. This is an observation, not a criticism.
Talk is a soothing distraction. I don't come here to sooth or distract.
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 4, 2022 10:54:39 GMT -5
In the Moviegoer, Binx found the answer in the mundane. He did not spin spiritual fairy tales. He was appalled by the "everydayness" of reality and came to embrace it. Good for Binx, but that won't work for Momo. Binx was not boxed in by life. He was just profoundly unhappy in much the same situation as Bourdain's, and perhaps yours also. Why were you down in the dumps in Colorado?
I am not boxed in by life. I can be if I am not cautious and live like Bourdain. Living in this world is like playing chess with the Devil. Sooner or later, the Devil will close in. Have you ever played chess with a computer? The Devil is IBM's Big Blue. Every move you make eliminates avenues of escape when you get checked. Bourdain was checkmated.
No one can beat the Devil. He is the human mind.
Interestingly, I just watched a film about the Devil, played by Claude Rains, and a guy, Eddie, who was just murdered by his best gangster friend Smiley, and ended up in hell, Angel On My Shoulder, 1946, on TCM. Mephistopheles makes a deal with Eddie to go back to ground level and get revenge and kill Smiley. But Eddie has to do a favor for "Nick", the Devil, first. He gets the body of Judge Parker so as to destroy Parker's career, basically by just being Eddie. Quite an interesting film. Eddie is quite ignorant and illiterate and doesn't know he's made a deal with the Devil, who calls himself Mephistopheles, or Nick for short. But Eddie falls in love with Judge Parker's fiancee, who loves Judge Parker. God is never seen, or is even seen in action, but we know from the beginning that God is the Devil's adversary. So seemingly inadvertently, Eddie becomes a good man, and spoils all Nick's plans. Eddie eventually falls in love with Barbara, the fiancee. Near the end Eddie as Judge Parker realizes he has made a deal with the Devil, and backs out. In the end Nick looks up into the sky and recognizes he has been defeated. The only real hint of an actual battle is the title, which is almost a throwaway line from the film. Things just get worked out against Nick's plans. Basically, we learn that the Devil has very little power of his own, he only has lies and manipulation and deceit. Your analogy of the Devil as a supercomputer is way over the top. Yes, basically, the devil is the human conditioned mind, the conditioned mind. But we are not our conditioning. sree, you are never going to get anywhere here peddling your nihilism. Have you actually read The Moviegoer? Walker Percy was a existential philosopher who crafted novels to make philosophy palatable, and almost hidden. He succeeded pretty well with The Moviegoer. For anybody interested > this< is a pretty good synopsis. But it's not short. Because Binx's life works out does not mean he gave up the search. Why are you afraid to contact your parents after ten years? You got me! No, I had not actually read The Moviegoer. My mom read it, and we discussed it. She said that she was entranced by that book. Practically all the books that you have read had been read by her. I don't read and never had to. My mom read me to sleep every night from the time I was a baby and could listen to her voice. And when I was old enough to ask questions, the reading sessions evolved into conversations. From the time I was in high school till I went away to university, every evening with her was a "My Dinner with Andre". I was the dumbass. She was Andre
If you want to play "Andre" with me, you need to step up your game. We are our conditioning, and our conditioning is us. If this perception is wrong, how do you explain the separation between you and your conditioning? What are you?
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 4, 2022 11:24:41 GMT -5
In the Moviegoer, Binx found the answer in the mundane. He did not spin spiritual fairy tales. He was appalled by the "everydayness" of reality and came to embrace it. Good for Binx, but that won't work for Momo. Binx was not boxed in by life. He was just profoundly unhappy in much the same situation as Bourdain's, and perhaps yours also. Why were you down in the dumps in Colorado?
I am not boxed in by life. I can be if I am not cautious and live like Bourdain. Living in this world is like playing chess with the Devil. Sooner or later, the Devil will close in. Have you ever played chess with a computer? The Devil is IBM's Big Blue. Every move you make eliminates avenues of escape when you get checked. Bourdain was checkmated.
No one can beat the Devil. He is the human mind.
Seems pretty devilish and persistent. You know there's no difference between social conditioning and anti-social conditioning. Pucker factor induced are equal judging by your hand wringing. You are confused about the meaning of the meaning of the metaphor: Devil.
Krishnamurti said that thought is evil. He also said that thought is necessary. To me, a spiritual discussion is a co-operative process of self-examination.
I questioned the action of thought in rescuing deaf dogs as an expression of love. Is this action a necessity or evil?
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 4, 2022 12:11:50 GMT -5
And what are you here for if it is not for conversation? This forum, as all spiritual forums are, is a talk shop. Reefs dismisses me as a talk addict. Why me? Are we all not talk addicts? I am not the worst addict here. I don't think you are that bad as well because your posts are not long-winded. My posts are not either. Reefs can talk up a storm and have much to say. This is an observation, not a criticism.
Talk is a soothing distraction. I don't come here to sooth or distract.
you're asking the wrong dude I'm pretty quiet unless I have something on my mind what is suffering? do you feel content all of the time? No, I don't feel content all the time. Would you feel content being a person with no purpose other than taking care of your body: find shelter and food for it and wipe its ass everyday until it dies? You like doing this? Is this not suffering?
We all have things on our mind all the time. You are just being careful not to put your foot in your mouth.
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 4, 2022 12:30:06 GMT -5
Sree asks: “Isn't spirituality about the ending of desire?” Laffy replied: “No, and I can explain more if you want.” (The offer.)Sree: “Please explain what spirituality is about?” Laffy: “Didn't offer that .. .. re-read what I did offer ...” I have re-read the above three times or more. Just what did you offer? To explain what I meant by answering "no" to your question "Isn't spirituality about the ending of desire?". Please understand, that I'm not trying to be clever. Not playing a game with you. Just taking a little extra care to be sure you understand what I mean by what I'm writing. I didn't write a blank check to explain spirituality, just to explain by that particular opinion, that particular .. "no". Is this going to be a conversation between two zen monks on the nature of "no"?
I know you are in earnest and not playing a game with me. I am the one who has a problem. Reefs said that it is my "purely intellectual approach" that mucks things up.
|
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Oct 4, 2022 12:33:41 GMT -5
Is yours excluded somehow? Seems pretty devilish and persistent. You know there's no difference between social conditioning and anti-social conditioning. Pucker factor induced are equal judging by your hand wringing. You are confused about the meaning of the meaning of the metaphor: Devil.
Krishnamurti said that thought is evil. He also said that thought is necessary. To me, a spiritual discussion is a co-operative process of self-examination.
I questioned the action of thought in rescuing deaf dogs as an expression of love. Is this action a necessity or evil?
My life flows without such considerations. No thought needed to rescue her. One of my beautiful girls had passed away. Her sister was depressed. I found her a new sister. Btw, thought is not evil. But I'm not enjoying this exchange. I'll bow out. You can have the last word. Make it count. So far what you've offered is dull-witted. |
|
