|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 6, 2014 13:16:39 GMT -5
I don't understand your reasoning as to how the seeker hasn't the slightest clue what he's actually after. Surely suffering is by definition the antithesis of what's desirable, and surely what's desirable significantly impacts a person's choices, leading for example to desire for freedom from suffering. If you're suggesting the hedonistic imperative is one of the primary things that would cause a person to avoid the annihilation of their ego, I would suggest just the opposite. An idiot remains in hell because they can't see an alternative, but to the extent an alternative comes into view then it becomes pursued. There's a difference between inability to discern anything worth pursuing, uncertainty as to whether or not a thing is worth pursuing, and ignorance as to how something worth pursuing can be successfully pursued and attained. As Reefs said, what he's actually after is his own annihilation. First of all, if you have a hypothesis that the seeker never has a clue what he's actually after, and you also have a hypothesis that the seeker is actually after his own annihilation, these two hypotheses could both be valid, but obviously just saying these words does nothing in itself to prove their validity, therefore since we're on a discussion forum involving the written word I was saying that I didn't comprehend the reasoning Reefs had previously taken the time to elaborated about it. Secondl of all, I've been deliberately after my own annihilation for many years, and I've known that I was. The seeker is a figment of the mind. The entire search is a mind game. Truth is beyond mind/intellect. In this case if I could presume to offer you a piece of advice, I would recommend a lobotomy. ( disclaimer: Transcix cannot be held liable for any brain damage that may occur.) The difference between saying that the mind cannot fully grasp everything and that the mind cannot grasp anything at all.. well yikes.. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 4, 2014 20:20:51 GMT -5
The seeker, by definition, has not the slightest clue what he's actually after. If he would, he would stop the search immediately. Not because that's what all the sages say or the smart thing to do, but because what he's actually after is his own annihilation and as long as he can avoid that, he'll avoid exactly that from happening. I don't understand your reasoning as to how the seeker hasn't the slightest clue what he's actually after. Surely suffering is by definition the antithesis of what's desirable, and surely what's desirable significantly impacts a person's choices, leading for example to desire for freedom from suffering. If you're suggesting the hedonistic imperative is one of the primary things that would cause a person to avoid the annihilation of their ego, I would suggest just the opposite. An idiot remains in hell because they can't see an alternative, but to the extent an alternative comes into view then it becomes pursued. There's a difference between inability to discern anything worth pursuing, uncertainty as to whether or not a thing is worth pursuing, and ignorance as to how something worth pursuing can be successfully pursued and attained. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 4, 2014 2:22:02 GMT -5
If there is a hypothesis that the spiritual search is the last level of delusion then the accuracy of the hypothesis cannot be determined, because if the question had to be asked then it's surely the wrong question to ask at the present juncture..
Signs indicating spiritual attainment can point the way towards future additional attainment to some extent.. but mostly the recognition of such signs is far less the mechanism by which spiritual attainment proceeds, far more merely a natural bi-product..
After all it's not as if a spiritual practitioner has no idea of their bearings, no idea of how much or how little they've attained, and merely wait for some sign to reveal their absolute location and trajectory.. rather any spiritual practitioner at least somewhat advanced should have a fairly accurate idea of where they stand, and any evidence they encounter pertaining to where they stand is not accepted in blind faith on a blank canvas but through the prism of the current paradigm..
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 2, 2014 20:44:48 GMT -5
These
random
words
are such
a great
poem
I must
be
a genius
or an artsy
ironic
hipster
but my name
is not Warhol
so I am
poor and
living on
welfare
because
other people
can't recognize
how great
my art is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 1, 2014 14:44:15 GMT -5
Of course you can write a poem, it just may not be very good.
To say that "you can't write a poem" is false.
Thinking about why you "can't write a poem" is a waste of time.
If writing poetry is a big passion of yours, then you will practice your poetry writing and it will improve over time.
If writing poetry isn't too big a passion of yours then you won't practice it very much and probably won't improve, but it won't be a big problem for you anyways since it's not a big passion.
Perhaps you will never be a master poet, but that's OK because nobody can be pulled in every single direction simultaneously, we can't be superman specializing in everything, so we must select specific areas in which to specialize.
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Nov 14, 2014 23:12:59 GMT -5
My post was probably misunderstood, because it was not referring to any kind of suffering. A sage accepts with equanimity whatever is happening whether it coincides with thoughts or not. I was only pointing out the humor involved in seeing how life sometimes dramatically and surprisingly shows us that a particular train of thoughts is erroneous. In my case, I had been planning all day to get a charger for my cellphone, but when I was actually driving in the direction of a store to get one, it suddenly became obvious that it wasn't going to happen. I wasn't dismayed; I simply found it to be quite funny, and it gave me a pretty good laugh. "A sage accepts with equanimity whatever is happening whether it coincides with thoughts or not." A sage recognizes that thought is part of 'whatever is happening', not something that to an extent coincides with it. "I was only pointing out the humor involved in seeing how life sometimes dramatically and surprisingly shows us that a particular train of thoughts is erroneous." A 'particular' train of thought? Are you saving the humor about all your other trains of thought for a rainy day? "In my case, I had been planning all day to get a charger for my cellphone, but when I was actually driving in the direction of a store to get one, it suddenly became obvious that it wasn't going to happen." How does it take a whole day to plan to pick up a cell phone charger after work? "I wasn't dismayed; I simply found it to be quite funny, and it gave me a pretty good laugh." What did you learn from it? |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 22:20:28 GMT -5
However some conclusions must be hard in order to question other conclusions, that is, in order to have a frame of reference for comparison and contrast.
I certainly wear my heart on my sleeve about this sort of thing (if you haven't already figured it out).
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 21:49:55 GMT -5
I love limits more than anyone else that I know.. I can construct so many things with the bricks of limits.. absolutely everything is limited.. this is a core concept of my paradigm.. limit - placeholder - brick.. the only way to proceed is via graduated incrementation.. if a shortcut doesn't cut any corners then it's a legitimately less long route.. but you have to find the envelope before you can push it!..
I'm immortal, that is I'll liberate myself from the cycle of reincarnation when I die and live on in the other universe, but that doesn't mean I'm traveling back in time or everywhere in time at once, I'm not a crazy time traveler!.. A process can be unlimited in a specifically defined way, such as the duration of my existence, but that doesn't mean my being comes apart at the seams and bounces off the map into sublime dissolution!.. nor does it mean that immortality is a silver bullet, as if it's a guarantee or something fixed in contradiction to my free will.. so my eternal life is most limited indeed.. also I'm only a certain age, I haven't always existed, so that's another limit, in the past..
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 21:39:59 GMT -5
I thought you people were all high on humility and virtue! Glad to be mistaken!.. Somewhat shocking..
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 21:29:06 GMT -5
The premise is based on an arbitrary level of abstraction applied to the concept of the atom. The closer the observation of them, the more complex an idea they embody. A chair seems simple, until you look closer and see that it's composed of atoms. This has already been said. So I repeat, is the essence/whole of existence simple or complex? Perhaps existence simply is. In that case, wherefrom comes its elegance? I should say that it comes from you, from your perspective. But what I find elegant and what you find elegant may be two different things. To speak of elegance one must do so in a way that doesn't impose delineation of all elegance across the perspective of all people. The same with virtue. I find that my journey through reality is simple, but I'm not traversing all of reality all at once. I take what I can handle. I suppose my journey is elegant, although elegance wouldn't be the first adjective that I'd use to describe it. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 14:35:10 GMT -5
An atom is extremely simple. But look how so many atoms form to create a physical chair! Are atoms simple or complex? Are they simple in that individually they're useless, or complex in that collectively they're invaluable?
I should say that the whole of existence is complex, and efficient, but not simple.
However if a person masters being alive, then for them their existence is simple, unencumbered by suffering! For the master, simple isn't boring, though it's not invigorating either--it's not an end but a means.
If an answer produces further questions then it can be compelling to chase those questions, but an answer can also allow for simplification, that is, arrangement, coordination and consolidation.
I should say that a homogeneous blob is simple and that the whole of reality we live in is complex.
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 14:24:30 GMT -5
So there's no such thing as humility, no such thing as pride, no such thing as arrogance, no such thing as insecurity, no such thing as.. hold on.. I *am* proud.. this isn't bad.. just a different interpretation of proudness.. wow this thread has shown me how difficult it is to speak of attributes of character, even in jest.. it reinforces that it's inefficient to say that it's good to be proud, or it's good to be virtuous, or it's good to be etc, rather it's more efficient to say consider how the choice between the two can be realized.. back to the deconconstructivism I was and am so fond of..
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 12:13:23 GMT -5
Is it better to do the humbling or to have the humbling done to you? Feel free to interpret the word 'better', and to question the underlying premises of the inquiry. The humble business is for moralists. Just be yourself. Let it rip! RIP is the sound of fabric tearing. Unfortunately tearing has a double meaning, either crying or the action of being torn.. I'm still trying to work out the linguistic kinks of that expression.. I don't want any emo people to look at my phrase and start getting all teary eyed.. Iow, humility is an attitude - NOT a virtue - in my book, anyway.  I'm going to have to start a thread about what the hell is this 'virtue' people are talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 12:09:43 GMT -5
In my aforementioned example I offered logical proof positive that arrogance is in error. Some would surely argue that arrogance can still exist, in this error form, among a vast many people. I feel we're conflating the process of living with the interpretation of concepts, categories and labels. Nah, you just think yer messin' with your readers with the cleverness of contextual ambiguity but that is very old hat 'round here son.  Obviously humility, in terms of the question of a humble individual, is a double bind, but you can't disclaim that this is what you originally meant given the structure of the presentation -- the reference to such an individual is tattooed into the title question. Hmmmm, in fact I was speaking about humility seriously (not too seriously, just seriously). The logical proof that I elaborated earlier is an extremely important part of my paradigm, I certainly wasn't joking about that at all. I don't think humility is a double bind, I think you can have your cake and eat it too, and also not even get fat! Yes I think a person can get better, or less worse, whichever you prefer, and they can also get worse, or less better, or whatever, but I do view a spectrum, just that every person's spectrum is subjective, so I'll state mine subjectively, as a possible avenue that works for immortality. If you want to be ignorant and die, I'm not going to stop you! PS - That 'you' was a general 'you' of course, not specifically you laughter.. I hope you pick up on that sort of thing in my posts, I wasn't talking about you personally dying. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 12:04:53 GMT -5
I'd like to talk more with you but I'm not sure on what subject or how exactly. Perhaps by e-mail.
The "limiting nature of rationality and reason"? Surely you don't want to be limitless, to come apart at the seams??
|
|
