all formulations are wrong

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Postby heavenly_demonic » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:40 pm

you are right Jakob...
I agree with you, and I wish I could express creatively all the things I feel and think...
because it's too much, sometimes I feel I'm gonna go crazy or explode...

this started happening when I had a 'kundalini awakening' or I think I had one... I don't know if I did or if such a thing exists really...
maybe it was just autosuggestion, but it was like...something inside of me (someone to be precise) awoke and 'guided' me...
and that someone was myself... just 'smarter'...(I felt the whole energy up the spine and clear mind deal.)
that happened when I was 18, and since then I've been into philosophy...and into science, and basically into not taking other's word, but experiencing and reasoning for myself.

As for the truth resisting definition, I get your point...
If I can define the will to power then, it's not an absolute...
If I can define the fact that there is 'imagination going on with no identity', then that's not the truth either .
what would your comment on this be Sauwelios? I'd really like to read it.
:D :P
master of puppets I'm pulling your striiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiingssss \m/
User avatar
heavenly_demonic
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:24 am
Location: Peru

Re: all formulations are wrong

Postby heavenly_demonic » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:44 pm

Jakob wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:I think saying nothing is a pretty "Zen" thing. Is not Zen itself this thought beyond language? This direct experience of the world? Which is another way of saying "Being"?

Both Zen and Kabbalah have their supreme state of awareness and origin in nothingness. But is describing nothingness the same as saying nothing?



what's the deal with nothingness?
It's a very powerful concept, from which you can operate and 'gain power'... I know...
but so what... is it 'the truth'?

Let's say we have a system...which consists of:

Thingness (separateness).(which have a will to power)
no-thingness or wholeness(which may have a will to power of it's own)
nothingness or non-existence(which supposedly couldn't have a will to power because it isn't, but who knows! maybe it's will is not to be!)

so...this is just our intuitive reasoning system to which it all boils down...
can we get beyond that?...I think we can't, but that doesn't exclude a 'truth' beyond that system of intuitive basic logic.
which is incomprehensible to us of course...
cause our truth is closed like the ourboros. (whatever the truth is...consciousness, will to power, information...)

If I'm being annoying, stupid or stubborn just tell me....seriously.
:oops:
Last edited by heavenly_demonic on Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
master of puppets I'm pulling your striiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiingssss \m/
User avatar
heavenly_demonic
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:24 am
Location: Peru

Postby heavenly_demonic » Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:02 pm

Jakob wrote:I guess the best way to find out the point of this thread would be to read it - but as I suppose you're not in the mood for that, I'll give a short summary:

The point is that all points are beside the point, and that the real point, not being a point but the point of the point, is the point of there not being a point.
(Sauwelios; could you please provide that Heideggerdeggerdegger quote for the lady?)


I'm sorry :( I just realized how interesting this thread is...I need to learn to read and be patient.

Heideggerdeggerdegger! LOL! :o
master of puppets I'm pulling your striiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiingssss \m/
User avatar
heavenly_demonic
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:24 am
Location: Peru

Re: all formulations are wrong

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:33 pm

Jakob wrote:
heavenly_demonic wrote:
Jakob wrote:I believe I do, She is the object of the majortiy of meditation of occultism; She's that which brings out and feeds the inner child. Jesus said 'No one shall come through the Father except through the Mother.'
In Yoga, she is the Kundalini, in gnosticism the Holy Ghost. In poets she is the Muse and in philosophers she is Sophia. It is she who possesses the shaman.



I understand what you mean... it feels so true to 'my heart' , inner voice or whatever...

I already felt this, but thought it was just an idea of mine, so when I read it I was speechless...

Too bad Marian aparitions and the catholic church use her immage to tell you to obey something outside yourself with blind faith and not to listen to your inner 'virgin mary'....soul, or whatever you want to call this energy...
not energy...but this...purpose/guide....
sorry if you don't get it, it's hard to define.


She resists definition. Defining her curbs her freedom to nourish us. She's beyond the intellect - as is all truth.

Ierrellus wrote:h.d.,
I know what you mean. I've been able to go on "trips" without drugs, to feel exhuberant in sunsets, sunrises and beautiful scenery, to create from a joy of living that needed no mystic references.


Of course. So have I. I'm not making the claim that kabbalah is the only way to feel exuberance at the experience of the world - this exuberance is something all humans can feel - it is our birthright.
Probably I was misleading so far. Kabbalah is a means to power. It's use is not to attain personal enlightenment, but to manifest this enlightenment, which is experience of God, in the world to be experienced by others. The joy that active manifestation of God brings is far superior to the joy of simply experiencing God.

I see the will to power as Gods will to manifest.

This all sounds questionably transcendentalist to me. Is not God inseparable from the world? Which means that all experience is experience of God?

"She's beyond the intellect - as is all truth."

This sounds especially Kantian.

"Śaivism is a form of nondual spiritual practice and philosophy originating in India. Śaivites believe that the entire creation is both an expression of conscious divinity and is non-different from that divinity which they call "Śiva". Because he is simultaneously the created and the creator, Śiva is both immanent and transcendent. This concept contrasts with many Semitic religious traditions in which God is seen as fundamentally different from the creation and transcendent, or "higher" than the creation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaivism

Do you see the will to power as the will of the transcendent God to become immanent?

"In Christianity, the transcendent, almighty and holy God, who cannot be approached or seen, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanent

This would agree with your repeated identification of the Son of the Trinity with Creation.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby heavenly_demonic » Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:02 pm

I tend to identify 'Jesus' with all creation... I didn't really read it anywhere, it just occurred to me...

I'm not really defined when it comes to this thread... I agree with both sauwelios and jakob and I know they are representing opposite sides of an argument.

I agree with Sauwelios when it comes to the will to power, relativism and Nietzsche.
and I agree with Jakob about a lot of thing's he's said that ring true to my intuition.

I have one question for you Sauwelios...if 'truth is indefinible' sounds transcendental to you...what do you not like about a transcendental argument?

I thought you agreed on the notion that we can never know truth with certainty...
master of puppets I'm pulling your striiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiingssss \m/
User avatar
heavenly_demonic
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:24 am
Location: Peru

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:10 pm

heavenly_demonic wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
We can model the world, which is the sum of all our impressions, by representing these impressions, by themselves or in bundles, by signals. If we model it by these impressions themselves, if we do not encode the information, if our impressions represent themselves, our model is the world. "Thought beyond language", therefore, is simply another way of saying "direct experience of the world". And as our direct experience is the world, it is simply another way of saying nothing.


Do you think we can experience the world directly?

if there are only impressions being experienced, with no idendity..that's the identity..the impressions themselves.

I mean, there exists one identity, that of the 'imagining process'...
and as I can't prove anyone's existence beyond mine, nor anyone else's imagining and thought processes... I might as well assume that imaginning and those impressions are me, and noone else... I mean, my identity, so therefore I guess I have an identity...
but I may have got your point wrong... if I'm missing something please explain. thank u! :P :o

You got it pretty well. Really. But you are the sum of these impressions - this "world" -; not something behind it. That which is behind it is the imagining Being, which you might call your unconscious Self.

There is consciousness, and this consciousness demands a subject and a content. But these may be illusory. - But who or what is conscious? - Absurd question, as the essence itself is consciousness. There is no subject which is conscious; rather, the "subject" is itself part of consciousness, one with the "content" of consciousness.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: all formulations are wrong

Postby Jakob » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:29 pm

Sauwelios wrote:This all sounds questionably transcendentalist to me. Is not God inseparable from the world? Which means that all experience is experience of God?

Yes, but there are gradations of experience. Manifestation, creation of (my) good, imposing it on the world, is my deepest experience.

"She's beyond the intellect - as is all truth."

This sounds especially Kantian.

It reminded me of my lust for truth idea as I wrote it - and of course of Crowleys Little Essays. Put simply, truth is in the higest degree of experience. This is entirely subjective, and therefore impossible to rationalize, untouchable to the intellect. Only poetic art can represent it, because it invokes experience in the observer.

"?aivism is a form of nondual spiritual practice and philosophy originating in India. ?aivites believe that the entire creation is both an expression of conscious divinity and is non-different from that divinity which they call "?iva". Because he is simultaneously the created and the creator, ?iva is both immanent and transcendent. This concept contrasts with many Semitic religious traditions in which God is seen as fundamentally different from the creation and transcendent, or "higher" than the creation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaivism

Human experience and creation can amount to God; the Olympian Gods,
Any God, actually, the Hebrew God is also a magnificent creation.
The only divinity that I experience as 'immanent' - as 'allready there', is the Goddess. I can't explain that.

Do you see the will to power as the will of the transcendent God to become immanent?

I can only see it as my own will. I can relate my will very well to the process described by the tree of life, which is the root of my use of the word God. The world becomes God when my will to power succeeds in bringing my imagination into manifestation. It is all subjective. I don't have an opinion as to what God is outside of what I know.
"In Christianity, the transcendent, almighty and holy God, who cannot be approached or seen, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanent

This would agree with your repeated identification of the Son of the Trinity with Creation.

Not really, the creator can be approached and seen, I can't see or approach anything but the creator - and Jesus doesn't play any part in the trinity as I understand it - well, a very small part - he is one of the trillions of creatures that live in the creation - and he is also part of 'the' creator and of the process of creation, which is what I called the holy spirit.
Understand this is simply the way I see the trinity as a concept put forth by other people - I don't really have any use for it in my conception of the world.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:42 pm

heavenly_demonic wrote:I tend to identify 'Jesus' with all creation... I didn't really read it anywhere, it just occurred to me...

I'm not really defined when it comes to this thread... I agree with both sauwelios and jakob and I know they are representing opposite sides of an argument.

I agree with Sauwelios when it comes to the will to power, relativism and Nietzsche.
and I agree with Jakob about a lot of thing's he's said that ring true to my intuition.

I have one question for you Sauwelios...if 'truth is indefinible' sounds transcendental to you...what do you not like about a transcendental argument?

I thought you agreed on the notion that we can never know truth with certainty...

I had missed this post.

Again, you have understood me well, and my answer to your question is as follows: it is not certain for me that there is a truth "out there". So not only do I think that we can never know what the truth is with certainty, but I even think that we can never know whether there is a truth - whether a truth exists... This is what makes me more, or less, than a philosopher: a nihilist scientist.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby heavenly_demonic » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:13 am

I agree with you 'absolutely'! :P haha...
about truth probably just not 'existing'. :o :P
master of puppets I'm pulling your striiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiingssss \m/
User avatar
heavenly_demonic
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:24 am
Location: Peru

Postby Jakob » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:48 pm

It is kind of obvious that there is no 'the Truth' in the objective sense. Truth is always about something, and it is always subjective. I don't think you have to be a nihilist or a scientist to get there. My sister knows this. My 12 year old cousin does. Don't get all posh about this.
Aleister Crowley wrote:What is Truth? It is absurd to attempt to define it, for when we say that S is P, rather than S is Q or S is R, we assume that we already know the meaning of Truth. This is really why all the discussions as to whether Truth depends on external correspondence, internal coherence, or what not, neither produce conviction, nor withstand analysis.

What makes you less than a philosopher is that (if that is the case) you can't see your own truth.
Initiation is, by etymology, the journeying inwards; it is the Voyage of Discovery (oh Wonder-World!) of one's own Soul. And this is Truth that stands upon the prow, eternally alert; this is Truth that sits with one strong hand gripping the helm! (....)
Then shall ye understand what is Truth, for ye shall understand your Selves, and YE ARE TRUTH!

This realization does not make a philosopher, though - This is what makes a man.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Comments

Postby Ierrellus » Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:33 pm

Yes, all religions would be vastly improved by a wedding of Diana and Jove, of the male and female principles. What we understand best is our relationships with other people and with things. Religions or philosophies that deny such relationships have historically caused culture wars. The paternal Abrahamic religions vs the maternal "witchcraft and occult" gave us the Inquisition. Kant's trancendental nonsence has given us the excuse to look away from what we are.

What is truth? If it is not something beyond individual well-being, it is a lie, simply from its inability to incorporate the connectivity of life and matter necessary for our survival.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12544
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: all formulations are wrong

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:47 pm

Jakob wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:This all sounds questionably transcendentalist to me. Is not God inseparable from the world? Which means that all experience is experience of God?

Yes, but there are gradations of experience. Manifestation, creation of (my) good, imposing it on the world, is my deepest experience.

"She's beyond the intellect - as is all truth."

This sounds especially Kantian.

It reminded me of my lust for truth idea as I wrote it - and of course of Crowleys Little Essays. Put simply, truth is in the higest degree of experience. This is entirely subjective, and therefore impossible to rationalize, untouchable to the intellect. Only poetic art can represent it, because it invokes experience in the observer.

"?aivism is a form of nondual spiritual practice and philosophy originating in India. ?aivites believe that the entire creation is both an expression of conscious divinity and is non-different from that divinity which they call "?iva". Because he is simultaneously the created and the creator, ?iva is both immanent and transcendent. This concept contrasts with many Semitic religious traditions in which God is seen as fundamentally different from the creation and transcendent, or "higher" than the creation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaivism

Human experience and creation can amount to God; the Olympian Gods,
Any God, actually, the Hebrew God is also a magnificent creation.
The only divinity that I experience as 'immanent' - as 'allready there', is the Goddess. I can't explain that.

Do you see the will to power as the will of the transcendent God to become immanent?

I can only see it as my own will. I can relate my will very well to the process described by the tree of life, which is the root of my use of the word God. The world becomes God when my will to power succeeds in bringing my imagination into manifestation. It is all subjective. I don't have an opinion as to what God is outside of what I know.
"In Christianity, the transcendent, almighty and holy God, who cannot be approached or seen, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanent

This would agree with your repeated identification of the Son of the Trinity with Creation.

Not really, the creator can be approached and seen, I can't see or approach anything but the creator - and Jesus doesn't play any part in the trinity as I understand it - well, a very small part - he is one of the trillions of creatures that live in the creation - and he is also part of 'the' creator and of the process of creation, which is what I called the holy spirit.
Understand this is simply the way I see the trinity as a concept put forth by other people - I don't really have any use for it in my conception of the world.

Ok, I am reassured.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:49 pm

Jakob wrote:It is kind of obvious that there is no 'the Truth' in the objective sense. Truth is always about something, and it is always subjective. I don't think you have to be a nihilist or a scientist to get there. My sister knows this. My 12 year old cousin does. Don't get all posh about this.
Aleister Crowley wrote:What is Truth? It is absurd to attempt to define it, for when we say that S is P, rather than S is Q or S is R, we assume that we already know the meaning of Truth. This is really why all the discussions as to whether Truth depends on external correspondence, internal coherence, or what not, neither produce conviction, nor withstand analysis.

What makes you less than a philosopher is that (if that is the case) you can't see your own truth.
Initiation is, by etymology, the journeying inwards; it is the Voyage of Discovery (oh Wonder-World!) of one's own Soul. And this is Truth that stands upon the prow, eternally alert; this is Truth that sits with one strong hand gripping the helm! (....)
Then shall ye understand what is Truth, for ye shall understand your Selves, and YE ARE TRUTH!

This realization does not make a philosopher, though - This is what makes a man.

And is this Self not the imagining Being?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:59 pm

heavenly_demonic wrote:I'm not really defined when it comes to this thread... I agree with both sauwelios and jakob and I know they are representing opposite sides of an argument.

I agree with Sauwelios when it comes to the will to power, relativism and Nietzsche.
and I agree with Jakob about a lot of thing's he's said that ring true to my intuition.

Well, this is most fitting:

"One must realise that war is shared [i.e., that it creates a bond] and conflict is justice, and that all things come to pass in accordance with conflict."
[Heraclitus.]

"The real community of man, in the midst of all the self-contradictory simulacra of community, is the community of those who seek the truth, of the potential knowers, that is, in principle, of all men to the extent that they desire to know. But in fact this includes only a few, true friends, as Plato was to Aristotle at the very moment they were disagreeing about the nature of the good. Their common concern for the good linked them; their disagreement about it proved that they needed one another to understand it. They were absolutely one soul as they looked at the problem. This, according to Plato, is the only real friendship, the only real common good. It is here that the contact people so desperately seek is to be found. The other kinds of relatedness are only imperfect reflections of this one trying to be self-subsisting, gaining their only justification from their ultimate relation to this one. This is the meaning of the riddle of the improbable philosopher-kings. They have a true community that is exemplary for all other communities."
[Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, Conclusion.]
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Jakob » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:45 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Jakob wrote:It is kind of obvious that there is no 'the Truth' in the objective sense. Truth is always about something, and it is always subjective. I don't think you have to be a nihilist or a scientist to get there. My sister knows this. My 12 year old cousin does. Don't get all posh about this.
Aleister Crowley wrote:What is Truth? It is absurd to attempt to define it, for when we say that S is P, rather than S is Q or S is R, we assume that we already know the meaning of Truth. This is really why all the discussions as to whether Truth depends on external correspondence, internal coherence, or what not, neither produce conviction, nor withstand analysis.

What makes you less than a philosopher is that (if that is the case) you can't see your own truth.
Initiation is, by etymology, the journeying inwards; it is the Voyage of Discovery (oh Wonder-World!) of one's own Soul. And this is Truth that stands upon the prow, eternally alert; this is Truth that sits with one strong hand gripping the helm! (....)
Then shall ye understand what is Truth, for ye shall understand your Selves, and YE ARE TRUTH!

This realization does not make a philosopher, though - This is what makes a man.

And is this Self not the imagining Being?

Yes. Now I think you understand the idea behind the phrase 'lust for truth,' wrong as it may be as a formulation. Lust for more of itself - desire for more imagining, for more truth.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Navigator » Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:12 pm

Jakob wrote:
Navigator wrote: 8)


Cool! Allright then.

Of the 22, what's your most effective path for deconstructing reason?


I'm not sure what you mean by "deconstructing reason." Could you explain this please?
Reality is both an onion and a spiderweb.
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:46 pm

Postby Jakob » Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:27 pm

Navigator wrote:
Jakob wrote:
Navigator wrote: 8)


Cool! Allright then.

Of the 22, what's your most effective path for deconstructing reason?


I'm not sure what you mean by "deconstructing reason." Could you explain this please?


I see reason as a way of thinking. To deconstruct that one needs another way of thinking. Reason is most effectively used by language. Hence, thought beyond language.
Reason, logic, starts at Hod. Netzach is irrational, or cannot be understood rationally. For me the tower, the path between Hod and Netzach, is the first path where logic is deconstructed; one sees how reason comes into being under certain conditions. (which I have attempted to describe in the listing of the sephirot) Understanding the construction of reason - understanding that it is a construct - is to deconstruct it.
Does this make any sense to you at all? Just curious.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby heavenly_demonic » Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:42 pm

Jakob wrote:It is kind of obvious that there is no 'the Truth' in the objective sense. Truth is always about something, and it is always subjective. I don't think you have to be a nihilist or a scientist to get there. My sister knows this. My 12 year old cousin does. Don't get all posh about this.


do they really? that's cool, where did they 'learn' that, in school?, did u teach them?... :o

or did they come up with that by themselves after suffering years of dissapointment with how hard life can be....haha. :wink:
master of puppets I'm pulling your striiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiingssss \m/
User avatar
heavenly_demonic
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:24 am
Location: Peru

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:46 pm

heavenly_demonic wrote:
Jakob wrote:It is kind of obvious that there is no 'the Truth' in the objective sense. Truth is always about something, and it is always subjective. I don't think you have to be a nihilist or a scientist to get there. My sister knows this. My 12 year old cousin does. Don't get all posh about this.


do they really? that's cool, where did they 'learn' that, in school?, did u teach them?... :o

or did they come up with that by themselves after suffering years of dissapointment with how hard life can be....haha. :wink:


I guess they just didn't buy the truth-fairytale in the first place. And nobody insisted that they should.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby heavenly_demonic » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:14 pm

Hi Jakob!
would you mind posting the link about the kaabalah again please?.

I don't remember where it is, and I want to start learning the 'real' system ...
not the stuff that comes up if you do a search in google (mostly new agey britney/madonna stuff).

I have 1 question though... not that I'm scared or anything...(well maybe a little :P )
I read somewhere once that you can only start learning the system when yo are 40 or older... :o huh?
master of puppets I'm pulling your striiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiingssss \m/
User avatar
heavenly_demonic
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:24 am
Location: Peru

Postby Jakob » Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:52 pm

heavenly_demonic wrote:Hi Jakob!
would you mind posting the link about the kaabalah again please?.

I don't remember where it is, and I want to start learning the 'real' system ...
not the stuff that comes up if you do a search in google (mostly new agey britney/madonna stuff).

I have 1 question though... not that I'm scared or anything...(well maybe a little :P )
I read somewhere once that you can only start learning the system when yo are 40 or older... :o huh?


Oh yeah, that's probably true.
"The thing about wisdom is not becoming wise too soon"
Ad kabbalah is not even wise. It's a plaything for old bored intellectuals. Leave it is for the weary....
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Jakob » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:35 am

"Unnatural asceticism (involvement in special-purpose exercises) is typically the consequence of plebeian profanation and wanting to run before one can walk. It is the mendacious misappropriation of those practices and customs which of necessity may belong only to a higher kind of man.

Take for example breathing exercises - today there seems to be ten thousand different widely published ways to practice them, but all of these are upon serious examination revealed to be misguided and harmful prescriptions, a patchwork of homeless shreds.

Natural Asceticism, understood as the strictly informed practice of things that belong to one's station on the great "Ladder of Becoming", can often be distinguished by its virginal character, it is "secretive", plain-looking and does not advertise itself." -Weary Locomotive
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby heavenly_demonic » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:02 pm

:D
could you post the link, please?
or is that ''only after you are 40'' thing true?. :o
master of puppets I'm pulling your striiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiingssss \m/
User avatar
heavenly_demonic
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:24 am
Location: Peru

Postby Jakob » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:51 pm

heavenly_demonic wrote::D
could you post the link, please?
or is that ''only after you are 40'' thing true?. :o

I think I've given you more than enough information.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: all formulations are wrong

Postby Jakob » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:12 am

Looking back, the way to deconstruct reason is Tipharet, which requires contradiction.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users