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.
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.
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! 
let’s say the Qabbalah is a language beyond thought…
what is the thought beyond the language beyond thought? (what is the thoought or intent beyond the language of the Qabbalah).
and in turn, what is the reality/language/thought/being-non-being/whatever/uncomprehensible beyond that?..
and in turn, what’s beyond that? and blah blah blah…
She resists definition. Defining her curbs her freedom to nourish us. She’s beyond the intellect - as is all truth.
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.
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.
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.
I’m sorry 
I just realized how interesting this thread is…I need to learn to read and be patient.
Heideggerdeggerdegger! LOL!
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.
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…
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.
Yes, but there are gradations of experience. Manifestation, creation of (my) good, imposing it on the world, is my deepest experience.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you ‘absolutely’! haha…
about truth probably just not ‘existing’.
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.
What makes you less than a philosopher is that (if that is the case) you can’t see your own truth.
This realization does not make a philosopher, though - This is what makes a man.
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.
Ok, I am reassured.
And is this Self not the imagining Being?
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.]
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.