Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cargést

1 [2] 3 ... 139
Interzone / Re: Thinking?
« on: March 22, 2013, 10:49:00 AM »
Cargést, how do you know that what you call "infinity" exists?

We wouldn't be having this discussion if it didn't; there can't be anything without awareness ("to be is to be perceived" also implies "to be perceived is to be").

How can it "be proven that the infinite can - indeed, does - rest apart from the finite, by examining the qualities of these kinds of existence"? You admit the 'infinite' is indistinguishable, ineffable. How do you know it's truly infinite in scope rather than simply really, really vast? Proving that something is different than everything else in every imaginable way is one thing, but concluding that it must be 'infinity' rather than something very, very different and as yet unknown is another thing entirely. If you know of something through sheer experience of it, if you know that it is there and that it is much different than anything else you've ever encountered, I can accept that. But to specifically qualify it as infinite rather than finite, how can you 'feel' that?

I'm not qualifying it in the slightest, I am simply using a word which is commonly employed to point towards what I'm attempting to communicate - the emphasis in my exegesis is on the "attributeless" nature of this so-called "infinite".  As it is, "infinite" is a relatively apt word, as it is certainly such that not only do all finite things appear in it, but even the infinite measures of finite things (time, space, etc.) appear in it.

You yourself must be aware of that which is different from anything you encounter - have you ever encountered the encounterer?

Interzone / Re: Thinking?
« on: March 21, 2013, 08:33:03 AM »
Transcix, I'm using "real" in the Parmenidean sense, such that, if it isn't the infinite whence the finite comes - if it isn't you - it isn't real.  It's perfectly apt to replace all labels with "illusion" - at least then you know you're looking at one, and not many!  At that, if it's called an illusion, it is most certainly implied that it exists ("to be is to be perceived"), and yet is not real (just as my notion of Donkey Kong exists, though the character is not real).

It can be proven that the infinite can - indeed, does - rest apart from the finite, by examining the qualities of these kinds of existence.  The finite is finite not only in form, but also temporally: it is born, it grows, it decays, it dies.  Furthermore, one might develop words with which to describe the finite, and one might entertain notions of the finite.  It is the qualities, the attributes, of the finite which allow us to label certain parts as distinct from others in the first place.  One cannot do this with the infinite: though we point to it with that word, it is actually colourless, tasteless, formless, soundless, and so on.  Attributeless, it is non-distinct, and indistinguishable.  There is no quality to hold and say "yes, this is it" - the holder cannot hold itself.  However, while one could not read words if there were no page, one could see the page without words on it.

Advaita Vedanta is specifically geared towards this kind of "self-discovery".  The method is not to provide you with an experience, or an ideal, or any such thing that your mind might grab and hold onto in order to proclaim its own advancement.  The method is to allow the infinite to express through the finite its own self-recognition in that manifestation.  This is done through consistently dropping all things - "neti, neti", "not this, not that" - until one is no longer identified with any phenomenon.  Not the body, not the mind, not the feelings, nor the world, nor anything that arises and ceases.  What is left?  Only the one who watches all of this, eternally untouched by what is occurring within itself.  "The Kingdom of God comes with no signs to be perceived": this is how illusion and reality can be distinguished between, for the one is distinguishable, the other not.  When all phenomena cease - say, when the body is dead, and no sensation remains - still there is the awareness of that lack of phenomena.  In that timeless time, it is only I, alone, and no illusion.  Clearly I exist apart from any phenomenon.

Interzone / Re: Thinking?
« on: March 20, 2013, 10:40:07 AM »
Bird flies into window and knocks itself out.  Regains consciousness.  Did it ever knock itself out?

Human stubs toe on rock.  Pain subsides.  Was there ever any stubbing?  Was there even a toe, or a rock?

Universe expands.  Universe contracts.  I am.

Interzone / Re: Thinking?
« on: March 20, 2013, 05:25:47 AM »
It seems to me that "reality" becomes a sticky term when juxtaposed with "things": any thing, in arising and ceasing, has no existence of its own, is not real on its own; it may only seem to be real to the awareness, perhaps through a perspective (e.g. a person).  Ultimately, it is not unless "I am", as one might say.  All of this "thingness", these thoughts, sensations, these objects of perception, even these apparent "perceivers", can be discarded as illusory, though I myself am prone to playing the game if it interests me (as we ought?).  What is left to reality, then?  I should think only that which is actually fundamental, that which by itself (independently) can be said to be real: without quality, without attribute; nothing can be said of it, but that it is before all else, that nothing would be without it, and that you are that.

Interzone / Re: Ashkenazi and the male bag
« on: March 19, 2013, 10:10:40 AM »
Because Growth > Stability : )

Interzone / Re: ForeBears, a film starring Varg Vikernes
« on: March 19, 2013, 10:09:49 AM »
That European populations derive less than 1% of their genetic material directly from sapiens, compared to that big 1-4% from neanderthalensis (they rarely mention in the media that they're talking about direct inheritance, not shared DNA).

Interzone / Re: Thinking?
« on: March 19, 2013, 10:06:57 AM »
reality proper

Please point me towards this; if you refer to physicality, would not the term "relativity" be more apt than "reality"?

Interzone / Re: ForeBears, a film starring Varg Vikernes
« on: March 16, 2013, 03:58:20 AM »
This bizarro "we are 99% Neanderthal" theory

Reading between the PC lines of published research, this isn't as implausible as one might think.  Certainly, modern Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than to Sapiens, directly inheriting up to four times as much genetic material from the former.  That's the part that is never mentioned in newspapers etc.

Interzone / Re: Thinking?
« on: March 13, 2013, 08:21:26 AM »
I don't read anything disfunctional into Transcix's post.  It seems quite sensible to me, as a general way of being here.  Certainly, I "deconceptualised" this mind a short while ago, and, while timid in its unanchored state, it has become receptive, free, open.

Interzone / Re: Mystical Thinking.
« on: March 13, 2013, 08:17:00 AM »
Why do you assume any such oneness even exists?

I can answer most of your post by saying that it is the one thing that is not an assumption, being the noumenon, prerequisite for all phenomena.  Being in this state, one knows it is Truth: that is its proof, not the "evidence" clamored for by those looking into the world, but the "insight" (invidence) found by those returning whence they came.

I was going to add that I look forward to passionate rebuttals invariably requiring their authors to step outside any solace of indifference.

Transcix, you might want to be aware that there aren't as many people in this thread as there might seem ; )

Interzone / Re: Mystical Thinking.
« on: March 10, 2013, 01:00:26 PM »
Nonsense.  Mystical experiences, like any other thoughts, are ephemera conjured by the human mind, no more, no less.  The distinction is whether one imposes conscious control of the process.

Perhaps the confusion is in calling it an "experience", when, in fact, it is what underlies experience.  An experience can be made out of it by reflecting the perceiver; for one, this is not a perception of the mind (there is no "sensation" to it, though sensation can be seen to be born from it - "The Kingdom of God comes with no signs by which to be seen"), and, secondly, it is still a step removed from reality.  The state to which one retreats (it is not an entry, but an exit), the "home state", is one of non-distinction.  Where is "thought" in the nondistinct?  By what indistinguishableness would you distinguish it?

Also, you ought clarify in your mind what constitutes a thought and what constitutes a feeling.  The feeling of oneness is, by definition, a feeling, not a thought.  It can be grasped by the mind, and so a concept of it can be formed (and transmitted), and in that process the feeling can even be lost, but the feeling itself is not a thoughtform.  Furthermore, that feeling is not the Truth of the mystical state (a better term for it?); the Truth of the mystical state is the self - the state allows the recognition of that Truth.  It is perfectly self-contained, in containing all, and thus comes not the "feeling of oneness", but the "knowing of oneness".

Interzone / Re: Mystical Thinking.
« on: March 09, 2013, 08:27:32 AM »
Dylar, what is is beyond thought; a thought can be pointed out, but reality is the pointer - how can a knife cut itself?  The mystical experience, the experience of that reality (of one's own reality), is not primarily a thought-state, though, of course, thought might arise; even so, it is known, at that point, that one is not the thinker (it is no longer "my thought").  Shiva sits upon Kailash in the deepest of meditations, being only the Self; there is no thought, no feeling, no sensation, only existence.

Interzone / Re: New high brow Conservative wiki
« on: February 14, 2013, 08:46:28 AM »

This is worth a read; I've never found a more detailed critique of the Nuremberg debacle.  The conduct of the allied forces was absolutely shocking towards the end of the war.

Do you not think that the builders seek to tear down the foundations of what's in the way of their construction?  Destroyers and builders are one and the same group, ultimately.  I wouldn't call this person a destroyer; he relies on the system that is in place.  Why would he seek to "tear down" that which is keeping him afloat?  Your notion that destroyers do not look to the future seems unreasonable: why would they be destroying, if not to make way for something else?  That's how we see it in the UK, at least.  In the end, looking to the future is absent-minded; the present is where everything's happening (including your ideas of the future!).  I deal with generalisations because everyone else is far too caught up in specifics: forest for trees, etc.

Rather than having no value, it has the utmost value, as does everything else.  I value a good man no less than I value a bad man: how could I know the good man to be good without the bad man?  What use would I have for the good man without the bad man?  This Universe is characterised by conflicts which generally weigh in favour of goodness/beauty/glory, but we would have none of this without the "negative" elements.  I appreciate the world as it is - all in all, it's awesome.

"No birth without death" means use the blood of your enemies to fertilise your soil.  I have a gripe with the members of this community who'd like to game the system - not by succumbing to it like this guy, but by playing along with modernity - rather than facilitate its decline.  The West is why we can't have nice things: kill the West and start again, as the cycles necessitate.

For myself, I prefer to be apart from high civilisation; tribal society appeals very much to me.  If any role fitted me, it'd be that of the Shaman: fuck off into nowhere to find out what you are; tell everyone what they've forgotten when you've worked it out.  This is how this one is; it is not to say how any other ought be.  Every actor has a specific role to play; every part has a place in the whole.

The fully aware bee replied: fuck you.

Gaming the system, even a broken system, is the act of wretched people. It is anti-civilization behaviour. When the system is so perverted that it actively works against you, then you are right to break free. Not otherwise. Collapse is never the preferable outcome, the harm is simply too great and lasts too long. Even if collapse is inevitable, if at the end of it you want you or your generations to be a part of the builders and not the ones that tore it down, you would refrain from taking part.

This is flawed thinking.  One must destroy in order to build (Shiva).  Is there any birth without death?  Is there anything born that does not come out of death, and will not go back into death?  In order for the next order to arise, this current one must fall; why decry the actions of those who bring it down while praising those of the builders of the next?  Those builders are simply setting up for another fall, potentially as bad as or worse than this one that is coming!  You seem to be attributing moral significance to an amoral process; objectively speaking, there is simply action.

Why assume that civilisation is a good thing?  As far as history tells us, it begets both wonders and atrocities; non-civilisation (coincidence with nature as opposed to removal from it) seems to be more neutral in this respect, from our perspective (though, of course, it allows equally well for the interpretation of events as wondrous or atrocious).  From this perspective, being "anti-civilisation" is as viable as being "pro-civilisation"; indeed, each attitude necessitates the other, according to the Union of Opposites.

1 [2] 3 ... 139