Sensational Surrational Mutter

This is quite an interesting combination fo images.
Seeing as how churches normally have roofs, might be said to protect the meek from the Eagle, the predatory forces.
Nietzsche spoke in contempt of the fact that churches have roofs - how can a temple to the divine shield the worshipper from the sky? He spoke fondly of overgrown ruins of churches, or just buildings, I can't remember, as proper temples.

Fixed Cross wrote:

This is quite an interesting combination fo images.
Seeing as how churches normally have roofs, might be said to protect the meek from the Eagle, the predatory forces.
Nietzsche spoke in contempt of the fact that churches have roofs - how can a temple to the divine shield the worshipper from the sky? He spoke fondly of overgrown ruins of churches, or just buildings, I can't remember, as proper temples.

The church which I now attend has no roof.
But there was a time when I did attend a church which had one. One way to look at it is to realize that the roof might 'contain' or 'retain' that which is sacred; it would also help to drown out noise from the outside.
For myself, I don't actually see 'predatory' depicted here. I see an Eagle who might be said to be 'protecting' what is left of the church. I see a look of determination on the Eagle's face.
It's actually an amazing picture to me - I love Scott Mutter's perceptions.


The picture is called A More Perfect World. I don't see any danger to one's imagination in revealing what he had in mind with it. His words:

This picture is my most baroque, in the way it fills the frame with imagery and in its nonlinear thrust. I see its pull as a desire for the spirit to wrench itself free from matter..."

So, the Eagle represents the Spirit soaring and as you can see and I'm sure know, the Spirit is greater and larger than anything it is capable of soaring above...and it IS capable of soaring above anything and setting itself free.

I can't be sure but there appears to be a stream running through the fissure created. The more I look at it, the picture actually gives me the chills - it is just so much larger-than-life in a way.

I once stood 'inside' of a church which had become simply a ruin in Costa Rica and it was one of the most poignant and ethereal experiences I've ever had. I didn't want to leave the place for some reason.

I don't necessarily see church goers or believers as the "meek' though many may be. As with everything else, it is an 'individual' thing. We all have our own form of "religion" which we rely on for support and for the need to worship.

VaerosTanarg wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

This is quite an interesting combination fo images.
Seeing as how churches normally have roofs, might be said to protect the meek from the Eagle, the predatory forces.
Nietzsche spoke in contempt of the fact that churches have roofs - how can a temple to the divine shield the worshipper from the sky? He spoke fondly of overgrown ruins of churches, or just buildings, I can't remember, as proper temples.

The church which I now attend has no roof.

Interesting. What does it look like?

Quote :

But there was a time when I did attend a church which had one. One way to look at it is to realize that the roof might 'contain' or 'retain' that which is sacred; it would also help to drown out noise from the outside.
For myself, I don't actually see 'predatory' depicted here. I see an Eagle who might be said to be 'protecting' what is left of the church. I see a look of determination on the Eagle's face.
It's actually an amazing picture to me - I love Scott Mutter's perceptions.

I can see the quality but it's not a church I would walk into.

Quote :

The picture is called A More Perfect World. I don't see any danger to one's imagination in revealing what he had in mind with it. His words:

This picture is my most baroque, in the way it fills the frame with imagery and in its nonlinear thrust. I see its pull as a desire for the spirit to wrench itself free from matter..."

So, the Eagle represents the Spirit soaring and as you can see and I'm sure know, the Spirit is greater and larger than anything it is capable of soaring above...and it IS capable of soaring above anything and setting itself free.

If by spirit you mean what I mean with self-valuing, then I see. But I am not sure this is what you mean precisely.
Spirit differentiates. It is densest in minerals, finds a balance in the animal in light atoms, fluids and gasses, which form the basis for the scattered and differentiated electrical field that a human being is, which produces a gradually self-harmonizing rabble of forces as complex as unpredictable. What is in the end always the result is genius, the means by which a person, incomplete by nature, completes itself in some way in accordance (harmony, 'soundness') with an environment it has found for itself.

Quote :

I can't be sure but there appears to be a stream running through the fissure created. The more I look at it, the picture actually gives me the chills - it is just so much larger-than-life in a way.

I once stood 'inside' of a church which had become simply a ruin in Costa Rica and it was one of the most poignant and ethereal experiences I've ever had. I didn't want to leave the place for some reason.

Very nice. You share this sentiment with Nietzsche, apparently. Even though it's often unpleasant for honest to God good people to agree with Nietzsche, he is often very accurate when it comes to what we refer to as sacred.
In essence he is a philosopher of Birth. This is of course a feminine matter in the phenomenological sense, but as Bill Clinton referenced: all politicians want to tell you they were born in the log cabin they built themselves.
Philosophers are 'spiritual politicians' - they realize that to truly build the cabin, one has to build the whole cosmos.

I once read a book that described Jesus as the last Pharao. An interesting point was that the word translated as 'carpenter' can also mean 'architect' - and Pharao's were known as cosmic architects.

A philosopher is either a Pharao or a failure.

Quote :

I don't necessarily see church goers or believers as the "meek' though many may be. As with everything else, it is an 'individual' thing. We all have our own form of "religion" which we rely on for support and for the need to worship.

It is true that there have been ferocious people who have subjected their will to prophets.

Quote :

Fixed Cross

The church which I now attend has no roof.

Interesting. What does it look like?

It looks like many things, depending on the time of day. But it IS the most beautiful church...

Quote :

For myself, I don't actually see 'predatory' depicted here. I see an Eagle who might be said to be 'protecting' what is left of the church. I see a look of determination on the Eagle's face.
It's actually an amazing picture to me - I love Scott Mutter's perceptions.

I can see the quality but it's not a church I would walk into.

If you can see the quality, why would you not venture there? You've got to be kidding. You would not walk into this amazing place that looks like no other church you've ever been in before? Where is your curiosity, where is your sense of adventure? Can you even imagine what you might find in these ruins? Is it the Eagle which you are afraid of? Can you even begin to imagine trying to communicate with him to let you into his domain?

Quote :

If by spirit you mean what I mean with self-valuing, then I see. But I am not sure this is what you mean precisely.

I'm not so sure what you mean by self-valuing. Spirit is sort of a happening, it is just something which rises up in you. In my sense of self-valuing, in part anyway, spirit is that which flows through us and brings on meaning. In that is self-valuing. Aside from that, self-valuing is a particular action taken in a particular moment where we come to an awareness of ourselves, to free ourselves from those shackles which keep us down and do us harm.

Quote :

What is in the end always the result is genius, the means by which a person, incomplete by nature, completes itself in some way in accordance (harmony, 'soundness') with an environment it has found for itself.

What you wrote above sounds more like "adaptation" to me but I may be misunderstanding you here.
Genuis to me is something which someone, not many, is born with. It's kind of a fire within which burns, which has no other choice but "to be" and it brings forth something which has never been before, something original and something far beyond that which has been seen. Genius does not replicate nor does it adapt except as it sees fit, but not according to anyone else.

Quote :

You share this sentiment with Nietzsche, apparently. Even though it's often unpleasant for honest to God good people to agree with Nietzsche, he is often very accurate when it comes to what we refer to as sacred.

I'll have to dive into Nietzsche's kind of sacredness and see if I really agree with him.

Quote :

Philosophers are 'spiritual politicians' - they realize that to truly build the cabin, one has to build the whole cosmos.

Or at the very least, to know where the best place is in it (the cosmos) to begin their building.

Quote :

I once read a book that described Jesus as the last Pharao. An interesting point was that the word translated as 'carpenter' can also mean 'architect' - and Pharao's were known as cosmic architects.

I can see how a carpenter would be an architect. Christ supposedly was a carpenter but his material was of a spiritual essence.

Quote :

A philosopher is either a Pharao or a failure.

That's the way You view it.

Quote :

I don't necessarily see church goers or believers as the "meek' though many may be. As with everything else, it is an 'individual' thing. We all have our own form of "religion" which we rely on for support and for the need to worship.

It is true that there have been ferocious people who have subjected their will to prophets. [/quote]
I wasn't speaking of "religion" in that sense. I doubt that Nietzsche would either, at least in the much broader sense.
My "religion" doesn't rely on the prophets.
I somehow do not equate 'ferocious" with sublimating one's will to another.

VaerosTanarg wrote:

Quote :

Fixed Cross

The church which I now attend has no roof.

Interesting. What does it look like?

It looks like many things, depending on the time of day. But it IS the most beautiful church...

Feel welcome to post a picture.

Quote :

Quote :

For myself, I don't actually see 'predatory' depicted here. I see an Eagle who might be said to be 'protecting' what is left of the church. I see a look of determination on the Eagle's face.
It's actually an amazing picture to me - I love Scott Mutter's perceptions.

I can see the quality but it's not a church I would walk into.

If you can see the quality, why would you not venture there? You've got to be kidding. You would not walk into this amazing place that looks like no other church you've ever been in before? Where is your curiosity, where is your sense of adventure? Can you even imagine what you might find in these ruins? Is it the Eagle which you are afraid of? Can you even begin to imagine trying to communicate with him to let you into his domain?

Who said anything about fear?

Quote :

Quote :

If by spirit you mean what I mean with self-valuing, then I see. But I am not sure this is what you mean precisely.

I'm not so sure what you mean by self-valuing. Spirit is sort of a happening, it is just something which rises up in you. In my sense of self-valuing, in part anyway, spirit is that which flows through us and brings on meaning. In that is self-valuing. Aside from that, self-valuing is a particular action taken in a particular moment where we come to an awareness of ourselves, to free ourselves from those shackles which keep us down and do us harm.

Yes, except it would not exist if it wasn't for its 'vehicle'.
It is us communicating in terms of self-valuing. Spirit is perhaps simply value.

Quote :

Quote :

What is in the end always the result is genius, the means by which a person, incomplete by nature, completes itself in some way in accordance (harmony, 'soundness') with an environment it has found for itself.

What you wrote above sounds more like "adaptation" to me but I may be misunderstanding you here.
Genuis to me is something which someone, not many, is born with. It's kind of a fire within which burns, which has no other choice but "to be" and it brings forth something which has never been before, something original and something far beyond that which has been seen. Genius does not replicate nor does it adapt except as it sees fit, but not according to anyone else.

Yes, and all life that makes a mark for itself, carves out a space to exist, does this by genius.
The absence of genius is far more common, but only genius survives the test of time.
Of course in many of mans stupidities must be understood as genius in terms of effective regulation of impulses, at least if one is to contend with them.

Quote :

Quote :

You share this sentiment with Nietzsche, apparently. Even though it's often unpleasant for honest to God good people to agree with Nietzsche, he is often very accurate when it comes to what we refer to as sacred.

I'll have to dive into Nietzsche's kind of sacredness and see if I really agree with him.

Spontaneously I would recommend the chapter On The Blissful Isles, from Zarathustra.

Quote :

Quote :

Philosophers are 'spiritual politicians' - they realize that to truly build the cabin, one has to build the whole cosmos.

Or at the very least, to know where the best place is in it (the cosmos) to begin their building.

You assume an objective cosmos - but yes, that is a way of saying it.

Quote :

Quote :

I once read a book that described Jesus as the last Pharao. An interesting point was that the word translated as 'carpenter' can also mean 'architect' - and Pharao's were known as cosmic architects.

I can see how a carpenter would be an architect. Christ supposedly was a carpenter but his material was of a spiritual essence.

Hence , 'Building thought to disclose the future'. Philosophy needs to have consistency to be a dwelling for the spirit.

Quote :

Quote :

A philosopher is either a Pharao or a failure.

That's the way You view it.

What, according you your view, is philosophy besides the architecture of the human cosmos? Kosmos, I should add, is Greek for order. Philosophy, as far as I'm concerned, is the work of devising benefic ordering methods for the unrestrainable phenomenon of humanity.

Quote :

Quote :

Quote :

I don't necessarily see church goers or believers as the "meek' though many may be. As with everything else, it is an 'individual' thing. We all have our own form of "religion" which we rely on for support and for the need to worship.

It is true that there have been ferocious people who have subjected their will to prophets.

I wasn't speaking of "religion" in that sense. I doubt that Nietzsche would either, at least in the much broader sense.
My "religion" doesn't rely on the prophets.

I am glad to hear it.

Quote :

I somehow do not equate 'ferocious" with sublimating one's will to another.

Me neither. But a lot of ferocious hunting and killing goes on in the name of some president or prophet.

Quote :

It looks like many things, depending on the time of day. But it IS the most beautiful church...

Feel welcome to post a picture.

There are many. Which time of day speaks to you?

Quote :

Who said anything about fear?

Then why would you choose NOT to walk into this church or ruins of Mutter. I can readily understand why some would not want to and it would be out of some kind of a fear. I don't know how anyone could possibly feel there is nothing worthy of value in there. Just think of the philosophizing albeit self-philosophizing one could do there. Just about anything could be looked at as a self-reflection, no?

Quote :

If by spirit you mean what I mean with self-valuing, then I see. But I am not sure this is what you mean precisely.

Perhaps your kind of 'spirit' with regard to self-valuing is a coming of consciousness and self-awareness.

Quote :

I'm not so sure what you mean by self-valuing. Spirit is sort of a happening, it is just something which rises up in you. In my sense of self-valuing, in part anyway, spirit is that which flows through us and brings on meaning. In that is self-valuing. Aside from that, self-valuing is a particular action taken in a particular moment where we come to an awareness of ourselves, to free ourselves from those shackles which keep us down and do us harm.

Yes, except it would not exist if it wasn't for its 'vehicle'.

The vehicle being the organism which you are? We can't actually know that though, can we? I'm just saying...

Quote :

It is us communicating in terms of self-valuing. Spirit is perhaps simply value.

I don't know about that. I think that spirit can give way to value - spirit is what "gives birth" to value by means of its (spirit's) own essence interfacing with self-interpretation. Value becomes the child given birth to. Perhaps we are saying the same thing though.

Quote :

Yes, and all life that makes a mark for itself, carves out a space to exist, does this by genius.

I still do not know if I necessarily agree with this. I think in terms of my having done this - along with so so so many others, but I would still not call myself genius though there are those rare moments when perhaps I sense it in myself. "Reality" or illusion?
What you expressed above and what I think of genius is kind of the difference between what is mundane and what is sublime.

Quote :

The absence of genius is far more common, but only genius survives the test of time.

Agreed as to the first part but not as to the second. What is not of genius also survives by way of our mediocre way of seeing and desiring things. But still...it takes all kinds to perpetuate the world.

Quote :

Of course in many of mans stupidities must be understood as genius in terms of effective regulation of impulses, at least if one is to contend with them.

So you would also include genius as part of that? I'm not so sure that genius would be able to regulate itself as such. Is a burning bush or even better, a supernova, able to regulate its impulses or what is natural to it? True, genius does require discipline but at the same time it must at times defy regulating impulses. Isn't true and original creativity spontaneous and at times explosive in nature? As organisms, we are pretty much a replicating bunch.

Quote :

Spontaneously I would recommend the chapter On The Blissful Isles, from Zarathustra.

Thank you for sending me to that Blissful Isles. I've been to many of them and I will maybe be getting back to you on that.

Quote :

You assume an objective cosmos - but yes, that is a way of saying it.

I actually do not like to assume and try not to assume anything. But that too is a learning experience when we are able to see the errors of our ways. Assuming is for asses. I have no idea how objective the cosmos is...Can we consider it as objective UNLESS there is for us...a first cause and depending on what that first cause had in mind or ....even didn't? Would the fact that the cosmos is and continues to be a process, and perhaps a random one at times despite its orderly design, make it objective? Insofar as WE are a micro cosmos, the cosmos is indeed a very subjective place....but at the same time, it groans also to be objective.

Quote :

Hence , 'Building thought to disclose the future'. Philosophy needs to have consistency to be a dwelling for the spirit.

I've just posted something elsewhere by Montaigne which is actually quite beautiful to me. He says that "to philosophize is to learn the art of dying". Although I do sort of understand what you are trying to say, I think, IF what you are saying is that philosophy does need 'logical thought'... I also think philosophy needs its great inconsistencies...well, perhaps doesn't need them - they are just a part of philosophy being that we are only human and subject to error. Life is inconsistencies, don't you think? And we do not philosophize or go in search of truth and/or find it by smoothly sailing on the ocean of life. We find it by diving into those waters and allowing ourselves or at least risking the dying in ourselves (spiritually and intellectually). If philosophy isn't freely flowing or keeping a number of balls in the air at the same time and looking at them, well, then, it becomes boring, don't you think?

Quote :

Philosophy, as far as I'm concerned, is the work of devising benefic ordering methods for the unrestrainable phenomenon of humanity.

Well, I also like that definition. I like that phrase - "unrestrainable phenomenon of humanity".
As long as it doesn't put shackles on humanity...wouldn't you say that there is a kind of beauty in disorder. Though I realize there is beauty in order ...ah, but to balance that.

Quote :

My "religion" doesn't rely on the prophets.

I am glad to hear it.

What I rely on is what I see and sense. Perhaps the prophet within.

Quote :

I somehow do not equate 'ferocious" with sublimating one's will to another.
Me neither. But a lot of ferocious hunting and killing goes on in the name of some president or prophet.

Yes, the herd will always have its way.

VaerosTanarg wrote:

Quote :

It looks like many things, depending on the time of day. But it IS the most beautiful church...

Feel welcome to post a picture.

There are many. Which time of day speaks to you?

High noon, magic hour - whichever is the most dramatic.

Quote :

Quote :

Who said anything about fear?

Then why would you choose NOT to walk into this church or ruins of Mutter. I can readily understand why some would not want to and it would be out of some kind of a fear. I don't know how anyone could possibly feel there is nothing worthy of value in there. Just think of the philosophizing albeit self-philosophizing one could do there. Just about anything could be looked at as a self-reflection, no?

I can't put my finger on it, it's a question of architectural taste. Let everyone choose, preferably build, his own temple.

Quote :

Quote :

If by spirit you mean what I mean with self-valuing, then I see. But I am not sure this is what you mean precisely.

Perhaps your kind of 'spirit' with regard to self-valuing is a coming of consciousness and self-awareness.

Spirit originally means breath, which is the humans most basic activity.
James recently equated spirit with activity itself. What do you think about that? It does not have to be an activity bound to an individual - one can also find oneself in the collective spirit of revolution, for example.

Quote :

I'm not so sure what you mean by self-valuing. Spirit is sort of a happening, it is just something which rises up in you.

Indeed then an activity. Albeit one not (necessarily) deliberately caused by the conscious mind.

Quote :

In my sense of self-valuing, in part anyway, spirit is that which flows through us and brings on meaning. In that is self-valuing. Aside from that, self-valuing is a particular action taken in a particular moment where we come to an awareness of ourselves, to free ourselves from those shackles which keep us down and do us harm.

This is actually close enough in subjective phenomenological, psychological terms. Note that this act is performed constantly on a multitude of levels by every surviving particle and being, else they are subsumed and/or dissolved in other entities or chaos.

Quote :

Quote :

Yes, except it would not exist if it wasn't for its 'vehicle'.

The vehicle being the organism which you are? We can't actually know that though, can we? I'm just saying...

We can look at our actions and compare them to the behavior of inanimate particles, and we can become certain of a few things.

Quote :

Quote :

It is us communicating in terms of self-valuing. Spirit is perhaps simply value.

I don't know about that. I think that spirit can give way to value - spirit is what "gives birth" to value by means of its (spirit's) own essence interfacing with self-interpretation. Value becomes the child given birth to. Perhaps we are saying the same thing though.

Then spirit is perhaps valuing, giving value.

Quote :

Quote :

Yes, and all life that makes a mark for itself, carves out a space to exist, does this by genius.

I still do not know if I necessarily agree with this. I think in terms of my having done this - along with so so so many others, but I would still not call myself genius though there are those rare moments when perhaps I sense it in myself. "Reality" or illusion?
What you expressed above and what I think of genius is kind of the difference between what is mundane and what is sublime.

I think that existence is genius (and sublime) to begin with. Whenever a human invents or sees or does something that is yet another step deeper into existence, this is what I call genius. "Every genius is born in a prison" - which means that every act of genius opens a world.

I don't think Parodites would agree with me though. He writes well on genius and takes a more delicate approach, where genius is more of a rare instance.

Quote :

Quote :

The absence of genius is far more common, but only genius survives the test of time.

Agreed as to the first part but not as to the second. What is not of genius also survives by way of our mediocre way of seeing and desiring things. But still...it takes all kinds to perpetuate the world.

Actually I agree with that. But only that non-genius survives which benefits in some way from pre-existing works of genius.

Quote :

Quote :

Of course in many of mans stupidities must be understood as genius in terms of effective regulation of impulses, at least if one is to contend with them.

So you would also include genius as part of that? I'm not so sure that genius would be able to regulate itself as such. Is a burning bush or even better, a supernova, able to regulate its impulses or what is natural to it? True, genius does require discipline but at the same time it must at times defy regulating impulses. Isn't true and original creativity spontaneous and at times explosive in nature? As organisms, we are pretty much a replicating bunch.

Yes, but the very first act of genetic replication was surely the greatest instance of genius since the coming into existence of entities at all. The hypothesizing of DNA by man was genius of a high order as well -
not all genius is the artistic, "Dionysian" type.

Quote :

Quote :

Spontaneously I would recommend the chapter On The Blissful Isles, from Zarathustra.

Thank you for sending me to that Blissful Isles. I've been to many of them and I will maybe be getting back to you on that.

Is there any Island in particular that has your special preference?

Quote :

Quote :

You assume an objective cosmos - but yes, that is a way of saying it.

I actually do not like to assume and try not to assume anything. But that too is a learning experience when we are able to see the errors of our ways. Assuming is for asses. I have no idea how objective the cosmos is...Can we consider it as objective UNLESS there is for us...a first cause and depending on what that first cause had in mind or ....even didn't? Would the fact that the cosmos is and continues to be a process, and perhaps a random one at times despite its orderly design, make it objective? Insofar as WE are a micro cosmos, the cosmos is indeed a very subjective place....but at the same time, it groans also to be objective.

Indeed - I think that there is a 'first cause' in all of us, constantly. There is also the interconnected actions of these first causings. This can be said to be objective, behave in accordance with verifiable rules of prediction, 'natural law'. But it all depends on the individual 'efforts to exist', which we may call our spirit.
On a basis of yoga this effort is drawn out from the depth of our spinal chord into consciousness as 'kundalini'... no doubt you're familiar.

Quote :

Quote :

Hence , 'Building thought to disclose the future'. Philosophy needs to have consistency to be a dwelling for the spirit.

I've just posted something elsewhere by Montaigne which is actually quite beautiful to me. He says that "to philosophize is to learn the art of dying". Although I do sort of understand what you are trying to say, I think, IF what you are saying is that philosophy does need 'logical thought'... I also think philosophy needs its great inconsistencies...well, perhaps doesn't need them - they are just a part of philosophy being that we are only human and subject to error.

What you are talking about is what I would register as art.
Philosophy has contained many errors and inconsistencies but the work of the philosopher is to eliminate these and arrive, with the use of both logic and creative imagination, at cultivating truths.
Take Jesus, for example. That was what I would call a philosopher, he understood a certain consistency in human nature, and found a means to address this systematically, and as a result of people internalizing this addressing, a cultural movement arose, if now a whole world. Of course Jesus truth was not 'objective', and it defeated certain truths that had made the Greeks and Romans great. Yet it synthesized with the fruits of these truths, because philosophy is nothing if not fertile ground for thought and evolution.

That is what we are producing here, beginning to produce since last year - a fertile ground for man to grow, mature, become greater-to-himself, to more life and less chaos.

Quote :

Life is inconsistencies, don't you think? And we do not philosophize or go in search of truth and/or find it by smoothly sailing on the ocean of life. We find it by diving into those waters and allowing ourselves or at least risking the dying in ourselves (spiritually and intellectually). If philosophy isn't freely flowing or keeping a number of balls in the air at the same time and looking at them, well, then, it becomes boring, don't you think?

Do you mean that philosophy should allow you to think whatever comes into your mind? No, I think consistency builds substance, and substance is life itself - how can that be boring?

But philosophy is forced to keep many things in the air as long as it has not developed the understanding yet to address those things that do exist but do not fall under existing logic. I am not dogmatic, but once I discover that something is really true, I don't find that boring at all, it is rather "thrilling" to the very core.

Quote :

Quote :

Philosophy, as far as I'm concerned, is the work of devising benefic ordering methods for the unrestrainable phenomenon of humanity.

Well, I also like that definition. I like that phrase - "unrestrainable phenomenon of humanity".
As long as it doesn't put shackles on humanity...wouldn't you say that there is a kind of beauty in disorder. Though I realize there is beauty in order ...ah, but to balance that.

Of course. Man and art can not be restrained - all true-to-life logic and structure in the end serves to make the dance more powerful, regardless whether this is the intention of the order-bringer or not.

Parodites talks about excess - the substance of being that refuses to be categorized, designated and 'ordered' - every concept will produce an excess to that concept, forcing philosophy to expand beyond its concepts and integrate more and more, creating ever more excess - at one point this excess must simply be accepted in gratitude - but not before the order has been arranged in such a way as to be able to feel grateful for experiences at all - that is to say, before ones consciousness has been 'enlightened' into a certain order.

It takes a strong inner order to allow for many disorderly activities and not perish. The human body is of course a great order to begin with - but any of its definition leaves an incredible excess, surplus-being - consciousness simply produces excess. It is important to note what one does want to include in the known, in the definition - so that the excess (that which defies ,terra incognita, the lure/threat of the unknown) can be enjoyed instead of suffered.

Quote :

Quote :

My "religion" doesn't rely on the prophets.

I am glad to hear it.

What I rely on is what I see and sense. Perhaps the prophet within.

"Alas, there are so many things between heaven and earth of which only the poets have dreamed. And especially above the heavens: for all gods are poets' parables, poets' prevarications." (Zarathustra)

Quote :

Quote :

I somehow do not equate 'ferocious" with sublimating one's will to another.
Me neither. But a lot of ferocious hunting and killing goes on in the name of some president or prophet.

Yes, the herd will always have its way.

Ah but the herd has no way of itself - that would make it a 'pack'.

Fixed Cross...

I will have to beg your kind indulgence with this but I will have it for you shortly. I haven't forgotten about it.

Don't feel pressured please, I don't like the element of haste. Sometimes it is necessary, but not here.
Speed is not a concern here, only content, and depth.

Besides it would be unreasonable of me to take as much time as I do and then expect you to hurry.

Quote :

High noon, magic hour - whichever is the most dramatic.

Are you saying that "high noon" is your magic hour or that any hour can be?
I think that in "reality" any hour may be magical depending on how that wonderful brain chemistry interacts with what we see/when we see it. But for me, mostly it is at twilight time/dusk. But then, to say even THAT, might rob us of a magic moment which we didn't expect to flow into - because of our biases.

Quote :

I can't put my finger on it, it's a question of architectural taste. Let everyone choose, preferably build, his own temple.

Okay, I understand that...aesthetics. And the most wonderful temples do not have to be built- they rise up from within us and wrap themselves around and above us.
Perhaps if I was to build a temple it would look like the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. I was there visiting one evening and I was so taken in by the ambience of that building. Of coure, perhaps the reflecting pool overlooking it might have had something to do with it --- ah, water, water, water --- but I don't think so. That building is so airy and ethereal - just something about it that spoke of sacredness and freedom and openness to me. And of course, there was the twilight in the moment.



Still Presence



Surrender



My temple within[img]



Each of these images when gazed upon may become a temple which flows into and rises up within us. They become a part of our internal lanscape. What need do we have for a temple or for a church. We become the temple to our Selves...lovingly surrounded by these Presences.

They may also BECOME the sacred physical temples in a sense, wherein our Beings go to find the true Self and to become inter-connected with the whole of the universe when contemplated.

Quote :

Spirit originally means breath, which is the humans most basic activity.
James recently equated spirit with activity itself. What do you think about that? It does not have to be an activity bound to an individual - one can also find oneself in the collective spirit of revolution, for example.

I think that spirit influences activity, causes it, activity "flows" through spirit - gives rise to it lol - I agree with James. Spirit in that sense can also be what gives rise to the mob...spirit is infectious and in that may give rise to revolutions...a sense of solidarity.

Quote :

I'm not so sure what you mean by self-valuing. Spirit is sort of a happening, it is just something which rises up in you.
Indeed then an activity. Albeit one not (necessarily) deliberately caused by the conscious mind

I certainly agree with that. Very often it is brought about by an [un]conscious mind. Spirit can be reined in or it can be allowed to run freely and destructively. It can influence for good or chaos...notwithstanding that chaos may eventually lead to creativity and new life.

I don't so much though equate spirit as "simply" being "activity" but what rather what brings forth activity. For example, Sibelius' beautiful musical piece called "Finlandia" which was written when Finland was struggling to obtain their independence against Czar Nicholas II's policies. Sibelius wrote it to stir patriotism within Finland. And it's spirit or essence did just that. Music is a wonderful example of Spirit's urgings to influence thought and deed.

Quote :

We can look at our actions and compare them to the behavior of inanimate particles, and we can become certain of a few things.

In that we are capable of being as unpredictable as they can be? Are particles aware of themselves in the same way in which we are - or are not? What things may be become certain of?

Quote :

It is us communicating in terms of self-valuing. Spirit is perhaps simply value.

Hmmm...I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. I suppose it would depend on what "direction" spirit decided to flow into? Did that make sense? is anything of value before it causes movement?

Quote :

I think that existence is genius (and sublime) to begin with. Whenever a human invents or sees or does something that is yet another step deeper into existence, this is what I call genius.

I do agree with you that existence may ALSO be sublime and amazing in terms of evolution and I do agree with your definition of genius...at least insofar as something completely new or different.


"

Quote :

Every genius is born in a prison" - which means that every act of genius opens a world.

But why call it a "prison"? Maybe it is that genius is truly free and opens the doors to us?
But at the same time, I intuit that i understand what you mean. A genuis must be quite confined and disciplined and sacrifice so much - sometimes everything - for the sake of what it is to be born. And then it is free to burst forth out of itself. But I have a feeling that that would also depend on the nature of the individual. I'm not so sure that every genius would be made from fire - some might be made from cold hard steel. If that made sense to you.

Quote :

I don't think Parodites would agree with me though. He writes well on genius and takes a more delicate approach, where genius is more of a rare instance.

I suppose that I would probably MORE agree with Parodites - otherwise a genius could be just about anyone at a particular moment. I think that geniuses ARE more rare.

Quote :

Agreed as to the first part but not as to the second. What is not of genius also survives by way of our mediocre way of seeing and desiring things. But still...it takes all kinds to perpetuate the world.

Actually I agree with that. But only that non-genius survives which benefits in some way from pre-existing works of genius.

You'll have to give me an example of what you mean by "pre-existing works of genius". Humanity is not capable of surviving except through genius? I'm not saying you're wrong - I just don't know if I go along with this. For instance, would you consider Thomas Edison to have been a genius? Would we have/could we have survived without his "genius" his inventions?

Aside from that, could you please elaborate what you mean by "only non-genius survives......"

Quote :

Spontaneously I would recommend the chapter On The Blissful Isles, from Zarathustra.

Thank you for sending me to that Blissful Isles. I've been to many of them and I will maybe be getting back to you on that.

Is there any Island in particular that has your special preference

?

I was actually speaking in the figurative sense there. But to answer your question, Fixed Cross, my favorite island is called the Solitude of Self - especially when I am completely surrounded by water. I become so deeply-connected - a mysteriously, floating island, a sunken one -- where darkness and light equally share moving space and stars are seen dancing on the surface of my fluid moments. Just call me Atlantis.


As for Zarathustra, it is beautiful. Freddie was such an awesome philosopher, poet, psychologist - love his writings. When you read him, you sometimes find a home you never knew you had or you forgot you had. He's a beacon when you've come lost within the wild ocean of life.

"Away with you, you blissful hour. With you there came to me an involuntary bliss. I stand here ready for my deepest pain -- you came at the wrong time."

Sometimes we just cannot contain ourselves, can we? Something that we have seen simply wraps itself around us - qualia - and those brain chemicals take hold and we have no choice but to rise up - spirit takes hold. As in Scott Mutter's surrational piece above (let's not forget that lol). Some things simply grab at our heartstrings and we hear the music reverberating within and we rise up.

But alas we must at times forego our bliss for the sake of truth and personal evolution - we must run from bliss, quickly -- to struggle and to grow. We must wrap ourselves around those 'abysmal thoughts" which Nietzache spoke of.

"When shall I find strength to hear you burrowing and no longer tremble?"

Quote :

Indeed - I think that there is a 'first cause' in all of us, constantly. There is also the interconnected actions of these first causings. This can be said to be objective, behave in accordance with verifiable rules of prediction, 'natural law'. But it all depends on the individual 'efforts to exist', which we may call our spirit.

On a basis of yoga this effort is drawn out from the depth of our spinal chord into consciousness as 'kundalini'... no doubt you're familiar.

I don't know if I would call it a first cause constantly. I look at us in terms of an ongoing process. All actions ARE interconnected - they flow from one to the other. I suppose it just depends on one's perspective. One can see things in terms of a first cause which then becomes an "ad continuum" (if that made sense) or one can see things as interruptions...cause and effect...cause and effect. But when you really "look back" well, I can at least "see" how everything rides on the back of everything else.

Quote :

I've just posted something elsewhere by Montaigne which is actually quite beautiful to me. He says that "to philosophize is to learn the art of dying". Although I do sort of understand what you are trying to say, I think, IF what you are saying is that philosophy does need 'logical thought'... I also think philosophy needs its great inconsistencies...well, perhaps doesn't need them - they are just a part of philosophy being that we are only human and subject to error.

What you are talking about is what I would register as art.

Just to be clear here, you ARE speaking of ART which encompasses all of LIFE, right? You don't simply mean the art which is hanging in museums and in poetry books and works of fictions...etcetera? That would be the narrower perspective of it and not what he was talking about. But then, you are the true philosopher here, not myself.

Philosophy ought to also be practical - a tool or containing in part the tools with which we sculpt our lives - our lives being works of art.

Quote :

Philosophy has contained many errors and inconsistencies but the work of the philosopher is to eliminate these and arrive, with the use of both logic and creative imagination, at cultivating truths.

True. And perhaps this is also what Montaigne meant. In order to do the above, do we not have to die to self, to sacrifice our false selves, our egos, to detach from them, in order to discover the truth? Do you realize just how difficult a thing that can be, especially when our so- called philosophical "beliefs" or leanings have become so engrained within us? Well, of course, you do.

Quote :

Take Jesus, for example. That was what I would call a philosopher

I also kind of always felt that he was a philosopher too - he always seemed to guide his life through wisdom and truth. He said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. (right order?) According to the books, he traveled to China and India to pursue eastern philosophy, before his public mission.

Quote :

he understood a certain consistency in human nature, and found a means to address this systematically, and as a result of people internalizing this addressing, a cultural movement arose, if now a whole world.

That would have also made him a psychologist. According to your above words though, Hitler or Stalin might also have been philosophers but they were despots! But i wasn't calling Christ a despot.
Of course, there is still also the quesiton of his existence and divinity.

Quote :

Of course Jesus truth was not 'objective', and it defeated certain truths that had made the Greeks and Romans great. Yet it synthesized with the fruits of these truths, because philosophy is nothing if not fertile ground for thought and evolution

We can't any more know that Christ's truth was not "objective" as we can know that any philosophers' truth is objective. But let's forget about that. What truths of the greeks and romans are you referring to which Christ demolished?

Quote :

That is what we are producing here, beginning to produce since last year - a fertile ground for man to grow, mature, become greater-to-himself, to more life and less chaos.

I understand this. Wouldn't you say that this is the practical side to philosophy?
But doesn't philosophy or the seeking after truth and wisdom at times bring more chaos into our lives? I'm just saying.

Quote :

Life is inconsistencies, don't you think? And we do not philosophize or go in search of truth and/or find it by smoothly sailing on the ocean of life. We find it by diving into those waters and allowing ourselves or at least risking the dying in ourselves (spiritually and intellectually). If philosophy isn't freely flowing or keeping a number of balls in the air at the same time and looking at them, well, then, it becomes boring, don't you think?


Do you mean that philosophy should allow you to think whatever comes into your mind? No, I think consistency builds substance, and substance is life itself - how can that be boring

?

I think that whatever will come into our minds will come, irregardless of what philosophy "allows". But maybe I'm wrong here. Maybe a really disciplined and learned mind would not take in just anything randomly. But let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater, at least not at first. Don't you think that it is sometimes those 'uninvited" thoughts that can make a difference in finding truth?

But aside from that, I do think that discipline and mindfulness and remaining focused on the real issues is important. I don't think that that is boring. But holding to a certain idea or so-called "objective" truth - which may only be based in sentiment and opinion, may be boring...it isn't allowed to die a natural death to make way for the new.

Quote :

But philosophy is forced to keep many things in the air as long as it has not developed the understanding yet to address those things that do exist but do not fall under existing logic.

True, and even that itself is quite fascinating, don't you think? So very many things waiting in the wings of the Universe to become known and revealed and explained.

But is truth always logical? Doesn't it sometimes defy reason?
How does one come to define morality and ethics? Through logic? Isn't philosophy at times about the beating heart rather than the throbbing brain?

Quote :

I am not dogmatic, but once I discover that something is really true, I don't find that boring at all, it is rather "thrilling" to the very core.

Yes, truth can be thrilling and exhilarating but how do you know for sure that something is really "true" or "truth" and not just something which you want to be true? Of course, that is where the discipline of philosophy takes over. I may be wrong here. I'm wrong about a great many things. in fact, I think I sometimes thrive on that because it becomes such an eye opener.

Quote :

Of course. Man and art can not be restrained - all true-to-life logic and structure in the end serves to make the dance more powerful, regardless whether this is the intention of the order-bringer or not.

Is it logic that cannot hold back the deluge or is it Man's passion for expression, creativity and truth? Perhaps logic simply balances and directs it after a time.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked.

OR as some say, we are God trying to figure itself out.

Abstract wrote:

Arcturus Descending wrote:

Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked.

OR as some say, we are God trying to figure itself out.

Hi Abstract

Hmmmm...just trying to round up all of that star stuff to complete ourselves. I wonder if we would look like some magnificent solved mathematical equation.

Just for the record, those are not my words - I wish they were - they are Victor Frankel's. (in case you hadn't noticed)

But perhaps when we hear ourselves asking that question - "What is the meaning of my life?" - somewhere, somehow we know, we realize, that Life has gotten through to us and so we must seek an answer for Life's question. And I think, that for me, that holy grail has already been found. It's just a matter of opening up the eyes and the heart to see it.

I somehow intuit that we cannot ask a question, in truth, which we do not already hold the answer to.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Arcturus Descending wrote:

Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked.

OR as some say, we are God trying to figure itself out.

Hi Abstract

Hmmmm...just trying to round up all of that star stuff to complete ourselves. I wonder if we would look like some magnificent solved mathematical equation.

Just for the record, those are not my words - I wish they were - they are Victor Frankel's. (in case you hadn't noticed)

But perhaps when we hear ourselves asking that question - "What is the meaning of my life?" - somewhere, somehow we know, we realize, that Life has gotten through to us and so we must seek an answer for Life's question. And I think, that for me, that holy grail has already been found. It's just a matter of opening up the eyes and the heart to see it.

I somehow intuit that we cannot ask a question, in truth, which we do not already hold the answer to.

From my book.

--

Happiness is a state like that of the sea after it has come to rest in the wake of some violent storm. One must conceal in one's depths some nameless longing as even it does. What most people refer to as their life is nothing more than one long, violent storm, one long raging into the abyss and the sea. It is precisely the most painful emotions that can, after all, be used as their own opiate. The strength of mankind is a deplorable and wretched thing. In the end, our desires never succeed in changing our life, much less this world; it is only our life and this world that have succeeded in altering our desires. All that we have to show for our strength and our struggle has not been achieved on account of that strength and that struggling, but simply on account of the whim of sea. One must turn to the vis contemplativa in order to permit these alterations that life makes to our desires to prove favorable, in order to cohere the law within himself with the law outside of himself. The only question is to what extent one can organize within the harmony of his own nature the harmony of events; the only question is to what extent one can become conscious of one's experience. Experience itself, of whatever romantic cast, and however wondrous, is in itself worthless. If a human being has anything of life in him, no experience will prove capable of coordinating the mass of forces within him, and neither will any act prove capable of organizing them; one is only to live, and concentrate in the narrowest bound of his consciousness the tribe of his loves and experiences, and to therein hold them in their sharpest intensity. One must become toward his heart like that gardener who allows nature to generally take its course upon his plants, but simply introduces a little bit of deliberation here and there, a small part of artifice, in order to beautify everything. That question posed by Hamlet is truly the highest abstraction the human intellect is capable of in the sphere of ethics, and "to be" man's highest good, though Faust would have doubtlessly mistranslated it. As Aurelius said, in this world one can either stand up straight or be straightened; the life we could not live, lives us. Insofar as one learns to truly take consciousness, ceaselessly, of this immutable sense of life, one learns also to take consolation in the realization that everything does, in fact, work itself out, at least within the enlivened consciousness. Perhaps, with regard to our life itself and the course it has taken, not for the best, as most people say, and usually for the worse: but at least it is worked out within us, at least we know that there is and must be an answer to the question we are able to formulate, for otherwise even the question would have eluded us. A question can be a consolation just as much as an answer can.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

Hi Abstract

Hi, long time no talk.

Abstract wrote:

Arcturus Descending wrote:

Hi Abstract

Hi, long time no talk.

Hi right back at you. Saw your pic in ilp - you ARE a definite cutie, you know.

Hi Parodites,

Quote :

From my book.

--

Happiness is a state like that of the sea after it has come to rest in the wake of some violent storm. One must conceal in one's depths some nameless longing as even it does. What most people refer to as their life is nothing more than one long, violent storm, one long raging into the abyss and the sea. It is precisely the most painful emotions that can, after all, be used as their own opiate. The strength of mankind is a deplorable and wretched thing. In the end, our desires never succeed in changing our life, much less this world; it is only our life and this world that have succeeded in altering our desires. All that we have to show for our strength and our struggle has not been achieved on account of that strength and that struggling, but simply on account of the whim of sea. One must turn to the vis contemplativa in order to permit these alterations that life makes to our desires to prove favorable, in order to cohere the law within himself with the law outside of himself. The only question is to what extent one can organize within the harmony of his own nature the harmony of events; the only question is to what extent one can become conscious of one's experience. Experience itself, of whatever romantic cast, and however wondrous, is in itself worthless. If a human being has anything of life in him, no experience will prove capable of coordinating the mass of forces within him, and neither will any act prove capable of organizing them; one is only to live, and concentrate in the narrowest bound of his consciousness the tribe of his loves and experiences, and to therein hold them in their sharpest intensity. One must become toward his heart like that gardener who allows nature to generally take its course upon his plants, but simply introduces a little bit of deliberation here and there, a small part of artifice, in order to beautify everything. That question posed by Hamlet is truly the highest abstraction the human intellect is capable of in the sphere of ethics, and "to be" man's highest good, though Faust would have doubtlessly mistranslated it. As Aurelius said, in this world one can either stand up straight or be straightened; the life we could not live, lives us. Insofar as one learns to truly take consciousness, ceaselessly, of this immutable sense of life, one learns also to take consolation in the realization that everything does, in fact, work itself out, at least within the enlivened consciousness. Perhaps, with regard to our life itself and the course it has taken, not for the best, as most people say, and usually for the worse: but at least it is worked out within us, at least we know that there is and must be an answer to the question we are able to formulate, for otherwise even the question would have eluded us. A question can be a consolation just as much as an answer can.

Thank you and I'll respond to this as soon as I can. I didn't want you to think that I'd forgotten you.