Who do we think we are?

First topic message reminder :

Ok, sports fans.........

Before we ask ourselves any other questions........

Here is the #1 priority question........

Who the heck do we think we are?  

I’m not aware that this question has ever been seriously asked before.  The only precedent of which I’m aware is when it was simply posed by Paul Gauguin.  

I would not pose this question unless I thought I had the rudiments of an answer.  I’m seeking help from anyone who would be willing to participate in fleshing out the answer.  
..........

(The continuation of this ‘topic post’ is the no. 3 post (on the first page https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t361-who-do-we-think-we-are ) of this topic.....)

Ack wrote:I spoke to Dan about the Monad.

Smelly is wrong in saying the Monad is not personhood.

The Monad is the primordial self.

Smelly is speaking of nothing....pure potentiality, not the Monad.

So there....dumb donkey boy.

The Monad IS personhood.

Just sayin...

You insist on made up names for it and concepts that do not apply.

I do not speak your language.

You are welcome to your thoughts on any of this.

I'm welcome to tell you you are full of shit and you are left to puzzle over it or blow me off.

Direct perception settles it and that can only be done by the individual.

You have not done this yet obviously.

I can't show you how

I'm not going to talk about this anymore with muppets who haven't done the work, it's boring.

Let's move on.

Going through a portal only opens the door.

You still have a lot or little work dependent on the level of mind infection you have.

I treat you all as infectious agents until you show you are not bound by the mind virus.

The mind virus doesn't like being teased or challenged.

The first sign you are infected.

You could say that the monad is transpersonal.

I've touched it and I don't know what all these liars are saying about it.

They lie.

Dumb pretender.

No one has a definition for personhood, but you lazily use terms you don't feel or understand.

Do your own work.

Stop listening to fools.

.

Wow,

smelly appeals to direct perception........

I’ll have to think about this.......

And to the transpersonal.....


Direct perception is the perception of the relationality of existence

In that sense, it is transpersonal...... direct perception takes us back to the pure light of the Monad, before it is refracted into the appearance of individuality........ this is educated guesswork, of course.  

Direct perception is an introspection of the Monad through us.

We are only the conduits, like the god with many eyes, facing in and out.  

I think of the transpersonal as referring mainly to the trans egoic.  

The transpersonal has nothing to do with the transhuman, of course.  I’ll be glad to leave that to Kurzweil and the AI freaks.  

All of us are naturally transpersonal in much of our thinking.

Anything interpersonal is necessarily transpersonal..... in its essence.  

Where three of you are gathered together.........



(cont.......)

You cannot describe the Monad (Tao)

God you are dumb and I love showing how dumb you are.

https://www.schoolofhaskell.com/ wrote:So far I've been trying to be truthful, even if I wasn't telling the whole truth.

Or I could start lying.

But there is a third way: mystical rather than categorical. I can follow the ancient Chinese sage Lao Tzu who essentially wrote the first Haskell manual called Tao Te Ching. The Tao is supposed to be as elusive as the Monad:

The TAO (Monad) that can be told is not the eternal TAO (Monad).

The fact that Lao Tzu didn't stop writing after this opening gives me hope that I can do it too: Talk about the Monad without defining it. Starting with this caveat:

However I describe the Monad to you, I'll be missing something important.
-- Bartosz Milewski

So go ahead and talk about it and not define it.

You have to think and write in Zen Koans.

Why are you so stupid Ack sack?

dan wrote:Wow,

smelly appeals to direct perception........

I’ll have to think about this.......

And to the transpersonal.....

I call out the bullshit of you guys talking about the monad in categorical terms.

Stop being so silly.

Categories and descriptions = mind virus.

The Tao of the Monad

Now we are talking about nuthin!

Ack wrote:You're so weird...

Monad is a term for a concept, yes.

You are pointing here to something beyond concepts, yes.

You think I don't get it dork?

I get IT.

You are stuck in the abyss.

You are sour grapes for the logos.

Relaaaaxxxx.

We can play with concepts without sticking to them.

Sheesh!

You have fooled yourself into your current position.

Bash yourself in the head until you can't speak.

When someone told me to try this, I did.

I saw the wisdom of it immediately.

Now I'm a blind smelly donkey goat thing.

Wonder what you are.

.

Learning the depths of your dumbness is as good as anything to do.

And it is why the learned can't pass this way.

Only us morons.

I wonder if you have discovered, of all the muppets on earth seeking to keep you dumb, it is only you that restrains you.

You are the one fighting to keep you from seeing.

True for all of us.

We must doubt our minds and thoughts, you really can't trust yourself until you can.

You will know when you can.

That's why the price is your mind.

Philosophy isn't going to make it all better

Cope out.

More than several others have been clear on the limits of mind to describe mind.

.

Good start.

Stay close to that.

Mind does not have our answers, it seeks what it will never find.

Bahahahahaha

.

The way I look at sharing this or trying to share what is indescribable with our current software, if you feel froggy, jump.

If you are in the zone, those spontaneous moments are the most free of mind.

I sometimes have a physical response when I know to speak.

I don’t hold my tongue or second guess what is said.

I like to be spontaneous, seems this is the most appropriate in most situations.

Whatever happens stands.

Whatever happens happens.

I don’t look at it sharing with people who need what I have.

I don’t have an agenda or point to make, I just deny anyone else’s

They might wake up to that, they might not.

I’ve tested several different approaches.

I worked all that ego silliness out.

I figure if we come in contact, that will leave its own mark.

Who knows where that person is or realizes.

I mean, among friends, like we are, cosmic friends, we can be a little more blunt.

I look at jousting with you all like the zen masters did with each other.

It’s easy to get distracted. So we beat each other senseless when needed.

It seems to work.

Don’t take it personal, it’s not.

That’s just your ego fucking with you.

WK is our case in point here, bahahahahaha.

But do you hear me preaching mystic delusions?

I can only measure my current awareness against others.

It seems to be common awareness here.

I can’t go any further than that really.

.

I have found most don’t have an internal integrity.

They obsess and gain energy from the obsession, otherwise they are hollow.

They have not settled into their natural flow and bend.

They are messes under the covers.

That brings out much arguing in certain sensitive situations.

If someone is lifelong invested in a religion, they are gonna call us the devil.

Dan has called me this several times and I took it as high praise.

That’s a good start.

Because a person will have to get past that good and evil thing.

I don’t know, if you are intuitive, the best thing seems to happen.

If you aren’t intuitive, I find much bullshitz or red dust has collected.

I can engage and try to blow the red dust away.

But that’s about it.

You get better at it, I suppose if I last another 20 years I’d be even more mellow.

Smelly has taught me farting and burping seems to blow the most red dust away

My words are shit really.

I concur.

YMMV, but I have had some contact from nowhere.

I may go a bit existential here, this is a tricky post and one I would challenge you to see through to what I can't say.

Don't take me at my word alone.

Shit just pops up.

Let's talk about our 'virtual' reality.

We can just see things here together, just for a few minutes, drop your guard.

...

It starts tonight with the Gita and non-duality.

Just a fun evening.

Krishna continually speaks that he is the Divine entity and then he is to be surrendered to.

Um, you can go to hell Krishna, I am not surrendering to any appearance.

Arjuna unsheathes his (s)word...

Krishna and me are rumbling!!!

Pow!

Bam!

Haha

But but back to being virtual...

Most people are afraid of being virtual, but it makes the most sense.

We have all but declared this to be so here on OMF, no?

"The misunderstanding in these discussions arises because the terms are not very well defined. For example 'God' is a word that can mean a lot of different things. I am not against the idea that there is a hierarchy in the world of appearances. The 'top' leader in such a hierarchy could be called 'a Personal God.' However, anything 'personal' is part of the 'virtual' world that is derived from memory. All these discussions are memory-based, including the citing of so-called holy scriptures.

To see these virtual constructs as such is a somewhat courageous step as it dismantles any support from memory. You are truly naked, even naked of your self-concept. Realising this is freedom from the hypnotic influences of the virtual world. It is not rejecting the virtual world. It's only seen to be 'virtual', 'made-up,' another word for 'created.' It is not 'believed' to be virtual - it is SEEN to be so.

The seeing is real. Saint Francis of Assisi: What's looking is what we are looking for. We can't 'believe' in seeing. Seeing is happening anyway."

"Anything that is definable - de-fin-able - is a secondary instance. The seeing of definitions is prior to any definition, and therefore, it can't be defined. It is obvious, but denied by the intellect, because the intellect wants to be primary and pretends that it is capable of seeing. People who identify with the intellect think that they are capable of seeing. Nobody sees. What looks through your eyes is not defined unless you insist in assuming that a defined entity is doing the seeing. You are afraid of finding out that there is just seeing. It is the most precious realisation and has nothing to do with anybody."

The incentive for doing 'good' is self-centered as long as we believe in merit from the Chief PuBa.

The criticism of the above is that it lacks compassion and could lead to any activity and nihilism.

OH NO, NOT NIHILISM!!!!

That may lead to SUICIDE!!!!

Bahahahaha

Sometimes the virtual world becomes too painful.

OK, so I have to fess up, I can be in my garden because I looked into me, behind the virtual curtain.

One state leads to another.

I feel virtue a fine virtual governor.

Let's look at the history of the word virtue, just because I feel to.

one moment....

This is quite a word virtue, of course the Romans made it a male goal.

"The ancient Romans used the Latin word virtus (derived from vir, their word for man) to refer to all of the "excellent qualities of men, including physical strength, valorous conduct, and moral rectitude." The French words vertu and virtu came from this Latin root. In the 13th century, the word virtue was "borrowed into English".

Ancient Egypt

Maat, to ancient Egyptians, personified the virtue of truth and justice. Her feather represents truth.[2]
During Egyptian civilization, Maat or Ma'at (thought to have been pronounced *[muʔ.ʕat]), also spelled māt or mayet, was the ancient Egyptian concept of truth, balance, order, law, morality, and justice. Maat was also personified as a goddess regulating the stars, seasons, and the actions of both mortals and the deities. The deities set the order of the universe from chaos at the moment of creation. Her (ideological) counterpart was Isfet, who symbolized chaos, lies, and injustice."

Seems this has come up here several times, referring to the Stars.

I like those egyptians, they were deep.

...

I am willing to accept a hierarchy within the appearances, see behind it, then you can only laugh and fart at any person.

We can stand truly naked here, seeing nakedly, being nakedly.

In that nakedless, with no shame, perhaps we go full circle back to the virtual garden.

It is lovely

I like some virtual things and others I don't care of, but that's just virtual silliness, because it's all just what is.

Unconditional love is indescribable.

Anyone who says love love love is deluded .

The feeling is not love.

It's in everything.

My appearance is unconditional love, yours, my car, my job, unconditional love, it just is.

It does not have a cause I can dowse.

This takes care of the fear of loss of compassion.

A peaceful monkey is a compassionate monkey when they see love is just what is and we don't understand it.

Naked seeing doesnt have preferences, it just sees what is.

We don't like the view, we change the channel.

So Dan, considering our virtual world and that no persons could be here other than virtually, that does open things up a bit.

Can appearances compete for virtual time, apparently they can.

We can't believe in seeing, seeing just happens.

There is just seeing and being what is.

There is no us or we or me that sees, there is just seeing.

Fun discussion on how to see yourself as you are.

If I were to see a "virtual" Personal God, it could be Jesus, at least the Christ template.

In my virtual world, I nod to Jesus, but I have the wheel.

Turns out I have one of those boat, plane, car dealios.

DISCLAIMER: No marijuana was ingested for at least 6 hours before this post

Well, at least you're not seeing St. John the Baptist in your chicken pot pie but whatever it is your're "on", can I some? It sounds like fun!

smelly,

Suppose we aim for moderation.......

Here we are on a public platform, discussing who we think we are.  

Perhaps we can agree that there is already more than enough confusion in the world on this question.  

You and I follow different strategies for meliorating the confusion/distress.  

You follow a path of mysticism.  

I follow a path of....... rationalism.

Right off the bat you a are liable to complain of labels.

You have a great proclivity to be the bad boy, the rogue scholar, the outlaw.......

There might, however, be a public obligation to...... enlighten, if we are at all capable.  

The most important thing we might agree on is that the world does not need fixing.  It does not even need enlightening.  

Perhaps we can agree that we need a better way to converse.

We need a better way to explain our differences to each other...... maybe.  

In this process we can obtain a more robust balancing of the extremes.  

What you utterly fail to understand is that we have a common enemy.  

The common enemy is science...... the extreme excesses of scientism, of the scientific establishment that so much prevails over modern, secular, intellectual culture.

I am attempting to find a path forward...... out of our modern morass

Here we have a fabulous, miraculous global communications system, but all that we can do with it is propagate age old misunderstandings.  

You and I and a few of our friends are capable of something better.

Does this sound too much like an agenda..... like an axe to grind, like a mission...... out to save the natives?  

Ok, if nothing else, smelly, you are here to chaperone the mission.

Will you be our mystical mascot?  Come on, smelly..... smile like you mean it.  


11:10........

Yes, the mystics wish to dampen the flames of modernism, of sectarian and secular passions, which threaten to lay waste to the world.  

The holy water of mysticism...... it doesn’t hurt...... but no one sees that as a path to mitigating the conflagration.  

smelly puts off so much odor, that he is unable to smell the smoke.

I agree that we are not actually in peril. However, I claim that the appearance of peril is a gift toward a global awakening...... a gift toward which, it does behoove us to turn up our noses. There is nothing natural about turning up one’s nose.

How can smelly help out, besides by being our mystical mascot?



(cont......)

.

Ack,

I could have included religion, but I see religion as very much the underdog in the intellectual arena.

And, let’s be honest about this...... we have no choice, in the first instance...... our actual and prospective audience is composed of knowledgeable seekers.  

Yes, everyone, I am proposing a risky strategy....... of fighting fire with fire.  

At the worst, I am tossing a match on a conflagration.  

Yes, Ack, I’m placing candles along one of the many paths back to the Source.

I’m even suggesting this path as the Mahāyāna.

Will this path interfere with the myriad other paths? If anything, it will make all of them more visible.



(cont.......)

.

Ack,

A virtual path to a virtual Monad...... getting there will be most of the fun, in other words.

And when we get there we will know ourselves for the first time..... as specters of the cosmic bootstrap, aka. the best possible world.



(cont.......)

.

The Monad cannot be described, because it does not exist, and certainly not in Eternity, because there is no such thing.  

The Monad, such as it is, is a moving target, a will of the wisp...... yes, a mirage.

It is a circle, whose circumference is nowhere, and whose center is everywhere.  

This is actually in accord with the scientific understanding of our ‘physical’ universe........ it’s just that scientists act much too much like the literalist fundamentalists that they are so opposed too....... as if one form of literalism would negate the other.  

Both Ack and smelly have had traumatic encounters with organized, fundamentalist religions.  That is what drove them here, in the first instance.  

It is scientific literalism that provoked religious fundamentalism, not the other way around...... if you regard your history.  

Religious fundamentalists are not seekers...... not by any measure.

However, when it comes to the scientific sort, we posses the ultimate bait..... uncorrelated phenomena...... yes, along with a little Princess.

When they stick their noses into our little mousetrap....... then we can rub their faces in their very own rationality...... but now a rationality on steroids..... an unbounded...... an emergent, irreducible rationality.

This is.... if Ack and smelly will allow it.......

Do I rub my hands in anticipation, in a virtual sadistic glee? Hmmm.....

Do the the scientists, with their pocket calculators and spread sheets deserve any of what they are about to get? Maybe just a little......



(cont.......)

.