On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Neil ! Perhaps, if you you were to read the piece again...
This is not a thread where one may enter because one feels good.
Watch The Devil's Advocate, especially the end. And think...
Much is already out there, regardless of what we might feel.
The point is to have something to say, for oneself, that coincides
with the collective. If it must not, then the banksters should be
fine !
On Jan 25, 8:45 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> Earth.
>
> What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> its support.
>
> Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> rule).
>
> On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.
0 comments:
Post a Comment