Empty Words and Euphemism

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Thank you for your post of that letter and your explanation of its effectiveness!

Those writing skills are way beyond mine, to state the obvious! However, I cannot imagine any verbalization, no matter how perfectly presented, would significantly sway you relative to this matter of consciousness. LesMis. What some of us are trying to communicate goes beyond mental and emotional matters, so it is inherently very difficult, if not impossible, to present an objectified offering to you that would move you to what is beyond all objectifying! But that won't keep some of us from at least saying more about all of this...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
If someone has experienced God or a soul, and I haven’t, how come they are unable to explain it to me? This is what I wonder.

Some of us have already answered your question - fundamentally your materialistic belief system will not allow it. However, it is also not a simple matter to truly recognize God, as this recognition transcends the body-mind.

Our materialistic tendencies to believe that we are the body run very deep and require profound understanding and whole bodily equanimity to fully recognize that this is false. However, one can have moments of such recognition, even often - but the body-mind rages on and distracts us from that recognition constantly.

In other words, if it were "easy" to convince anyone, then everyone would simply understand that we are inherently free, transcendent of mortal body-mind identification (though not separating out of life as some separate conscious entity), and that would be that. But we have lived this ignorance for lifetimes, so it is not something that generally will occur over a weekend (though that does seem to be what some new-age talking heads like to sell these days via the internet and lecture tours).

You have also told me that even though you cannot prove you are the body-mind, you still assume it as self-evident. Why you believe in materialism is because it doesn't apparently betray you, as you at one time mentioned. However, your senses, your whole body-mind dies. I have mentioned consciousness does not age - something anyone can sense, it seems to me - but you again argued that no such thing as consciousness exists.

Okay, so you only trust your senses - and yet I have repeatedly pointed out that the senses only reflect a very small fraction of our reality, even the simplest object cannot be seen as it actually appears in reality. But still you must trust your senses above all else because you know of nothing else and seem to be afraid to open up beyond this possibility - even though you do admit intellectually that via the senses we cannot ever know how anything actually appears in reality - not to mention, what any thing actually IS.

I have asked you to relax the thought process and feel into the depth of being, but you never got back to me about that. Most people are too busy obsessively identifying with the endless stream of thoughts because it gives them a sense of separate identity, and so such an exercise is either impossible for them or very uncomfortable. You understand this mentally from what I have gathered, but you do not grant yourself the opportunity to actually observe this process fully and see the self-inflicted contraction of the body-mind this constant identification with thinking results in.

When you see that you are doing this to yourself, you will drop it in this moment, then in the next moment, etc. It is actually a real practice. Then perhaps you will see that you simply witness all this arising - not as some separated observer, but all the while participating in life because consciousness is not separate from form.

You trust that the external world of objects is self-evident, as belief in scientific-materialism requires. But no one has ever actually experienced directly an objective external world. There is no external nor internal world - we are only ever perceiving the so-called "outside" world, not actually really experiencing it being external directly. I know you understand this, but it makes no difference to you because your need to believe in the external world of objects as your only reality, runs emotionally deeper than your mental understanding of my contrary argument.

On and on I have questioned you about your belief system, and you argue it very much in a religious-like way - because your sense of reality is structured around your materialistic beliefs. And obviously you are very intelligent, but you will not open yourself up to the possibility that you are consciousness. You cannot accept this because it requires you to release your subjective hold, your sense of identity, that only occurs when you objectify objects and others - and this is a very emotional matter that cannot be upended by verbal argument.

And in the end, only you can recognize that you are consciousness itself, beyond your assumptions of subjectivity-objectivity, internal-external, etc - and that is likely a frightening concept, though it is not in reality, because in reality it is already the case.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Are you or are you not? That is the question.

There are words in french that I cannot explain to an american, and words in english that I cannot explain to a french person,- at least not effectively.

Mainly because they reference concepts that are born from a cluster of values and ideas which are specific to the culture, which makes it impossible for the other person to comprehend. That doesn't mean the people the word originates with are uncomfortable with the concept it refers to.

'Jouissance" is such a word, for example.

Most translations will say it is pleasure, or orgasm. This is not entirely accurate. It can be used to refer to an orgasm (a noun which is not an object, again) and yet it has more connatations and subtilities than the english word "pleasure" (or orgasm). Lacan elaborated much on this, and differenciated it from pleasure, or even joy, and it is sometimes associated with the expression or obtention of power, in experiencial ways; it is part of an internal assension.

Americans can misunderstand this term, or at least not grasp the full meaning. Furthermore, because it has sexual associations included, it can stir some discomfort in some of them, because sex is a taboo subject in the american culture.- At least that can be said in relative terms, in comparison to french culture.

I have found that part of the difficulty in explaining that word to americans is the (sometimes almost subconscious) blockages, or stimulation, they have about sex! Though the word is used in a myriad of non-sexual ways as well as sexual, it's association with sex (almost an orgasm of the mind, and body , simultaneously) kind of makes their comprehension get stunted at that point and not go further.

I tell you though, the french do not have the same discomfort with talking openly in public about sex and sexual pleasure! That is partly why they have this word, this experience they acknowledge in this fashion. They are not uncomfortable talking about a childs "jouissance" for example- most americans have a spike in emotional reaction if I talk of a childs "orgasm" in positive terms.

I wonder if it is not similar for atheists who hear the word God, or other spiritual, non-physical terms? A blockage because the patterns of thought just get detoured at some point- like the one that rejects non-physical?

That is really no reason to assume the speaker has a problem with non-physical though- on the contrary!

reply to post by bb23108



Your post is very comprehensive, and to my mind, very persuasive. Where can I sign up?

By the way, for an atheist, the experience of the non-reality of ego, and matter in general, can be a terrifying state. I speak from past experience when I was still a confirmed atheist, when these states would happen to me on an almost daily basis and often last for an hour or two. It felt like all that was real turned into a mirage, there was nothing physical to grab onto. I had no way of understanding this process (this was pre-Internet), and I knew of no one with whom I could safely share this experience.

Perhaps for someone who is grounded in materialism, there is an unconscious fear of such an experience?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


"It is ignorant to be unconvinced by Letters to a Birmingham Jail." quote LesMisanthrope

Is this your personal opinion...or a statement of fact?

A99

reply to post by bb23108


I just want to say, although I admire your psychological assessment, you are absolutely wrong about many things about me as a person. This is to be expected in a world where you can only experience my words, so I don’t blame you for this. But since I’m not the topic of discussion, I will allow you to believe in your assessment as you see fit, and leave it at that.

I am open minded. It’s actually very easy to convince me with rational and logical argument. I make it a principle to admit when I’m wrong. But so far, despite yours and everyone’s attempt to make a case for consciousness—I follow your logic, your reasonings, your arguments—and it always leads me no where. Emptiness everywhere.

Of course, blame my so-called beliefs. Blame my inabilities. I wouldn’t expect anything less. But that doesn’t change the fact that you are unable to paint a clear enough picture, to produce anything tangible, to lead one down a path of sound arguments to your conclusions. This is likely because you have been lead there by the hand, perhaps by youtube videos, by the harness, with someone else showing you the way, and you forget how you’ve gotten there. If you arrived with your own reason, you would be able to explain how without having to tell people to "feel into the depths of their being" to do so.

reply to post by akushla99

"It is ignorant to be unconvinced by Letters to a Birmingham Jail." quote LesMisanthrope

Is this your personal opinion...or a statement of fact?

I shouldn't have to explain fact vs opinion to you. You should read it.

reply to post by Bluesma

I am just still trying to make sense of

how or why you think people who believe in the concept of God would find the notion of God being non-material, non-physical, offensive or a source of discomfort?.

I am still having trouble figuring this out, but I am leaning towards a subconscious avoidance of nihilism.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by akushla99

 

"It is ignorant to be unconvinced by Letters to a Birmingham Jail." quote LesMisanthrope

Is this your personal opinion...or a statement of fact?

I shouldn't have to explain fact vs opinion to you. You should read it.

You should 'have to' qualify how you are determining that the Letters prove what you are saying...so far (especially in this one sentence) you are presenting it as fact...because if I don't agree...I must be ignorant...that's a cheeky leap...

Fact or opinion...I didn't ask you to explain fact or opinion...

A99

Thanks Bluesma for that insightful read and good example of language differences based on culture, differing sense of morality, etc. Yes, there is definitely a great difference generally speaking between American and French folks when it comes to openness about sexuality.

Originally posted by mysticnoon
Perhaps for someone who is grounded in materialism, there is an unconscious fear of such an experience?

Definitely. Serious materialists are often very logical, scientific, mentally adept people, generally speaking - as compared to emotionally based or more physically based folks.

Mentally-based people tend to get fixed in their logic and ways, and this is fear-based. The more emotionally-based folks tend to be more sorrowful, while the more physically-oriented vital person, tends to be more of an angry type due to desire being frustrated, etc. Of course, we are a mix of all three tendencies, but one typically dominates - so your observation does make sense to me.

reply to post by Bluesma


You've read Lacan? How you made it through I dare not imagine.

I wonder if it is not similar for atheists who hear the word God, or other spiritual, non-physical terms? A blockage because the patterns of thought just get detoured at some point- like the one that rejects non-physical?

This is an interesting thought. For myself anyway, it is a matter housecleaning, getting rid of the ideas that have little use. But I can see how a confusion may occur when the imagery associated with a certain idea gets the carpet pulled from under it. If one is forced to remove an idea because it doesn't sit with her reason, there is probably a flurry of ideas positioning to fill the void where that idea once was.

I will have to think about this.

reply to post by akushla99

You should 'have to' qualify how you are determining that the Letters prove what you are saying

I already did that.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope
Well, like I said, no amount of verbalizing is going to do it because what some of us are talking about is "something" one can only directly discover - and it transcends the rational reasoning thinking mind. However, this does not mean there is not great discrimination inherent in this revelation - it is not some kind of soupy balm that is recognized as reality.

I can only assume that you are not as open as you state because it is obvious, even logically speaking, that the unconditional reality is beyond anything conditional - so how could you, or anyone for that matter, just be talked into the truth of this through conditional reasoning only?

But to simply reject the entire argument based on your logic that only "seeing is believing" is not so open in my opinion. As I said in my first posts, it was never going to work the only way you find acceptable. But no harm done in trying.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by akushla99

 

You should 'have to' qualify how you are determining that the Letters prove what you are saying

I already did that.

In your head...using what you think proves it...I'm sceptical...why should I agree?

A99

reply to post by mysticnoon

I struggle just to put together a coherent sentence, so using "ethos and pathos in a perfect unity" is well beyond my writing skills.

Perhaps this highlights one of the reasons why nothing I write contributes to your understanding of the matter being discussed?

You write words. You are capable. If you care or not to prove yourself capable is not up to me.

reply to post by akushla99


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by akushla99

 

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Still not seeing it brother/sister...the red is escaping me...

A99

reply to post by akushla99


Then what do you not agree with?

reply to post by bb23108

it is obvious, even logically speaking, that the unconditional reality is beyond anything conditional - so how could you, or anyone for that matter, just be talked into the truth of this?

I could ask the same of you.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by akushla99

 

Then what do you not agree with?

That the example you have given proves anything beyond the way you reckon...

"It is ignorant..."

Statement of fact, or opinion?

A99