Sanctuary

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




You, my friend, drink from a particular fountain of wisdom.








...................................




Thank you, sooooo much, for sharing...








.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Outstanding example of your subconscious homo-eroticism Bill. I can just see you as a muscle mary, tache an' all.

.My wife is attending service in her traditional sanctuary - a church.

You should take a leaf out of her book. As what you are doing is obviously not working.

I am choosing a gym.

I look to find the emptiness; the silence inside of me.

Stopping, or attempting to stop, the internal chatter of my own narration. Will I be able to do it? I don't know.

I do, the answer is no you won't. Mainly because you actually have no wish to as I've already given you two very good techniques for achieving in a large part what you say but here you are still not achieving your supposed wish.

But I'll be there, very shortly, to pray.

...and to fight EVERYTHING inside me. I will concentrate upon fighting myself. EVERYTHING I consider myself to be. Me.

Me...becoming the silent not-me.[/size]

Astounding! All that waffle on the zen sites and you paid exactly no attention to anyone, no change there then. So it's not about fighting, its about surrender, it's not about fighting, it's about serenity of mind, it's not about fighting it's about stillness, it's not about physically exhausting the body, it's about training the mind via discipline or control of the body, hence it's always some form of Yoga or moving exercise to get the body into the condition needed to be still for a long time so that the mind can be freed.

What you say is exactly why you'll not be achieving what you say you wish(although personally I doubt this as you are too in love with yourself in reality) as you are the consummate egotist and its all me, me, me with you. Stop thinking there is some other that is the better you that you can't reach for some reason. There is only you and it's about time you dropped the existential angst and learnt to live with yourself. If you wish to achieve what you say then try the NLP techniques I've told you about or join a Zen or Buddhist monastery and put some real effort in. Barring that have kids as they'll at least take you away from all the me, me, me and in the beginning leave you too tired to wallow in yourself.

The way I see it, he was simply venting, displaying his current truth, and his frustration in dealing with it. Putting his life on display, for all to see, so as to be a spectacle for others understanding. Sharing his philosophy, in so many ways, so as to speak.

Some people get a kick out of demeaning condescending tone, aimed at one they believe is inferior, this giving them an upper hand, if only in their mind; a means of qualifying their existence. They forever search for the bad, (evil), people so they can have good reason, if only in their mind, to pummel another human being. This their prime directive. They the seekers of venting at another's expense, in this case, especially one that blatantly sacrifices themselves, in the throws of despair.

I don't know who I feel more sorry for.

[Arising_uk]

.You, my friend, drink from a particular fountain of wisdom.

Yup, it's called Western Philosophy and its better than suckling at the teats of the gnu.

Thank you, sooooo much, for sharing....

My pleasure.

[Arising_uk]

The way I see it, he was simply venting, displaying his current truth, and his frustration in dealing with it. Putting his life on display, for all to see, so as to be a spectacle for others understanding. Sharing his philosophy, in so many ways, so as to speak.

Since this is a philosophy forum then he is open to critique and since what he advocates is pretty much the antithesis of what western philosophy is I think it fair for me to do as such, especially when I think that what he advocates could be harmful to others if they followed his example. That he also refuses to try approaches that very well may give him what he claims to wish for means I find him a gnu of the highest order.

Some people get a kick out of demeaning condescending tone, aimed at one they believe is inferior, this giving them an upper hand, if only in their mind; a means of qualifying their existence. They forever search for the bad, (evil), people so they can have good reason, if only in their mind, to pummel another human being. This their prime directive. They the seekers of venting at another's expense, in this case, especially one that blatantly sacrifices themselves, in the throws of despair.

And others prefer pop-psychology to philosophy. If Bill is in the throws of existential angst then Western Philosophy has more than enough replies to such a condition and he should try reading some.

I don't know who I feel more sorry for.

Your feelings are immaterial to me, save it for the psych or new-age sites.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The way I see it, he was simply venting, displaying his current truth, and his frustration in dealing with it. Putting his life on display, for all to see, so as to be a spectacle for others understanding. Sharing his philosophy, in so many ways, so as to speak.

Since this is a philosophy forum then he is open to critique and since what he advocates is pretty much the antithesis of what western philosophy is I think it fair for me to do as such, especially when I think that what he advocates could be harmful to others if they followed his example. That he also refuses to try approaches that very well may give him what he claims to wish for means I find him a gnu of the highest order.

Some people get a kick out of demeaning condescending tone, aimed at one they believe is inferior, this giving them an upper hand, if only in their mind; a means of qualifying their existence. They forever search for the bad, (evil), people so they can have good reason, if only in their mind, to pummel another human being. This their prime directive. They the seekers of venting at another's expense, in this case, especially one that blatantly sacrifices themselves, in the throws of despair.

And others prefer pop-psychology to philosophy. If Bill is in the throws of existential angst then Western Philosophy has more than enough replies to such a condition and he should try reading some.

I don't know who I feel more sorry for.

Your feelings are immaterial to me, save it for the psych or new-age sites.

No need to save it, much like you do not save it.

That you brand things as you do, matters not to the truth of things, that anyone can be oblivious to.

[mickthinks]

Some people get a kick out of demeaning condescending tone, aimed at one they believe is inferior ... I don't know who I feel more sorry for.

LOL I'm guessing the irony there will be completely lost on you, SoB!

[Arising_uk]

No need to save it, much like you do not save it.

The difference is I don't condescend to tell others about my feelings as they are immaterial to them.

That you brand things as you do, matters not to the truth of things, that anyone can be oblivious to.

You think I shouldn't name what I understand?

You think pop-psychology the 'truth of things'?

[SpheresOfBalance]

No need to save it, much like you do not save it.

The difference is I don't condescend to tell others about my feelings as they are immaterial to them.
There is no difference!

That you brand things as you do, matters not to the truth of things, that anyone can be oblivious to.

You think I shouldn't name what I understand?
Of course you believe what you think you believe, which is the point.


You think pop-psychology the 'truth of things'?

Again your branding matters not.

Dissect Bill's OP in this thread, listing all the possible things that he could have meant. Things that one might glean as his intent, that seems to be on his mind, that one might safely assume. Then I'll add some of my own, unless of course you cover them all. Then I'll ask you some questions. Come on this shall be easy. Here in the US teachers ask 5th graders the same sort of questions.

P.S. Don't forget to make comment on the GIF.

[Arising_uk]

There is no difference!

Apart from that one condescends to tell of it and the other doesn't.

Of course you believe what you think you believe, which is the point.

No, I know what I believe and I understand what I know.

Again your branding matters not.

Again you avoid the question.

Bill's OP in this thread, listing all the possible things that he could have meant. Things that one might glean as his intent, that seems to be on his mind, that one might safely assume. Then I'll add some of my own, unless of course you cover them all. Then I'll ask you some questions. Come on this shall be easy. Here in the US teachers ask 5th graders the same sort of questions.

Read my first reply to him and tell me what you think I've missed.

. Don't forget to make comment on the GIF.

See above.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Some people get a kick out of demeaning condescending tone, aimed at one they believe is inferior ... I don't know who I feel more sorry for.

LOL I'm guessing the irony there will be completely lost on you, SoB!

I guess "to champion" by treating an offender in kind, is lost on you. As I've said before, I really like playing the part of a mirror, though many are blind to what they are seeing. The trick? Don't offend, then I won't, treat in kind. Yes, it's really that simple.

I should get a cape and a mask!

[SpheresOfBalance]

There is no difference!

Apart from that one condescends to tell of it and the other doesn't.
Incorrect, I only ever treat in kind, closely observing how 'they' treat either me or others, you're condescending on a regular basis.

Of course you believe what you think you believe, which is the point.

No, I know what I believe and I understand what I know.
No, obviously you only believe, both that you, "know what you believe," and that you, "understand what you know." But then, that's been your case since I've first known of you. For example, you can't possibly 'know' what Bill might do in any 'particular' instance; clairvoyance is a myth, that 'charlatans' try and sell. And in your case, obviously, a means to condescend.

Again your branding matters not.

Again you avoid the question.
No avoidance anymore than you or anyone else, as we each selectively address that which we see as more important. Though 'some' do it for other reasons, I'm sure; you! Oh, and did I say that your branding matters not?

Bill's OP in this thread, listing all the possible things that he could have meant. Things that one might glean as his intent, that seems to be on his mind, that one might safely assume. Then I'll add some of my own, unless of course you cover them all. Then I'll ask you some questions. Come on this shall be easy. Here in the US teachers ask 5th graders the same sort of questions.

Read my first reply to him and tell me what you think I've missed.

My wife is attending service in her traditional sanctuary - a church.
I am choosing a gym.

As what you are doing is obviously not working.

A couple divided, yet it takes two to tango! More condescension, as if you could 'know' that Bill is the problem. It could be a manifestation rather than a causal. A charlatan indeed!! Looking for 'anything' to take a pot shot? Twisting and turning to serve ones condescending purpose! Ploys to serve ones need to do harm! Need I go on? What am I thinking right now! As surely you would claim to 'know.'

. Don't forget to make comment on the GIF.

See above.
As to the GIF:

Outstanding example of your subconscious homo-eroticism Bill. I can just see you as a muscle mary, tache an' all.

Or that men pay far to much homage to their libido, or so it might seem. Especially in light of:

and to fight EVERYTHING inside me

I clearly see "Mein Führer" in the image. And yet it's true that men are subject to their chemistry. An internal conflict indeed!

The OP clearly crying out in pain and frustration caught between one's animal self and mans illusory dogma. Now go ahead and pit nature against illusion, you Darwinist; and then there was a 'big bang,' creating all 'nature.'

Look, you know you have your favorite targets, which could indeed spell out complacency, with respect to a desire to fire; trigger happy?

[Arising_uk]

Incorrect, I only ever treat in kind, closely observing how 'they' treat either me or others, you're condescending on a regular basis.

Show me where? I'm often insulting but I think I rarely condescend as I take what the other says seriously and most of the time offer advice or an honest opinion. This is a philosophy forum, if one does not like ones thoughts critiqued then go to a social network site or a new-age love in.

No, obviously you only believe, both that you, "know what you believe," and that you, "understand what you know." But then, that's been your case since I've first known of you. For example, you can't possibly 'know' what Bill might do in any 'particular' instance; clairvoyance is a myth, that 'charlatans' try and sell. And in your case, obviously, a means to condescend.

This is a philosophy forum, what one types should be what one thinks and I think you do Bill an injustice in thinking he doesn't know what he is saying or doing when he types. Unlike you I address what he and others say not some view of what I think is going on.

No avoidance anymore than you or anyone else, as we each selectively address that which we see as more important. Though 'some' do it for other reasons, I'm sure; you! Oh, and did I say that your branding matters not?

Explain to me where I have avoided whatever it is you think I'm avoiding? For that matter explain what it is you think I'm avoiding? Whilst you are there explain what you mean by "branding"?

My wife is attending service in her traditional sanctuary - a church.
I am choosing a gym.

As what you are doing is obviously not working.

A couple divided, yet it takes two to tango! More condescension, as if you could 'know' that Bill is the problem. It could be a manifestation rather than a causal. A charlatan indeed!! Looking for 'anything' to take a pot shot? Twisting and turning to serve ones condescending purpose! Ploys to serve ones need to do harm! Need I go on? What am I thinking right now! As surely you would claim to 'know.'

What are you wittering on about!? That Bill's wife goes to church and he doesn't implies in no way that they are divided nor that there is any problem that Bill is responsible for. My statement was simple, Bill seeks a goal, essentially peace and enlightenment from his existential angst and the voices in his head. My take is that his wife has it right and Bill should return to his church to find what he seeks by engaging with the techniques available to the believer.

As to the GIF:

Outstanding example of your subconscious homo-eroticism Bill. I can just see you as a muscle mary, tache an' all.

Or that men pay far to much homage to their libido, or so it might seem. Especially in light of:

and to fight EVERYTHING inside me

I clearly see "Mein Führer" in the image. And yet it's true that men are subject to their chemistry. An internal conflict indeed!

Yup! Mein Fuhrer saluting his penis and in all the glory of the over-blown male body. Bill must be suffering very badly then as pretty much every gif is of tits, rape, bestiality, arses, etc, etc. Your analysis that Bill has issues over his sexuality may be true and I think they probably are given his gifs but my take is that what is of importance is ones outcomes so I notice you ignored the advice I gave him? Advice based upon his own wishes and pointing-out that he cannot achieve what he proposes the way he's going about it and especially since it contradicts what he says he thinks about the 'ego' and the 'self'.

The OP clearly crying out in pain and frustration caught between one's animal self and mans illusory dogma. Now go ahead and pit nature against illusion, you Darwinist; and then there was a 'big bang,' creating all 'nature.'

What are you on about now? Bill has what is known in philosophy as existential angst and holds a view of self based upon a mish-mash of Freud, Eastern religious thought, Ouspensky, Jaynes and his guru which does not appear to be achieving his goals. All I tell him is that there are ways to achieve them that he hasn't tried.

Look, you know you have your favorite targets, which could indeed spell out complacency, with respect to a desire to fire; trigger happy?

No, this is a philosophy forum and I reserve the right to critique those who think they can promote a view of philosophy based upon little to no reading of the subject and who promote a 'philosophy' that obviously doesn't do what it says upon the tin. Since Bill first arrived here he has derided Philosophy, told us to stop reading it and that there is something bigger and better to be trying to achieve and yet his posts show that what he promotes as the solution to the issues he thinks assail everyone are apparently of no use to him so why should he be allowed to promote them without critique. Especially since there are techniques and solutions within and without Philosophy that could give him what he seeks but he refuses to countenance even considering them let alone discussing them.

[mickthinks]

Some people get a kick out of demeaning condescending tone, aimed at one they believe is inferior ... I don't know who I feel more sorry for.

LOL I'm guessing the irony there will be completely lost on you, SoB!

I guess "to champion" by treating an offender in kind, is lost on you. As I've said before, I really like playing the part of a mirror, though many are blind to what they are seeing.

That's "I really like" as in "I get a kick out of" being condescending.

Don't offend, then I won't, treat in kind. Yes, it's really that simple.

It's not quite that simple if you believe, as you clearly do, that "they deserve it" justifies your offence. I think that requires you to examine the context of the demeaning condescension that you have perceived, going back, not just to the start of the thread, but to, at least, the first interaction between the parties involved.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Some people get a kick out of demeaning condescending tone, aimed at one they believe is inferior ... I don't know who I feel more sorry for.

LOL I'm guessing the irony there will be completely lost on you, SoB!

I guess "to champion" by treating an offender in kind, is lost on you. As I've said before, I really like playing the part of a mirror, though many are blind to what they are seeing.

That's "I really like" as in "I get a kick out of" being condescending.
Why do you now project either your intentions, or those of your speculation as to what others 'may' intend, in such a case, upon mine? This shows that you obviously don't know me at all. I just see injustice, and become outraged. I have no want or desire to treat them the way they treated another, just that they have to know how it feels, to stop treating others that way. I would much rather enter into a thread where 'all' are respectful of one another leaving all grudges behind. Where they are more like true adults/philosophers of much less 'emotion' (mud slinging) and more 'matter of fact.' No need to lie, bringing ones mysticism into the mix, as if it's definitive of the truth of things.

Don't offend, then I won't, treat in kind. Yes, it's really that simple.

It's not quite that simple if you believe, as you clearly do, that "they deserve it" justifies your offence. I think that requires you to examine the context of the demeaning condescension that you have perceived, going back, not just to the start of the thread, but to, at least, the first interaction between the parties involved.
Not at all, you're speaking of grudges, and yes our emotional selves do have a hard time leaving them at the doors of perception, as even I have demonstrated on more than one occasion, but that's just it, as social animals we pull each other into such emotional irrationalisms, and the thread descends into chaos. Initially, as I enter a thread, only knowing it's topic, I respect all participants viewpoints, unseen, equally, finding it difficult when one is being less than adult/professional. I surely don't want to go that route, much preferring civility.

To know how it 'feels' to be slighted, in such ways, especially with people of education, and philosophical leanings, coupled with an understanding of the golden rule, which I'm sure many of us do, should cause one to be more empathetic of another's feelings, especially when they seem to be in distress.

Grudges, we have no need for them, as surely we learn and grow. I mean should we 'always' treat someone as they were 'yesterday?' Would we each really prefer that, as we revisit the imagery of our snot nosed childlike selves of yesteryear?

[mickthinks]

SoB: ... I really like playing the part of a mirror...
SoB: I have no want or desire to treat them the way they treated another.

Are you telling me that you can't see the contradiction between those two self-descriptions?

SoB: Don't offend, then I won't, treat in kind. Yes, it's really that simple.
Mick: It's not quite that simple if you believe, as you clearly do, that "they deserve it" justifies your offence.
SoB: Not at all, you're speaking of grudges ...

No, I'm speaking about your attempt to justify yourself doing the same thing you criticised someone else for doing, on the grounds that it's not wrong to do it if it's a punishment. The complication that raises (which I think has you trapped in an inconsistency) is that the wrong-doing that you imagine you are justly punishing may itself be justifiable on that basis, as a punishment for an earlier wrong-doing. If so, your justification fails, and you are guilty according to you own lights.