Atheism

[Dubious]

As I mentioned, Evola is far too involved with the occult and all the ancient mysteries, East or West to give credence to...at least for me.

Ah yes, the belief (among other things) of Kali Yuga and the *spiritual science* of ancient India. Guénon too.

Well if that's all the insightful comments you're capable of making, which doesn't come as a surprise, then go for those you're much more able and eager to reply to. I always feel like an idiot responding to your posts...an exercise in futility. So a sentence or two in the future it will be if I reply at all.

Let simplicity reign!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO-ecxHEPqI

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well if that's all the insightful comments you're capable of making, which doesn't come as a surprise, then go for those you're much more able and eager to reply to. I always feel like an idiot responding to your posts...an exercise in futility. So a sentence or two in the future it will be if I reply at all.

An overreaction on your part, I think.

The core of Guénon’s and Evola’s metaphysical views is based on belief in the Vedic mythology of the yugas. So that would be agreement with what you said about the occult.

You’ll have to explain more about what you mean by exercise is futility.

[Dubious]

Well if that's all the insightful comments you're capable of making, which doesn't come as a surprise, then go for those you're much more able and eager to reply to. I always feel like an idiot responding to your posts...an exercise in futility. So a sentence or two in the future it will be if I reply at all.

An overreaction on your part, I think.

The core of Guénon’s and Evola’s metaphysical views is based on belief in the Vedic mythology of the yugas. So that would be agreement with what you said about the occult.

You’ll have to explain more about what you mean by exercise is futility.

You're probably right! But there's nothing which ever created any momentum in our failed debates and thus not enticed to move forward. Exercise in futility does not require an explanation; it explains itself by its own examples.

Consider it an incompatibility issue, nothing more and nothing personal.

[Dontaskme]

Nothing can see/view itself.

As I am sumthin': I can see myself (I'm looking at my hands as I poke away the keyboard).

Lets be sure and clear about what is being seen here.
I'm simply saying...'things' like hands are the ''looked upon'', the 'hand' is the seen. But I'm talking about the SEER... that which is SEEING
Can that which is SEEING... be seen?

Could you ever not depend on a mirror to see yourself, can't you just know you exist, without looking at yourself?

Goal post movin'...okay, I'll play: yes, even if I were blind, my eyes burned out of the sockets by starin' too long at an autist's posts, I would still exist, still know I exist.

What else you got?

It's not goal post moving, it's just a simple discussion with a nondual context, a true context in my opinion.

So yes, you know you exist, but my point is, this 'Knowing' cannot be SEEN without turning the ''Knowing'' into an object, a concept known like a 'hand'. Can 'hands' know they are being seen, being looked upon?

The 'hand' is being looked upon, the 'hand' is not the seer that is looking at itself.
Conceptually known objects cannot see, objects are not the seer.

This 'knowing' is in all actuality, simply ( NOT-KNOWING )....There is no SEER existing in the real sense as an object seen.. the 'Seer' is simply an illusion. No seen 'thing' can ever see itself.



Prove this wrong, if you do not agree?

And thanks for playing along Henry...at least you do not do what IC does who just dismisses the game completely as a game he is not willing to play along with.

When we can understand ourselves better, and see there is no one or thing being everything, then maybe we can all stop taking ourselves too seriously, as to who has the biggest ego and shit.

[Dontaskme]

This is why the concept of 'Atheism' is closer to the actual truth of the verb nondual reality.

However, in dualism, the conceptual belief in twoism....Atheism a noun: is a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Take away the belief, all beliefs, and what remains is the clarity of simple being, which is this simple immediate nondual NOT-KNOWING.

[Dontaskme]

Yes, source is known, and seeing is another form of knowing.

Seen implies an object seen.

Objects seen, cannot see, they are only being looked upon and known by seeing which is another word for knowing.

This is great. I am just now taking a course “The Interpretation of Gobbledygook” and this gives me a primary source to work with.

Thank you!

I have to disagree.

What you read is not unintelligible gobbledygook.

It's actually intelligence. If you disagree it was intelligent, then you need to say why, and not just leave it hanging in the air, because you could be right, or wrong...or I could be right or wrong...we'll never know until we come to some mutual understanding of what's been read.


Don't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk, say what you mean and mean what you say, always be impeccable with your words, and be kind to yourself or not.

What have you got, your response is welcome, and so is your silence, because silence is always the true answer.

[Harbal]

A philatelist is a person who studies stamps, it says so in the dictionary, but I couldn't find an entry for aphilatelist, which would be a person who does not study stamps. I am not a person who studies stamps, and that doesn't really have much impact on my life; in fact, my life isn't much different to that of many philatilists, apart from when they are studying their stamps, of course. I do, however, sometimes find it inconvenient, at dinner parties and such, when I have to explain my none stamp studying lifestyle to people. Which brings me back to the dictionary: Someone really should think up a name for people who don't study stamps, it would save no end of confusion and misunderstanding. I know that, regardless of what you call yourself, there will always be those who look at you as though you were insane when you tell them that you are simply not very interested in stamps, and who are prepared to argue endlessly as to why you should at least keep an open mind about them, but one just has to put up with it, I'm afraid.

[Harbal]

Don't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk,

Be careful what you say. Just think how bad you'll feel if he turns out to be wheelchair bound.

[Dontaskme]

Why is that seen by you as being an attention seeking selfie whore?

Postin' a selfie here is nuthin' but look at me!

Or would you rather engage with people who were wearing blindfolds? Are you ashamed of yourself?

Here, what the other person looks like doesn't matter. Not at all.

For me personally, it doesn't matter what an other person looks like either. To meet another forum poster face to face, rather than through a blindfold is not a problem for me personally. It's the same in real life, or online, it's no difference for me. People who hide online, maybe are not as genuine as they make or pretend themselves out to be, is the way I see it.

For me personally, it's ok, and it doesn't matter to say to each other look at me, for it matters not what they look like, and that's not the issue, it's just a simple human curiosity to see face to face with who they are talking to.

It's obvious that you prefer to be faceless on an online forum Henry, but that doesn't mean those who like to see who they are talking to are just attention seeking selfie whores, with the attitude of hey everyone, 'look at me', 'look at me'...'wanna a bit of this'... What a strange thing to say. Not everyone is out to sell themself as a sex whore. But that is how human life has conditioned itself to think that way. But intelligent people see through and past that old worn out cliched conditioned superficial way of thinking, while others just remain hopelessly stuck in their conditioned mind-set.

I personally love some people on this forum long before I've ever seen their face. It's just a matter of intelligence. In knowing who really is capable of talking the talk by actually walking it for real, and not faking it.


.

[Dontaskme]

Don't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk,

Be careful what you say. Just think how bad you'll feel if he turns out to be wheelchair bound.

Yes, I understand, we are all each here making assumptions about what it is we are trying to say to each, until we think we have understood.

[Dubious]

AND WHERE WAS and IS 'your' IMAGINATION 'drawn upon FROM', EXACTLY, "dontaskme"?

Where ever you are/is...which is everywhere and nowhere.

Source is only known, it is not seen by the way.

BUT LOL 'I' have ALREADY SEEN, and thus ALREADY UNDERSTAND, 'THE SOURCE', EXACTLY, and FULLY.

Yes, source is known, and seeing is another form of knowing.

Seen implies an object seen.

Objects seen, cannot see, they are only being looked upon and known by seeing which is another word for knowing.

Stretch "seeing" into a systematic observation procedure and you have one of the main principles by which science proceeds into knowing but rarely so in its full gestalt.

[Dontaskme]

A philatelist is a person who studies stamps, it says so in the dictionary, but I couldn't find an entry for aphilatelist, which would be a person who does not study stamps. I am not a person who studies stamps, and that doesn't really have much impact on my life; in fact, my life isn't much different to that of many philatilists, apart from when they are studying their stamps, of course. I do, however, sometimes find it inconvenient, at dinner parties and such, when I have to explain my none stamp studying lifestyle to people. Which brings me back to the dictionary: Someone really should think up a name for people who don't study stamps, it would save no end of confusion and misunderstanding. I know that, regardless of what you call oneself, there will always be those who look at you as though you were insane when you tell them that you are simply not very interested in stamps, and who are prepared to argue endlessly as to why you should at least keep an open mind about them, but one just has to put up with it, I'm afraid.

Kudos Harbal.

Another good example of what is intelligence. There are many examples of what constitutes intelligence within the human mental sphere.

We either agree, or disagree, or agree to disagree. Intelligence is innate within every single mind imputed via direct experience.

[Dontaskme]

AND WHERE WAS and IS 'your' IMAGINATION 'drawn upon FROM', EXACTLY, "dontaskme"?

Where ever you are/is...which is everywhere and nowhere.

Source is only known, it is not seen by the way.

BUT LOL 'I' have ALREADY SEEN, and thus ALREADY UNDERSTAND, 'THE SOURCE', EXACTLY, and FULLY.

Yes, source is known, and seeing is another form of knowing.

Seen implies an object seen.

Objects seen, cannot see, they are only being looked upon and known by seeing which is another word for knowing.

Stretch "seeing" into a systematic observation procedure and you have one of the main principles by which science proceeds into knowing but rarely so in its full gestalt.

Yes, so it seems.

[Harbal]

Yes, I understand, we are all each here making assumptions about what it is we are trying to say to each, until we think we have understood.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying he is disabled, it's just that there is something about his writing style that suggests he might not be fully able bodied. There doesn't seem much wrong with his mind, apart from the rubbish he fills it with, but a good clear out would soon fix that. I sometimes think he is treated unfairly, and I have no time for those malicious rumours of his Nazi sympathies, and his covert racism, and those who say he is an egotistic show off with an inflated view of his own importance should really examine their own shortcomings, rather than attack a disabled (possibly) man who is just innocently trying to manipulate everyone into adopting his way of thinking.

I'm sorry, but I'm getting emotional now.

[Sculptor]

Yes, I understand, we are all each here making assumptions about what it is we are trying to say to each, until we think we have understood.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying he is disabled, it's just that there is something about his writing style that suggests he might not be fully able bodied. There doesn't seem much wrong with his mind, apart from the rubbish he fills it with, but a good clear out would soon fix that. I sometimes think he is treated unfairly, and I have no time for those malicious rumours of his Nazi sympathies, and his covert racism, and those who say he is an egotistic show off with an inflated view of his own importance should really examine their own shortcomings, rather than attack a disabled (possibly) man who is just innocently trying to manipulate everyone into adopting his way of thinking.

I'm sorry, but I'm getting emotional now.

Yes, and as I regard it as very important not to mock the afflicted I have put him, together with Dontaskme on ignore, because they both represent a massive temptation for ridicule.
Sometimes we have to hold back and say nothing to let them have their spleen vented..