So... what have we concluded here?

[Flannel Jesus]

Don't call me Strawman Bastard, you cretin. It's Sir Strawman Bastard to you.

[Atla]

The only thing we have concluded is that the world is the case.

You must not have been reading VAs threads.

That's one of the better life choices someone can make, probably.

[Lacewing]

if we in our imaginations subtract what were the building blocks, we could visualize a world that would never have come to be. Nothing at all (similar) or something very different would have resulted. So this places (necessary) emphasis on the building blocks: the elements with which people construct their world.

So, you are glorifying building-block values of a past time while focusing on the limitations of the 'crazy crap' today. Hey, I understand the frustration. But, in truth, the crazy crap isn't only happening now, it's just different now, and moving very fast.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the building-blocks of the past were used by patriarchal drivers which created ongoing horrific circumstances for many. Perhaps what we see now is a backlash because of what humans are trying to evolve beyond, and rightly so. It's very messy... but so was the past. If you look deep and get close to people, you see the shared good values of most. Maybe the pendulum measuring the extremism of our past is swinging extremely now as a result. Who is to blame for that? Do you think there should be no reckoning?

If we destroy ourselves, where was the beginning of that path?

[Lacewing]

my assertion is that Mass Man, raised up in a type of fallen commercial mindless entertainment focused culture, and certainly one lacking *authentic spiritual dimension*

What do you think is necessary for 'an authentic spiritual dimension' -- AND -- what do you think an 'authentic spiritual dimension' is?

[Alexis Jacobi]

my assertion is that Mass Man, raised up in a type of fallen commercial mindless entertainment focused culture, and certainly one lacking *authentic spiritual dimension*

What do you think is necessary for 'an authentic spiritual dimension' -- AND -- what do you think an 'authentic spiritual dimension' is?

I have written so much about this, and in so many different iterations, and yet whatever it is that I mean remains largely incomprehensible to you. I think I can grasp your orientation, in fact I believe I could restate your position in very clear terms. But I do not think that you could do the same for my position.

I wonder if you'd ever take the time to read, say, Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses?

In my own case it -- and numerous other things too -- initiated a sea-change on the way I see our *Modernity*.

[Lacewing]

my assertion is that Mass Man, raised up in a type of fallen commercial mindless entertainment focused culture, and certainly one lacking *authentic spiritual dimension*

What do you think is necessary for 'an authentic spiritual dimension' -- AND -- what do you think an 'authentic spiritual dimension' is?

I have written so much about this, and in so many different iterations

That doesn't mean you've actually said anything that directly answers these questions in an unconvoluted way. Can you answer each question in one sentence?

I think I can grasp your orientation, in fact I believe I could restate your position in very clear terms

Maybe I've done a better job of communicating.

I wonder if you'd ever take the time to read, say, Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses?

No.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your lack of interest in contemporary social analysis — applied philosophy in essence — is noted. What else won’t you read?

That doesn't mean you've actually said anything that directly answers these questions in an unconvoluted way. Can you answer each question in one sentence?

Unfortunately for you everything that you are incapable of understanding is *convoluted* and needs to be simplified.

The question “What do you think is necessary for 'an authentic spiritual dimension' -- AND -- what do you think an 'authentic spiritual dimension' is?” is certainly not a question answerable in one sentence.

Maybe I've done a better job of communicating.

In my view it is rather that you have just one core idea you work with, and have been working with just that one for a decade or more. You are a consummate reductionist. Each post is a restatement of the same solitary idea.

There are a dozen important books by people who really think that were you to read them would literally up-end your entire world.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That would be an interesting thread-topic: What books are capable of up-ending an established but *stuck* viewpoint? What books could, or might, turn one’s world around? I can think of 6-7 right off the top that have had that effect on me.

[Lacewing]

Your lack of interest in contemporary social analysis — applied philosophy in essence — is noted. What else won’t you read?

Ah! So you think people must read certain books to arrive at certain understandings which you consider to be some kind of elevated intelligence. That doesn't make any sense. People have had intelligence all throughout history without reading your beloved collection of books/topics. Embrace your books that have served/entertained you at various stages, but keep moving on to see more beyond them too.

Unfortunately for you everything that you are incapable of understanding is *convoluted* and needs to be simplified.

If only you were capable of doing so.

The question “What do you think is necessary for 'an authentic spiritual dimension' -- AND -- what do you think an 'authentic spiritual dimension' is?” is certainly not a question answerable in one sentence.

For you, maybe. Why would it need to be hard?

I can do it.

“What do you think is necessary for 'an authentic spiritual dimension'?

To get our convoluted and noisy creations and limitations out of the way, and then the authentic spiritual dimension is accessible for anyone naturally.

"What do you think an 'authentic spiritual dimension' is?”

It is the natural essence of all.

Maybe I've done a better job of communicating.

In my view it is rather that you have just one core idea you work with, and have been working with just that one for a decade or more. You are a consummate reductionist. Each post is a restatement of the same solitary idea.

Your view has its own problems.

I'm guessing that everyone here has been refining their 'core ideas', you included. Have you gained any new clarity in doing so? Have you distilled your ideas down to essences, or do you just keep adding on more as if that makes it better or more important?

There are a dozen important books by people who really think that were you to read them would literally up-end your entire world.

Well, since you've read them, you can tell me the earth-shattering summary. I would love to hear such a thing. However, I may not be startled as you are. I pretty much see views and stories for what they are and do not limit my thinking to them. I find value in considering the implications and potential across a wide spectrum of views.

[Lacewing]

That would be an interesting thread-topic: What books are capable of up-ending an established but *stuck* viewpoint? What books could, or might, turn one’s world around? I can think of 6-7 right off the top that have had that effect on me.

Start it! Maybe include a brief summary of each to highlight what they reveal or challenge?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah! So you think people must read certain books to arrive at certain understandings which you consider to be some kind of elevated intelligence. That doesn't make any sense. People have had intelligence all throughout history without reading your beloved collection of books/topics. Embrace your books that have served/entertained you at various stages, but keep moving on to see more beyond them too.

I would not have stated it in quite that way, but certainly I do say and have said that we human beings are animals who handle language, and language and the medium of literate communication is one of the core activities of communication of knowledge. So yes, and very much: to be involved in that arena is one of the most important arenas of involvement. And here you are on a philosophy forum, steeped to the gills in Occidental philosophy and literacy, but arguing for I don't even think that you can actually clarify. It is a really bizarre position you seek to argue for. I am absolutely sure that for those who desire to be adept at the terms of Occidental civilization that familiarity with our language- and philosophy-traditions is crucial.

Elevated intelligence? No, you are mixing categories. Many people have pretty high levels of intelligence but what they do not have, or lack to a marked degree, is literacy -- familiarity with the terms of discussion, the topics of discussion, those things which have been deemed eternally and perennially relevant.

You propose *seeing beyond* but then you have never succeeded in articulating this mystical realm that you refer to. To be able to articulate it would entail gaining adeptness with those things I refer to. My impression is that you associate that with *the patriarchy* of some such shite as that. As if there is a special realm of feminine knowledge. Who knows? You are not capable of articulating what you mean. But you are pretty good with grand allusions.

If only you were capable of doing so.

And if I respond to this I will just go in circles with you. In order to understand some of the perspectives I have entertained you'd have yourself to be familiar with those sources. It is sort of like saying that to have even an elemental grasp of Occidental philosophy you need to have read at least some Aristotle and Plato. You are denying that this is the case -- essentially.

To get our convoluted and noisy creations and limitations out of the way, and then the authentic spiritual dimension is accessible for anyone naturally.

That is a simplistic answer and is an example of reductionism. The issue of what *spiritual* is varies from epoch to epoch. And today I think we have many different problems in even getting clear about what we mean.

You take *spirituality* to be clearing away of clutter. Well, perhaps, in some sense that is so. But I think it is a great deal more. And anyway I only said that I do not think it can be (really) answered with one terse sentence.

It is the natural essence of all.

You have a vagina, of course, so there are many things that you just *get* without thinking much.

The *natural essence of all* eh? New Age logorrhea emerges from these sorts of assertions.

I'm guessing that everyone here has been refining their 'core ideas', you included. Have you gained any new clarity in doing so? Have you distilled your ideas down to essences, or do you just keep adding on more as if that makes it better or more important?

Absolutely. The last year+ has been axial in a general transformation of my thinking. I will not say that I did not have intuitions that have now been confirmed, but I do not think that the actual intellectual work could have been avoided.

It would be interesting to ask people What are the core ideas you work with?

or do you just keep adding on more as if that makes it better or more important?

Could be something like that. Some ideas are like powerful levers that affect you at a point that you cannot quite discern until many years later. That is why I made reference to certain books and authors whose ideas had that sort of power. What I a referring to is (I surmise) unintelligible to you since it does not refer to your chosen domain.

Embrace your books that have served/entertained you at various stages, but keep moving on to see more beyond them too.

Sage advice offered by one who has never read!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, since you've read them, you can tell me the earth-shattering summary.

Despite what you think it does not work that way. To delve into some author's thought is a complex experience. It can go on and does go one for years. It would be like trying to reduce someone's friendship with you to a *summary*. Or perhaps I mean mentorship. If you have ever had a mentor the experience cannot be reduced.

Don't misinterpret the following but these ideas do extend from the relationship between teacher and student. I apologize for taking this to a far further point but have you ever heard the prayer Guru Bandana?

Gurur Brahma Gurur Vishnu
Guru Devo Maheshwara
Guru Saakshaat Para Brahma
Tasmai Shri Gurave Namaha

The concept of Guru is as old as humanity itself. Primarily, the word Guru means a 'teacher' and as such it is a universal concept based on the idea of transmitting knowledge from a person, who knows something, to an ignorant student or disciple. In an extended view, a Guru can also be a priest, a rabbi, a master, a school teacher, even a father or a mother. Guru does not mean a teacher imparting formal training but a person who contributes to the overall development and learning of an individual. The syllable gu means darkness, the syllable ru, he who dispels it, because of the power to dispel darkness, the guru is thus named. In Hindu culture Gurus play an important role in any student's life.

There is a level where an encounter with someone -- if only through their thought in a book -- which is tremendously transforming. There are some encounters I have had that have changed my life's direction.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, since you've read them, you can tell me the earth-shattering summary.

Despite what you think it does not work that way. To delve into some author's thought is a complex experience. It can go on and does go one for years. It would be like trying to reduce someone's friendship with you to a *summary*. Or perhaps I mean mentorship. If you have ever had a mentor the experience cannot be reduced.

Don't misinterpret the following but these ideas do extend from the relationship between teacher and student. I apologize for taking this to a far further point but have you ever heard the prayer Guru Bandana?

Gurur Brahma Gurur Vishnu
Guru Devo Maheshwara
Guru Saakshaat Para Brahma
Tasmai Shri Gurave Namaha

The concept of Guru is as old as humanity itself. Primarily, the word Guru means a 'teacher' and as such it is a universal concept based on the idea of transmitting knowledge from a person, who knows something, to an ignorant student or disciple. In an extended view, a Guru can also be a priest, a rabbi, a master, a school teacher, even a father or a mother. Guru does not mean a teacher imparting formal training but a person who contributes to the overall development and learning of an individual. The syllable gu means darkness, the syllable ru, he who dispels it, because of the power to dispel darkness, the guru is thus named. In Hindu culture Gurus play an important role in any student's life.

There is a level where an encounter with someone -- if only through their thought in a book -- which is tremendously transforming. There are some encounters I have had that have changed my life's direction.

Guru means more than teacher, especially if you are using the guru vandana to help explain. We are talking about someone who is seen as an incarnation of God and whom one serves.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Guru means more than teacher, especially if you are using the guru vandana to help explain. We are talking about someone who is seen as an incarnation of God and whom one serves.

It seems to me — though I admit to seeing things through large metaphors — that from a coherent perspective anyone who instructs, or enlightens, or guides through a territory, or perhaps more literally fosters a movement from “dark” to “light” in the realm of knowledge, is fulfilling a metaphysical function that can be seen as part of the world and the way things function in the world.

I think I understand what you are saying though. Even Christians after their conversion experience, or resulting from it, then feel duty-bound to share the Gospel message and, ultimately, serve the God who liberated them.

It’s always about the same metaphor it seems to me: removing blocks and obstructions and helping to bring the subject to “the light”.

[Iwannaplato]

Guru means more than teacher, especially if you are using the guru vandana to help explain. We are talking about someone who is seen as an incarnation of God and whom one serves.

It seems to me — though I admit to seeing things through large metaphors — that from a coherent perspective anyone who instructs, or enlightens, or guides through a territory, or perhaps more literally fosters a movement from “dark” to “light” in the realm of knowledge, is fulfilling a metaphysical function that can be seen as part of the world and the way things function in the world.

I think I understand what you are saying though. Even Christians after their conversion experience, or resulting from it, then feel duty-bound to share the Gospel message and, ultimately, serve the God who liberated them.

It’s always about the same metaphor it seems to me: removing blocks and obstructions and helping to bring the subject to “the light”.

There's a power relationship inherent in the guru relationship that for me the word teacher does not capture. If someone is your teacher, you may well give up certain time and actions to their leadership. You call someone your guru and that's a whole 'nother ballgame. The word has things like veneration built into it. 'Master' gets as some of this.