Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: Re: [seerseeker] re: are we naturally good or bad?

Expand Messages
  • Bhanu Padmo
    ... From: Kyva Holman Subject: Re: [seerseeker] re: are we naturally good or bad? To: seerseeker@yahoogroups.com, caus@aol.com Date: Sunday,
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 16, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- On Sun, 2/17/13, Kyva Holman <kyholm7@...> wrote:

      From: Kyva Holman <kyholm7@...>
      Subject: Re: [seerseeker] re: are we naturally good or bad?
      To: seerseeker@yahoogroups.com, caus@...
      Date: Sunday, February 17, 2013, 2:56 AM
















       










      oy oy oy.  Are we still doing this?  Ugh... fine.



       













      (The Post-Modern Fuss)


       


      Hey, hey Mr Holman! I mean Brother Kyva! Don*t run away so abruptly putting such a label on my back so surreptitiously. I am sure you have mistaken the *generic* lower subject for yourself.


       


      what label did I put on your back?  Looks to me like you're making assumption after assumption and I'm having a difficult time tracking how anything useful is coming out of this.  I made statements regarding my reflections.  Also, I don't run away.  I saunter casually, especially when things seem a lost cause, an extended wank producing more heat than light.  The generic lower subject...? 


       


      Had we been talking about our personal selves all these whiles, Kyva?


       


      I have.  Much as I'd love to think otherwise, I can only speak to what's true for me.  If we're not talking about ourselves, who or what are we talking about?  "Society"?  "Ultimate truth?"  "Science?"  "God?"   Put 23 people - matter of fact three - in the same room and they'll tell you, with enough prompting, completely contradictory things about all of these subjects.  Is there anything any of us can really talk about with anything resembling "ultimate authority" other than our personal experience?   


       


      My insistence on inequality of truth-content in multiple narrations over the same context is about *nature of truth*, not about your *personal truthfulness*. I think we have been juxtaposing each other with an initial phase difference.


       


      *sigh*  I wonder what Siddhartha would have said about the nature of truth.  I keep thinking I heard something about not settling on dogma and other fixed, immutable positions.  What IS the "nature of truth"?  Fixed?  Again, who says?  You?  Has any philosopher, sage or seer, in any conceivable era, been able to perceive the Direct, Absolute, Eternal Truth of All Time with no subjective bias whatsoever?  Plus, naming a number of different layers of reality pertaining to where I live is NOT my "personal truthfulness."  They are what is objectively true, to whatever extent that's possible...  things as they really are. Personal truthfulness is about honesty.  A list of different qualities of where I live is making a list of facts.     





       


       


      We can preen out this latent inconsistency in our restful hours.


       


      Even in the poorest opinion about me from your side, you seem to have overestimated me! Contrary to your observation that not many people like me, the truth is that no one likes me - maybe.


       


      My opinion about you is not poor, and I never SAID "nobody likes you..."  Jeez Louise. I said people don't like being told things that feel like "let me straighten you out..."  And that is not at all particular to Bro. Bhanu.  Lots of people, if not everybody, would risk being disliked for presuming to straighten others out. This is a perfect example of how you make assumptions and attributions that don't map to reality.  By ending this section with "the truth is that no one likes me - maybe", you demonstrate two things - 1) you've formulated a position about yourself based on an opinion you erroneously ascribed to me for whatever reason.  2) If you have to hedge your bets by qualifying nobody liking you with "maybe"... you've basically proven the point I've been trying to make all along.  TO WIT - truth is dynamic, fluid and extremely hard to pin down.  Why wring your brain cells with phantoms of absoluteness?


       


      But I shall always find an alibi to justify myself. I would continue to think that no one has the same (good!) attitude as mine - maybe.


       


      Let*s return to our normal business. I have something to say about the following Kyva-speak :


       


      **As it should be patently evident by now, personal experience is completely subjective, complex and multilayered, hence the postmodern dilemma.  In my experience, the more investigation, the more fluid and in flux apparent reality is.  It's an illusion, albeit a very convincing one like Einstein said.  Thus a dynamic relationship to truth.** 


       


      It is a tautology that *personal experience* is *subjective*. But when you say that *any* personal experience is *completely* subjective, you are pushing yourself into a quicksand-like deep problem. When you acknowledge and appreciate complexity and multi-layered nature of subjectivity, you automatically admit the fact that a personal experience is tantamount to contingent/ partial/ limited permeating of *meaning* in the complex and multilayered subjective domain.


       


      No - it's NOT a tautology.  There have been some people: philosophers, atheistic Richard Dawkins-type scientists, political prognosticators etc., who present as if their personal experience is in fact objective, indefatigable and unassailable.  Ummm... what do you think YOU'RE doing when you "correct" my wrong thinking about ultimate truth?  I mean... do you really get this?  You're arguing that truth is absolute, I'm pushing into quicksand and the like... as if you understand my experience better than I do.  Really?  Really...      


       


      Modern? Post-modern? What sort of chronology you apply to inertness? You are trying to assign a clock to a piece of rock, Kyva! Did you find sufficient/ desired clarity in any corner of the philosophical domain? Isn*t your detection of patency a bit ridiculous therefore? And especially when we are considering mutability of the purported fundamentality that supports the several purported patents which are being thrown around by the questionable (suspectedly lesser) subjects!


       


      What?  Huh?  How could anyone, much less me, apply a timeline to a quality of immobility?  Why would I?  What are you saying?  I found patency in the teachings of the Enlightened One, Buddha, WHO SAID:. 


       


      "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many >>>like ultimate truth<<<. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."


       


      so are you saying that Buddha's open ended approach to truth is "a bit ridiculous therefore"?  That's how you feel? 


       


      Coming back to the matter of *contingent/ partial meaning* begotten of partially permeated (with personal experience) complex and multi-layered subjectivity, aren*t we convinced of the fact that two different statements in the same context could have different meaning-content or truth-content? So what is this post-modern big fuss about *subjective/ personal sovereignty* when we know that it is *limited*?


       


      I have no idea what this is asking


       


      Why should deeper investigation make apparent reality more fluid or cause it to be in flux or make it seem to be another illusion when more of the originally-complex subjectivity is being drawn into the process of meaning-making (truth-harvesting)?


       


      ummm... because the more information you have, the more data points, the more radiating, rhizomatic points of connection, the more one has to develop an appreciation for the deep complexity of "apparent reality"!   


       


      It is true that the winning line of a race would yet to be arrived at. But the gap between the runner and the winning line would be reducing constantly. Isn*t it more than enough?


       


      Isn't WHAT more than enough? 


       


      It isn*t that you, Kyva, don*t understand all these. You are intelligent. However, I have a suspicion hanging over you. Could it be that you don*t want me to understand what you have already understood?







      You have a suspicion hanging over me?  Hahahaha!  What might that be?  I'M trying to hide something from YOU because I don't want you to understand it?  Have you not seen me laboring assiduously over this whole tortured thread to explain very carefully exactly what it is I've come to understand?  I'm sorry bruh but I gotta call bull now.  When people write with all these exaggerated intellectual-sounding words that don't hang together coherently as an addressable point... THAT feels to me like not wanting one to understand what has allegedly been understood.  In short, a textbook case of projection.


       


      I should be doing homework right now.  My committment to making myself clear in whatever this is supposed to be has come at some cost.  What's worse is that it feels increasingly pointless.  We're diddling our fiddles over here and the planet is being pummeled with meteors.  And then some. There could be more important things to get all lathered up about.   


       


      "Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."  Albert Einstein


       
















































      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.