--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > >> With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. >> truthful to reality. >> >> [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my >> first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really >> are.] >> >> It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational >> outburst against BW. >> >> I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. >> >> And, as you know, I am a very humble man. >> >> But Christ! it ain't easy. > > Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non > duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa > credulitate fiat in homine nihil timere. Hine enim fit illud etiam solidum > guadium nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum.
Augustine: Complete withdrawal from the turmoil of transitory things is, believe me, essential before a man can develop that fearlessness in the face of death which is based neither on insensibility nor on foolhardy presumption, neither on the desire for empty glory nor on superstitious credulity. It is that which is the origin of that solid joy with which no pleasure from any transitory source is in any way to be compared. Still seeking enlightenment by any other name, Robin. I think you're approaching this backwards. 'With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality.' In a world view of gods and men, the gods rule, man is subjugated. You cannot get the totality to bow to the demands of a part. You cannot have your objective reality as long as 'you' are a part of it. In religious terms (which I tend to despise in actuality), you need to give up the ghost of your personal ontology, you cannot make a jumble of ideas that are called a personal 'self' a reality. Personal ontology is a useful conceptual vehicle for acting in the world, but it is mythological, it's a narrative, its not an entity, it is not actually real. You are trying to use a fictitious vehicle to understand reality. Your 'self' is like a massive impacted mass of kidney stones. It's your spiritual blockade. It is in your way at every turn. Forget trying to understand why Barry rejects you so wholeheartedly; your 'personal self', your ego, is nothing to him. Nobody's is (unless she has a bold personality and certain topographical contours perhaps). Your rejection of unity is based on the same problem, that 'you' were in unity. Nobody is in unity. The whole, whatever you call it, God as you would like to have it, is its own thing by itself. When the personal ontology drops away, the whole reveals itself, not because now you have achieved something and it decides to show you, but because it is always there and the crap has floated away, and so naturally, it can then be appreciated. Robin Carlsen is so dear to you. Robin Carlsen has to die. That's it. I think you best pen pal here would be Curtis. But those discussions always go awry because whatever Robin is seen to be in your mind, that Robin is the centre. If you want to be religious about it, put God in the centre and lay Robin to rest. The nature of God might then express itself through that body with the name Robin, but not through 'you'. Personal ontology and spiritual maturity are not compatible. 'Although you perform many works, if you do not deny your will and submit yourself, losing all solicitude about yourself and your affairs, you will not make progress.' - St. John of the Cross 'Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium: Complete withdrawal from the turmoil of transitory things'. Why do you come back onto FFL?
