SMACK ON !!!

Stick around 'yzrabbit1',

I sense you might have insightful 'existential' curves for us all to learn from!!!

Would love to read you!

I’ve decided to exist essentially without a woman.

How’s that for the epitome of existentialism.

I’m also extra sensuous so I guess that makes me an extrasensualist too!

So I’m an extrasensualist existentialist existing essentially without a woman.

It can be done!

But only on unicycle with Silly Putty tires and seat made of Playdough.

It’s a balancing act between sanctimony celibacy and senility.

This post brought to you by Internet Explorer Ver. 6.0.2900.2180

Abra,

Did I read the word unicycle in there somewhere???

Oh! but I think I have! It must be that time of night Abra,

... so go ahead, and crack open your best 'existentabeer', and drink it to our health my friend!


:)

You want me to crack open and extra stenchy beer?

Sorry Voil, but in addition to being celibate I’m also a tea toddler. I’ll have to look around and see if I have an extra stenchy tea here

Stenchy tea it is then!!!

First round's on me!!!

A nebula of cream with that tea?

yzrabbit - are you the guy who puts the music to Abra's words?

FABULOSO! I am impressed with both of you - make a CD and do an informercial - millions - I'm tellin ya millions!

By the way I also agree - " We probably all should be focusing on girls." Unfortunately I'm a bit out of focus at the moment.


BACK ON TRACK WITH THE NEXT POST. I want to respond to the very interesting conversation Voil has set up. I'll be posting again in a few.

There are definitely elements of truth here. Sarte always wants to start with a clean slate (nothingness) – but no matter how hared we try, we can not overcome the illusion of reality that is necessary for the social connection in this existence. It seems that “some” people, have an innate capability of ‘rising above’, the limitations that the perception of the senses enforce on others. The question is – is that ability innate or inherent in all people or only in some and can that ability be enhanced or ‘developed’ in anyone/everyone?

The view of Sarte seems to ‘expect’ that everyone would comprehend his ‘intellectual’ perceptions, while Heidegger expresses theory that better encompasses those who can only relate to ‘being in time’. But do either put enough emphasis on ‘communication’?

In a recent discussion with a new friend, the Sapir-Whorf (or Whorf) hypothesis of Linguistics was brought up. Are we, in fact, limited ‘conceptually’ by language? I think, for the most part people are, but is it inherent or is it ‘imposed’? Is it due to a lack of an individual to deny that language holds any more validation of truth than the perception our senses offer?

Nietzche – as you noted in that thread, can easily be taken out of context. The reason, as I see it, is that Nietzche had a rare ability to adapt language to a dual nature. While using language to divulge the context of theory, he was actually able to communicate, at some level, even with those, who would not ‘get’ the higher contextual meanings. This is why, as you said he is often considered grim, glum, depressive – in actuality I view his nature more on the level of logic. Even today those who show more logic than emotion are considered in the same way.

So what of the questions I’ve posed?

– is that ability innate or inherent in all people or only in some and can that ability be enhanced or ‘developed’ in anyone/everyone?

The view of Sarte seems to ‘expect’ that everyone would comprehend his ‘intellectual’ perceptions, while Heidegger expresses theory that better encompasses those who can only relate to ‘being in time’. But do either put enough emphasis on ‘communication’?

Are we, in fact, limited ‘conceptually’ by language? I think, for the most part people are, but is it inherent or is it ‘imposed’? Is it due to a lack of an individual to deny that language holds any more validation of truth than the perception our senses offer?

Emptiness of "thief teachings" leads to an understanding which allows the recognition of that which was stolen to be known as the unborn self... what could have been...

Humility builds the bridge between the two... the self as taught and it's unborn self...

Which will then give birth to the unborn.

And the infant grows and begins to forget who it was... while remembering who it was meant to be...

For when one finds themself, they will lose all which was not.

CreativeSoul - I liked your last post, it's truth is so simple, why do we make it so complicated?

a continual spiraling inward ... to the who of you when you release that which you are not...

Redy:

Experience can be a very harsh teacher when that which has been learned has not been who you are...

My reflection is only simple to those who can relate...

I suspect that you can...



Always respecting your valued thoughts Redy

I LOVE IT!!!


... and without changing what you wrote Art, here is what came to mind when I read it:

'... the already and always 'inward-ONE' conduit, home of all universal 'ONE'S' essence, which is revealed everytime we do violence and 'let go', 'surrender' that which we are not (ego)...'

Same theme. Simple variation, which takes out the 'going to' or 'on our way to' phenomenon. We're always 'here'. Always 'whole'. But most often, we put a lot of ego interference, like a self-imposed 'wall' to one's impersonal 'already and always' there essence.

What do you think Art?!?!?

It sounds like CreativeSoul, Art, and Voil have a connection. One thought, expanded and expanded again to make each concept a rounded philisophical idea. What a great exchange - I am inspired!

Exactly Voil!!! You 'hear' me well ...

There is a difference (often vast) between who we are at our core and who we think we are.

The ego is who we think we are ... it is made up of our history (real or imagined), it likes the notion of separate and looks for reasons to be offended.

I believe the REAL human journey has always been inward. We are whole ... we are not broken ... we simply (and not so simply) need only release that which we are not ... that which has been created...the masks, the false perceptions...revealing that which has always been there.

I love Michelangelo's response when asked how he could have sculpted the famous David in Italy ... he said that David always lived in the marble and that he just removed the extra to reveal him ...

There is a 'ghost in the machine' ... an observer ...the who of us ...

It is a scary notion to the ego ... because getting there requires a death of sorts and the ego loses its power.

It is the journey of the brave...something tells me you have your own chisel and hammer...

Maybe?

I will boldly and unhesitantly bet all, on the fact that we share the exact same chisel and hammer dear Art!!!

In that I trust!

:)

Artsy:

So curious that you would choose the term "ghost"... quite curious, actually...

I tried and tried to blend the notion of "ghost knowledge" into that post...I will give an attempt here to explain what I believe works within one who is willing... and able...

To me, "ghost knowledge" defines the acceptable opposing notions to the "thief teachings" which the "unborn self" either subconsciouly stores along the way, or already possesses... readily available for the unborn's remembrance while losing the thief teachings...

"Ghost knowledge" is the always growing catalyst which promotes the recognition of the differing concepts that lead to the birth and continued growth of the unborn self... and requires a loss of ego to obtain... humility builds the bridge...

I have a slightly different view of the ego. I see the ego more like the internal divinity. It's the power that is the motivation for life to continue. I believe that eqo could be sufficient without need of personality. But I don't think personality could survive without an ego.

If we were to be raised without human intervention, perhaps by robots, who never communicated with the child, other than to provide a 'quazi' love (for survival) - would we see a personality or would we see the unblemished ego?

Children who are raised with extreme abuse, often show no signs of personality. They present classic characteristics. They are curious but cautious, they rarely laugh and they are normally (as children) the most humble, empathetic and emotional creatures of all. Is that personality, or is that the ego without cover of a persoanlity?

It is not until such children are taken out of harms way that they actually begin to develop 'personality'.

So I'm wondering if it is society, community, peers and family that form the personality? Could it be pressure from society that keeps ego at bay? Could it be that the flaws of humans, are not in the ego but in the 'waking' personality?

I'm familiar with studies regarding personality 'traits' that are believed to be encoded on our DNA. But it is the experiences and the perceptions of the person that cause those traits to become prevalent. So if there was an absence of stimulation of the particular traits, would it be the ego that takes over?