Uh oh... I'm feeling compelled to respond to you again.
It will be fun, but I hope I don't regret it.
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pm
The thing is -- I think this is true for everyone but some are less conscious of it -- is that we seek opposition, we even seek impassable conflict, and seem to relish it when it is found. I've wondered why this is.
I don't think that is true for everyone. There are many vastly different personality types and ways of being. Does it make you feel more justified to apply your own inclination to everyone? Or is this just more of your need to define and say you know?
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pmSometimes I've thought that *conflict keeps us alive*. If people, if we, did not have something to adamantly oppose we'd not be able to define ourselves, and what is more like death than not having a self-definition?
Isn't it true that all kinds of things keep us alive and engaged, and 'self-identification' is more important for some people than others.
What is your need/reason for making such sweeping statements?
Are you afraid of diversity? Are you afraid of limitless potential?
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pmPersonally, my ideal is not so much 'discussion' because, let's be honest, no one can agree with any other one. Isn't that peculiar?
What's peculiar is that you think that. The fact that people might not agree with you is not because people cannot agree.
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pmImmanuel needs to oppose us (the majority of those who oppose him) in a proportional degree as we need him to mount our oppositions! There is a curious symbiosis.
To me it looks like the natural process of evolving: questioning and challenging the controlling beliefs/claims which don't make sense. It is interesting and entertaining to engage in at times.
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pmBut then What sort of god can be said to 'exist' since the Christian god is absurd through and through?
Well, ANY can be said to exist... but what's the point? Isn't it acceptable to allow there to be 'none' that could matter in any way to us?
I think it's more compelling to consider the possibility of our own 'agreement' to be here. Even as challenging as it might be -- on some level, it might be serving us or something in a useful way, so perhaps we might as well make the best of it, instead of fighting against it.
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pmBut nevertheless none of this actually gets to the heart of the issue: How can existence exist?
What difference does it make for how we live each moment? We exist... done! Now what? Do we need to claim to know the unknowable? That framework that we want to know is limited to our human/physical understanding. Doesn't it make more sense that our framework is not even the same language or vibration of that which we want to claim to know? Do we seek to claim such knowing as a way to ignore/neglect the capability we have for designing our own lives? In other words, we can't be bothered with the responsibility for what we create of ourselves because we're busy thinking about bigger and more important things. Hobnobbing with gods, we can imagine we have their approval.
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pmIn the conversation [sic] between Tillingborn and IC -- in my own view of course -- both totally miss the mark. Nothing even remotely *productive* (intellectually) came from it nor was any productivity ever intended! The conversation was doomed even before it began. Now isn't that a wee bit curious?
It's a dance. Probably no need to try to figure it out.
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pmOnce one moves over 'established frontiers' (idea limits) one heads into territory that has been established as 'extremely fraught' and which immediately places you in trouble. And what I have found is that in those places and zones where such discussion and conversations do go on, that they also become 'pathological'. So it seems to me that it is
pathology that must become the topic.
That is the adventure you are enthralled with.
You generally do...
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pmCuriously, and in a related sense (and here I refer to these pages, these conversations [sic], each
opinionator is presenting his or her own version of
therapy.
It's not curious at all... you were bound to interject it so you could oppose it.
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pmTake Lacewing. If only man's ego was not so present we could all realize our 'cosmic' potential, and woe to anyone whose 'ego' is manifest.
So, this is your way of avoiding inconvenient points: distort and minimalize. Surely you are aware of the destructive results of 'other' men with bloated egos who only see and push their own beliefs. The fact that I am accusing you of it, somehow causes you to discard its validity all together. Now that's curious!
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pmUnderneath it there is a definite therapeutic recommendation. It is the 'moral force' of her condemnations that invoke my interest. These attitudes are very common today, in one form or another.
You, yourself, project plenty of that! I suppose we're all trying to offer 'corrections' to the massive ship of humankind moving through waters of fathomless depths.
Some might take that more seriously than others. I think it's fine that we're all doing what we're doing on that fathomless scale. This forum is a down-to-Earth place to challenge ideas and claims and attitudes on the movie screen of this moment. I think it helps us evolve our mastery within life... moment by moment. I'm not aiming for some definitive ideal/structure. For me, it's a dance... in motion. And we all have many sides we can bring forth on this stage.
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pmSo in this sense 'certain ideas' show up when people indicate what has them in their grip.
Can you see how that applies to you?
Alexis Jacobi to phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:59 pm
My view at this point is that one can only step back and watch as the ship wrecks; as the train-wreck unfolds -- because we can actually watch it in slow-motion as it all takes place. I mean on the larger economic-political stage but then on the microcosmic stage of personal melt-down. To 'get involved' draws one into the realm of social pathology and then 'objectivity' is quickly lost. . .
Well, I agree that we can't control the ship or the train. Further, perhaps it is not our job to. Who are we to understand what purpose it all serves: if we apply our limited physical logic to it, we're just making up beliefs to try and comfort ourselves or feel like we know something (which we then hold over other people). However, we have all of this capability (for a limited time) in our sensory human packages to act out on this stage, create art, make love and music, dance, and explore this Earth garden... it's fantastic!
Surely our love, delight, hate, gloom... all add energy to the mix. I'm more interested in the energy that is generated and contributed because I think the energy is driving the creation/manifestation. Structures are a frame for the essence to dance within. We human beings seem to worship structures and forget the greater power of our energy/essence.