If all roads "lead to Rome" then it must be a static fixed dead place. Not a location that is so dynamic and fluid that, it changes by the time you perceive it.

If all roads point to Rome then its quite possible Rome is pointing to these roads.

Therefore it shouldn't be hard to see one can discard the location and the roads, can one do it? Break the box? The God box or the Atheist Box? Let's say the box of any/all beliefs?

The thing can't be captured by the word.

The word is not the thing.

I think we can safely say any disregard or avoidance of the "essence" is an attempt to keep "the box" secure.

Re couple of posts in previous page:

When quibbling has become a habit then all discourses become quibbling. Which obviously doesn’t even come close to a collaborative dialogue.

While acknowledging the fact that ‘western philosophy’ has become nothing but ‘essentially’ an expression of quibbling, each trying to defend their ‘beliefs’, one cannot help but recognize the fact that philosophy essentially is a love for wisdom as defined by the so called ‘founding’ fathers. (Rather silly when one recognizes the love for wisdom is as old as the beginnings of humanity and existed even before the Greeks developed their alphabets).

Naturally, a superficial discourse with little or no interest for the fact of the matter (which we may also call truth of the matter) will indeed be nothing but quibbling, especially when these so called ‘discourses’ are covert vehement defenses of one’s beliefs and affiliations, one’s lifelong investments. The box one lives in.

But if the fact of the matter/truth of the matter, along with a love for wisdom, is of any importance, than one cannot be biased to the accident without looking at the essence. The entire thing is looked into, as it should. Course this implies (requisite) one is already free from the box, which is perhaps a tall order considering the state of so called ‘humans’. It seems they would rather quibble and do anything possible to be secure in their box.

However, if at some point they succeed in breaking the box (Ha!) and are able to walk out from the illusory safety of “linguistic definitions”, or shall we say their House of Cards, then they will realize that every real problem is solved by living, not by definitions. In fact continuous living has no room for problems, it is entirely expression. Every problem so far is an incapacity for life. So to get out of this defensive quibbling linguistic box is the initial challenge, eh.

A man who has not repose is being used by his body and mind in dependence on he knows not what.

Dang there was a serious typo in last sentence which is now corrected.

:up:

Out of several ways we can approach the subject of meditation, one may start by saying meditation is the flowering of 'understanding'.

Understanding is not within the borders of time. Time never brings understanding. Time can bring about accumulation of information, but understanding doesn't depend on time.

Understanding is not a gradual process to be gathered little by little, in increments.

Understanding is now or never; it is a destructive flash, not a tame affair; it is this shattering that one is afraid of and so one avoids it, knowingly or unknowingly.

The fear of not being able to cope kicks in. Actually the fear is always there, because it is foundational to the psyche. Hence the insistence on"activity" as a coping strategy, to cover up or dismiss this fear (or any kind of fear), i.e. fear per se, from awareness (eyes-vision). Which clearly is Ineffectual.

The rose has reached its completion, its perfection. The best it can ever be. There is no reason for the rose to complain. It reached its completion in its flowering. In the death of the bud is the flowering of the rose. And in the death of the flower....the cycle repeats. It is only the so called 'human' that is unable to die, therefore never Flowers to the perfection of its humanity, so it seems.

The POV approach for the OP's narrative is good.

A simple point, perhaps not particularly related to the question in op (or perhaps it is), it won't be a rose either in this world or in "heaven", if it complains. It must be a 'human' disguised as a rose.

Nothing wrong with dark corners or obscurity....the recesses of life and light, yes?

Beauty is un-possessed Wholeness. Seen and desired as an object it is used, perverted, and lost by incompleteness.

Only the complete risk of one's highest organization can challenge the oscillation between being haunted and undermined by the possibility of an organization more fundamental and complete -- and the skeptical purity of mental and vital sensuality, whose fires are hard and intense but which also has no constancy or definitiveness -- persists in fact as crisis, in tension with the universe and its own deep sensuality.

WTF...? You call me a dimwit-sissy? — Frankly

No i didn't. I was pointing to

belief we — Frankly

the use of the pronoun "we" in your previous post.Essentially i was agreeing with the pronoun..

After all it isn't rocket science that out of all posters you decide to engage with me under a rather silly pretext, essentially reiterating what i had said, but with a slight twist. Attempting to make it about atheism and theism (perhaps fishing for my affiliation) when clearly the posts have nothing to do with that.

In regards to your question, hey, if the shoe fits don't let me stop you from wearing it...sock.

You know where to take your drama, don't you? Take it somewhere else. Again, Bye bye

The dimwit-sissy? An unconscious belief we all share? — Frankly

No belief is required in observing the obvious. Especially if it comes with corroborating evidence.. Naturally it applies to all, including you. Bye Bye.

@I like sushi

You have put some effort in this essay. I have not read the complete essay since it is pretty long but i saw the first paragraph is the thesis, and the rest is in support of the first.

The errors in the first para can be corrected if one understands perception to be simply a faculty, which it is, and is not dependent on thinking or experiencing. Perception exists free of both, but both need perception for their existence. The question of perception "driving forward", or towards any direction doesn't arise, since it doesn't. It only appears to do so when it is is mingled with thought-emotion-feeling. Thought-E-F being the same as "thinking and experiencing".

'm not sure why you can't believe something that's not true. There are enough atheist who do so. — Frankly

That's what i had said in my initial post. However, i wasn't talking about atheists or theists. I was pointing to the fact that everyone believes at a very real fundamental and deep level in things that aren't true . The beliefs are very real with real life consequences. And to support that i had used examples all can relate to. Furthermore, as i was explaining to that dimwit-sissy (To be clear, I take the liberty once in while) the mechanisms of belief is beyond your conscious control (either cerebral or emotional), but rather universal, and an aspect of one's inherited conditioned consciousness.

The artist is he who remains beyond his work and is thus denied by its finality.

You cannot learn from experience because it is not complex.

You cannot understand what you could not experience, that of which you are not inwardly capable.

Will do. :up:

See how easy you are? Hopefully your next response will have one or two of those 'rofl tear' emoticons you are known to use frequently while talking to others (but somehow they have disappeared in our exchanges), lest "members" (other than socks) might start doubting your "adequacy". *cough*

You know what?......mommies all over the world are worth respecting, so, i am going to leave your mommy out of this. In fact, i don;t even need to go there. You are an easy one.

One may say, an artist is a Magician who has forgotten what he is doing.

Well, not sure why you would have to refer me back to anything since the progression is quite obvious and in print. Anyone having minimal understanding of English, and 2 brain cells in working condition can read and see what is going on. But naturally, it will take more than 2 brain cells to read between the lines, which I may take it upon myself to explain if they ask, i.e. if I feel so inclined.

Likewise, my take on the requisites for any reasonable interactions or discussions is also documented (several times) and anyone can verify that on my page, if they wish. There is never going to be a “discussion” unless you (or whoever) learn how to come to a discussion. With the right attitude and approach. As to “scared”, what can I say, let my posts and conduct speak for itself.

Regarding your suggestion, you know what they say about suggestions, don’t you? You can put them back into the same place you are pulling them out. I suspect it is the same place you are pulling out everything you have been spewing in the past few exchanges. But hey, I think I get it. You are having a hissy fit, what some may call a sissy fit). You (or your socks) aren’t the first and you won’t be the last. Don’t worry. I suspect you are going to be ok after this period. I am guessing it’s a regular period for you.

So, instead of reveling in your inadequacies, which is making you a fool right now (but perhaps y’all are used to it and want it, for a myriad of reasons that seem quite obvious), what would rather seem rational, is to understand what is going on with you. You wouldn’t be doing what you are doing if you had “grown up”, or not being disturbed by your inadequacies, and therefore be completely comfortable with your silly twists on the obvious, Instead of projecting your own inadequacies and your tantrums outside (or unto me), isn’t it a better idea to take a break, go out and smell the roses? Don’t worry, the forum will be here when you get back. Now stop this nonsense with the highlighted paragraphs/posts and the rest of your juvenile attempts. Your posts reek of desperation, among other character defects. See if you can defeat all this.

Right. I am agreeing with you when you say “that interaction with other members on TPF is foundational”. I was/am aware of it. Even though you haven’t included the ‘socks’ (both old and new) I will also go ahead and include them in the group you call “members”. So yes, we are in agreement.

Which is why one was astonished when you said what you said. Like I said earlier, if anything, evidence consistently points to me refusing interactions (But I suppose facts or evidence wouldn’t mean much to you, since you claim to be so “adequate”) ,- not seeking it. Here I am trying to perfect my social inadequacy skills (as you call it), and you’re telling me it is having the opposite effect. Well, what do you know!

It's a shame you still see yourself as a child. I didn't realise you were trying to 'entrap' adults. Paranoia is treatable, you don't have to suffer in silence. You are correct that the masks you wear are obvious but if you keep reading posts on TPF and contribute now and again when you feel you have grown up a little more then I am sure there will be many here who will show some pity for you and interact with you, even with your obvious social inadequacy issues. — universeness

You are quite right. As i suspected, your post, even after my "bye bye", is certainly a testament to your adequacy.

Not only to your adequacy but also to your originality, and your intelligence, to be able to come up with what you have said. It is quite astonishing.

Particularly enlightening was the part where you talk about me seeking "interaction". This is definitely a revelation. Had no idea, with my history in TPF, is that of one seeking “interaction”. This tells me my social inadequacy issues aren't up to the mark. Which means i might have to take it up a notch (which will be of course under my discretion). Hopefully that way i will never need your (or your kind) pity.

But thank you for the offerings of your "shame" and your "pity". It is not often one comes across a person of your immense adequacy. Bye for now. *cough"

What is absolutely, really Positive, Autonomous, cannot be expressed, it can only throw shadows.

@universeness

Children can't entrap adults. This will increasingly get clearer in future, if it isn't presently. The reason is simple. Adults have already passed through that stage, so they can identify the masks. Rather easily.

One will leave you to continue with similar juveniles (as yourself)....looks like you have already found one. Bye bye.

Thank you for that rather arrogant permission that I don't require. — universeness

Right. The idea was to hit the spot. Glad it did. Better luck next time.

I don't know what point you are making here. — universeness

Then that is a problem which will prevent any further inquiry.

In any case a further deliberation doesn't seem needed, as the original points have already been addressed. Not interested in going into tangents. However don't let that stop you from looking deeper into this topic, either on your own or with others. GL.

I think many/most individuals base their entire existence around their personal wants/needs/desires rather than what they perceive as their beliefs. Do you think personal wants/needs/desires create personal beliefs? or do you think the more compelling direction is that beliefs drive personal wants/needs/desires? Certainly, young human children are driven mainly by personal, perhaps even purely instinctual, wants/needs/desires. — universeness

Good questions, which will flow into several threads if we really get into it. I am guessing we don't want that.

Re the questions: an error of perception (2nd line), or specially; compulsive erroneous attribution, is not a valid excuse for confusion. In that case an urgent need for freedom arises. Absence of such an effort demonstrates insincerity and lack of seriousness.

Furthermore there is no purely "personal" beliefs, because the human is a conditioned continuity of the collective. Failing to see the influences of the collective in the personal is a serious error and indicative of the strength in beliefs. The OP, it seems, isn't talking about "personal beliefs" but perhaps wants to look into the nature of belief per se, as one should, since it affects all. And if anyone hasn't thought it through, it seems that's where our focus should be anyways. For reasons i have already stated.

One can see Belief is a movement of human thought-feeling, common to all, without exceptions.

For now we will leave "children" out of it. That's a special case.....and we are not children.

Let's discuss belief; can you believe something that has been proven wrong?

Yes. Isn’t it so? Don’t people live their lives goaded by beliefs that have been proven wrong? How else will you explain our lives/our way of living wherein we make preparations for future security, when we clearly know our existence can be cut short at any moment? More importantly, how can we even believe in the existence of security, when human experience going back to the beginning of time has clearly proven, there is no security! How else will you explain our belief in one thing or another, be it social, political, economic, etc. that have for millennia been proven wrong? The study of oneself and our species will point to millions of such discrepancies where we believe in things that have been proven wrong. And we do it every day, unfailingly. — skyblack

So, it seems, a shallow inquiry/attribution of meanings to words/thoughts is a continuity of our beliefs, which resists, and becomes reactive when exposed to truth/facts (challenged). A deeper inquiry into these beliefs will show that your (humanity) entire existence is founded on beliefs, irrespective of your belief in the primacy of reason, or your zealous propagation of the same.

Let's discuss belief; can you believe something that has been proven wrong?

Yes. Isn’t it so? Don’t people live their lives goaded by beliefs that have been proven wrong? How else will you explain our lives/our way of living wherein we make preparations for future security, when we clearly know our existence can be cut short at any moment? More importantly, how can we even believe in the existence of security, when human experience going back to the beginning of time has clearly proven, there is no security! How else will you explain our belief in one thing or another, be it social, political, economic, etc. that have for millennia been proven wrong? The study of oneself and our species will point to millions of such discrepancies where we believe in things that have been proven wrong. And we do it every day, unfailingly.

Disinterestedness doesn't mean apathy, on the contrary. Apathy is death.

It seems clear, the first condition for the 'experience' of Reality is complete Disinterestedness.
Freedom: if it refers to anything Real it must first mean Disinterestedness.

To take a leap from what was said in previous page:

Distress is a failure of Disinterestedness. If Disinterestedness sets clear the conditions of Harmony it must itself finally appear as Beauty. Then one may see the old hunchback is transfigured.

Good game. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No, amateurish. You have much to learn in your games. Bye for now.

Ah, I see. So you're at a more advanced stage? — ZzzoneiroCosm

As much as i would love to play this game with you but unlike you i have things to do. Bye Bye.

Your words bespeak a genuine and profound love of wisdom. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Absolutely. A wisdom that isn't confined to the beauty of the flower but also present in the purity of the scalpel. Something you won't understand at your stage.

You seem to know a lot about me — ZzzoneiroCosm

I am afraid it cannot be avoided. Your frequent threads and posts are all over the front page and elsewhere in the forum. Even my infrequent visits make it clear your presence is here 24/7. As to your 2nd hand shoddy posts, well, that's oblivious and in print, right? Now run along and do what you do, with your passive aggressive posts and the silly emoticons.