Not sure why I should care what you think, but I'll try — ZzzoneiroCosm

That was simply a suggestion, to help you out from your misery. You seem to be trying too hard but failing.

I will never read your posts again. — Jackson

Rest assured one's heart isn't broken.

Not everyone is here to discuss. The forum makes a fine notebook — ZzzoneiroCosm

Speaking from experience, eh? Try using the notebook for something original, so far it has been 2nd hand and shoddy, neurotic.

you clearly are not here for discussion — Jackson

You took the words out of my mouth. My consideration towards people in general prevented me from saying that to you. Come back when you learn how to "discuss". Or, read my previous note on it.

To continue from above, prevent systematization,

The complete artist, for whom all forms and mode of expression have become arbitrary, is now completely present in his own right, he possesses his inaccessibility beyond them, his secrecy and immediacy are complete. He appears only formally, he has become what he always was, Invisible.

:up:

Revisiting a year old thread

One may say:

For the grown-up Innocence is something abstract. In his incomprehension, he thinks it involves the absence of what would prejudice it. However, it only involves the absence of his prejudice. Thus it is inconceivable to him.

BTW, the above, is for whom the shoe fits.

cultivate emotional stability, — Marvin Katz

Yes, this a gem. Like not being McNutty, passively or otherwise. Like not getting your panties in a bunch.

Philosophy has only a humanistic continuity and should be considered essentially of the same nature as any other - for example literary criticism. It continues because its epistemology can never be definitive, because its only subject matter is man as the unknown - the man who can only be lived out and not thought about, and who in living himself out as question, as unknown, cuts across all philosophical questions and proves them unreal.

Perhaps all philosophy that is not merely academic(the silliest kind) is the work of a poet manque'.

Well, i am inquiring with you. Thank you.

@Marvin Katz

So instead of poisoning the goodness and the moral, perhaps the poster may have asked you "constructively", "hey, can you narrow down your points"? But see, impotency usually can't be constructive. Usually it is destructive.

You are questioning the nature of the good and the moral, aren't you? That is your "point", right?

So the post above yours is obviously the kind of behavior that is being questioned, right? Is said post an expression of the good and the moral? Is this behavior "normal"? Civil? Does the command being issued in that post command any goodness? Or does the post disqualify the poster from posting in such a thread?

For Reason every actual beauty must be accidental.

So long as it does not recognize its limits Reason is romantic.

Actual beauty is rational only by complete freedom from egoism. That is, it is transrational, Magical

Then nothing further to discuss. — Jackson

That is correct. Unless one feels there is a genuine interest to explore, accompanied with the right attitude that facilitates such inquiry.

Why would anyone want that? — Jackson

Both threads have explained the "why".

Right. — skyblack

Which is why one had pointed it in op.

All experience is transient. — Jackson

Right.

Beauty is unpossessed Wholeness. Seen and desired as an object it is used, perverted and lost by incompleteness, the partial ego, the dualistic mind: by beauty the ego is challenged; it must either surrender or devour.

For achieved Wholeness, all is beauty: rather, one lives the essence of beauty-Delight: Beauty is no longer formal, an object for the ego, but pure experience; then all form is lyrical.

It seems, If one seeks* heaven (not the "christian" heaven or any other kind of similar heaven),

there is but one thing to do,

to keep the fires of purgatory (not the "christian" purgatory or any other kind of similar purgatory),

clean and pure. To refuse every irrelevance.

* To seek is to not find.

Aphoristic formulae (not mantra) — skyblack

Perhaps in interest of being precise one should clarify, a mantra, strictly speaking, is also an aphoristic formulae (i.e. needs unpacking), in their old language, which simply happens to be Sanskrit. It has nothing to do with its popularized usage/interpretation of repetitive chanting. That concept is a later day add-on.

Another (call it ontological, phenomenological, or whatever) aphoristic formulae is:

Sat, Chit, Ananda

They are not priorities, or hierarchical. They are attributes. Aphoristic formulae (not mantra) These are attempts at elucidating faceted attributes of a single reality.

These are ancient attributes and can be traced back to the origins of human thought itself. Hence one may find them or some variant thereof in every ancient philosophical system, and which will hold their ground (truthfulness) with some expertise.

One questions if true creativity is a continuity of the 'old', or is it completely removed from the old.

But, given the rarity of such true creativity, one may fall back to a lesser level and say, a true creator must be a world to himself.

Boredom has no existence, no substance. The question of fighting it, avoiding it, doing something about it doesn't arise.

:up:

A bit baffled by this outburst, but, thanks for the confirmation. You must have your reasons. Wasn't sure before, when you were going around posting on my threads and fishing for info. Carry on :up:

Ah, sounds like you must be having a blonde moment. Any thoughts on the question i asked above?

You will remember but so others don't misunderstand, the "chicken shit" joke can be seen here

I see you still been dealing with "chicken shit", but perhaps you enjoy it. :-)

More than a virtue in flora, however, boredom seems the mark of divinity in Trees. — 180 Proof

In this context, 'leisure' (without unpacking the word's faceted meaning but using it per its popular usage) will be a better word instead of boredom, don't you think?

When the deepest passion has been betrayed you are now left with nothing.

Addendum to OP:

Just like the initial thread (linked in op) can't be thoroughly understood unless opened, likewise this thread (the critique) cannot be understood unless elaborated. The first thread is for those who are walking and exploring the aesthetic experience. This thread is for those that have reached the frontiers of aesthetic contemplation and now wondering about the beyond. This thread is completely related and in context with the first thread, simply a completion.

The linked thread, especially the last para, will clear your objection.

Since folks are a bit spooked perhaps a clarification is needed.

One can't let go of something one doesn't have. — skyblack

We find nowadays a mass of people whose whole manner of life shows they no longer have five honest senses, let alone any precision. When the senses are used to falsification, and perception is distorted, one doubts any truthfulness in their pursuit of this so called hedonism.

One can't let go of something one doesn't have.

@Hanover

For the record, i am also pinging you.

It is impossible to act rightly; the invention of this right is ever hopeless agony and evasion of what-is. One can only act truthfully.

There is no effective tradition but truthfulness.

Its good you are questioning and doubting everything, but hopefully you are also questioning and doubting yourself. Especially, the value/meaning/ "status" you give to everything and yourself. Both the values, and the e-valuer. Therein is the repository of tricks as well as the trickster. — skyblack

On second thoughts a clarification seems to be necessary for the above.There is a chance of it being misunderstood. The 'you' in the post should be read as part of the 'we'.

So I read your OP and T Clark's response and I did find his response fairly accurate in describing my thoughts. I disagree with him somewhat in that I didn't find your attitude just dismissive or even snooty, but more so intentional, reminding one of an aspiring cult leader.

You solicit the despondent with vague descriptions of existential doubt, you offer a solution you vaguely reference as aestheticism, and you refuse to explain what it is, wanting us to believe you possess this mysterious answer.

So, either tell us your secret or stop telling us you have one. — Hanover

Your thoughts, or your opinions, are of no concern to me. As to "soliciting"....thanks for the chuckle. Let me direct you to my relatively older post here , as highlighted by Nils Loc,. which will perhaps refresh your memory of what i think of certain kind people. I am afraid,you have over valued the worth/importance of the "us" in your last sentence.Since the "us" is predominantly the "certain kind of people" i am pointing to, well, you would understand what i am trying to say, yes?