non sum

[stilltrucking]

*Check out Conduction Velocity at the end of this ramble

Cavere homo unius libri

what does it mean?I took Latin in high school back in 1857 but it is pretty much all gone now. Dam it.


Cecil I knew Non Sum could explain Husserl for you.
Non Sum I tried re-reading The Philosophers Stone again last year. I could not get into it again. It was about the paranorma, telekinesis, telepathy — sort of.
Husserl writes about the flux of consciousness, about the magic of childhood before we have settled our accounts with reality. I liked that bit a lot. I guess that is what Collin Wilson was riffing on.

This bit here was the hook that got me interested in Husserl:

Page 23

...
What we accept, however is not the existence of a world-time, the existence of a concrete duration , and the like, but time and duration appearing as such. These, however are absolute data which it would be senseless to call into question. To be sure we assume an existing time; this however is not the time of the world of experience but the immanent time of the flow of consciousness. The evidence that consciousness of a tonal process, a melody, exhibits a succession even as I hear it is such as to make every doubt or denial appear senseless

"...to make every doubt or denial senseless"

Time ha,

Saint Augustine What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.

Conduction Velocity slows down for geezers, interesting radio show on NPR if you get the time to listen

Why Does Time Fly By As You Get Older?

http://www.wbur.org/npr/122322542

[mtmynd]

NS: The world cannot validate itself, any more than the Christian Bible can serve to validate the Christian god.

Nor should the world have need to validate itself... especially if it does not really exist.

NS: ... until we lose our cherry to the rapine thoughts of the: Idealists, Phenomenologists, Skeptics, Empiricists, Mystics, or Quantum Physicists.

Losing one's cherry cheerfully to the cheers of these subjects does little to confirm that indeed, nothing exists other than as a subjective idea based upon the ability to comprehend such nothingness. How can one lose something (our cherry) that never existed without existence existing to confirm our own existence to begin with, providing we presume there was a beginning, of course.

There can be nothingness without the opposition confirming the existence of no thing. As darkness confirms the existence of light, so too every thing depends upon no thing to be. Even mysticism exists within our material world as a subject amongst many things.

”Objects rise and disappear in, and of, the mind only.(Lankavatara Sutra)

Does this comment exist in mind only or within the Lankavatara Sutra... or on your post-it-note? Are not those very words really objects and not merely efforts to describe what is always here?

[mtmynd]

Cavere homo unius libri = beware the man of one book, if I'm not mistaken, Jack.

[stilltrucking]

Thanks Cecil.
I suffer from the "little professor syndrome"
my eyes may be smaller than my stomach but they are bigger than my brain.

That bit about the melody struck home with me.

I wish I could read German, such a precise language.
[Zurlückgeschobenes]

[Non Sum]

Hi,
MT: Nor should the world have need to validate itself.

NS: I would have thought a man of the mirage producing desert, such as your parched self, would be accustomed to the necessity of validation when confronted with appearances? Or, is any opportunity to fish too important to risk inquiry?

MT: especially if it does not really exist.

NS: Well now, “real existence” is what “inquiring minds” want to know, and what “true believers” fear to dis-cover.

MT: does little to confirm that indeed, nothing exists other than as a subjective idea based upon the ability to comprehend such nothingness.

NS: The physicists might protest that experimental objectivity confirms their subjective theories. But, you are in the main correct, that philosophers are in the business of interrogating/constructing/destructing “ideas.” What the Idealist (epistemologist & metaphysician) asks is how can (concrete & abstract) objects exist independent of ideation? The answer is that there is no ‘known’ example of it ever happening. So, can there be, ‘in theory,’ an object (e.g. world) existing independent of anyone’s perception or conception of it? Yes, in theory, it is possible. But, 1. the redundancy (exact copy & authentic object) is clearly unnecessary, and 2. it is speculative to the max. Why stop at one unknown ‘authentic model,’ why not millions, why not postulate the existence of All unsupported, and imagined, possibilities as being ‘out there’ somewhere?

MT: How can one lose something (our cherry) that never existed without existence existing to confirm our own existence to begin with, providing we presume there was a beginning, of course.

NS: The appearance is not in question, but rather it’s substantial reality. A mirage “exists” as an apparition, but not as an actual object perceived. There is the ‘idea’ of a world, and a Cecil centered in it, no question. But, is there any such objects existent independent of the mental construct? Isn’t it possible that a dream could imagine a world with a Cecil centered in it, talking to a unicorn, but without any corresponding reality independent of a mind’s dreamt imaginings?

MT: There can be nothingness without the opposition confirming the existence of no thing. As darkness confirms the existence of light,

NS: That the construction of a house of cards necessitates opposing cards depending upon their opposite in order to stand, in no way supports the reality of the “house” itself. To the contrary, it lends support to the unreality of such an object. The Buddhists call this, “co-dependant arising.” I.e. if no object has any reality of its own to stand on, but can only appear to stand by virtue of leaning against another un-self-supporting object, then anything these objects comprise must itself be fundamentally unreal. IOW, build a building with imaginary bricks, and you’ll get an imaginary building every damn time.

MT: Does this comment exist in mind only or within the Lankavatara Sutra... or on your post-it-note?

NS: Note, sutra, my writing it, your reading it, the ideas of these, and the conceived mind that holds all of them, are all illusory objects. ”In Zen there is really nothing to grasp onto.”

MT: Are not those very words really objects and not merely efforts to describe what is always here?

NS: “Efforts” too are (insubstantial & imagined) “objects.”

”Knowledge of things is not in the things, and cannot proceed out of them. It proceeds from thee, and is indeed thine own nature.” (Johann Fichte, philosopher)

[stilltrucking]

Speaking of what philosphers do I have often wondered what Martin Heidegger did.

Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts? Das ist die Frage. (Why is there Being at all, and not much rather Nothing? That is the question. )

Martin Heidegger philosopher and student of Husserl.

[mtmynd]

Good day, N(eo) S(tubborn)...

NS: What the Idealist (epistemologist & metaphysician) asks is how can (concrete & abstract) objects exist independent of ideation? The answer is that there is no ‘known’ example of it ever happening.

Such unknowing points to inability to perceive what we call existence and more towards a refutation of that which pinches the nose.

Perhaps the Bible's beginning should be "In the beginning God created illusion for the mystic" ..?

Amigo, it is true that we are limited by our sensual perceptions and our imagination... it is thru these that 'gave us' what we utilize for our survival, our very existence as hu'man beings. It is also true that science has theorized quantum physics using our hu'man abilities to perceive these things as we perceive all matter in 'our' universe.... those things indeed exist within our mental processes cranking away with the input from our senses.

We are an assemblage of atoms on the atomic scale... a scale that shows what our physicality is composed of does not actually touch each other, like the universe of our night sky, a conglomeration of matter scattered in a seemingly chaotic pattern until we begin to perceive patterns that "make sensee" to our minds.

Is all mind? You seem to believe what some sages have to say about that. All is mind and there is no proof that lies outside mind so mind is all there should be. I say say 'should be' because all these theories are hu'man limitations... our ability to perceive all that we do perceive is within the structures of our natural physcality, including the views of mysticism. Our mind is the best we can do. But this does not mean that our mind is all there is. Breakout of that constrict... we are potential and not simply mind.

[Non Sum]

Happy Astarte’s Day, (Phoenician goddess of fertility),
ST quoting Heidegger: “Why is there Being at all, and not much rather Nothing?”

NS: An apposite selection. Since here MH, in the tradition of Kierkegaard, is referring to ‘Verfallen,’ or the forfeiture/forgetting of ‘Being’ Itself in which we actually live for the false coin of (imagined) ‘beings.’ To face nothingness (of Kierkegaardian ‘Dread’) is actually (according to MH) to overcome the forgetfulness of, and alienation from, Being.

”For if Being must be held down into nothing, then those who live in “nothing” are those who live truly in Being. They are not, after all, the lost souls, but the saved.” (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
[Note the similarity of this thought with the earlier quote from Henry Suso regarding “non sum”]

MT: Perhaps the Bible's beginning should be "In the beginning God created illusion for the mystic" ..?

NS: Of the many biblical writers, there were mystics too:
“The Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.”
“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

MT: Amigo, it is true that we are limited by our sensual perceptions and our imagination.

NS: Sense objects lie within the senses themselves, not in external objects. Else, dreams would be devoid of any sensation. All sensation occurs within the mind, as does their external projection.

MT: It is also true that science has theorized quantum physics using our hu'man abilities to perceive these things as we perceive all matter in 'our' universe.

NS: All “perception” is only projected ‘conception.’
”Space is not something objective and real, but subjective and ideal.” (Kant)

MT: Is all mind? You seem to believe what some sages have to say about that.

NS: No, I am taking no-thing on faith, while you are taking ‘every thing’ on pure unquestioned faith. If they say you are a murderer, and everyone, except you, agrees to the accusation’s validity; don’t you then say, “show me your proof!” “We just know it,” they respond. “What need is there of ‘proof’ when we already have our conviction that it is true?” Likewise, an external, independent, reality is unproven and unperceived, but is simply assumed to exist, much like the gods. Good people of faith assume stuff. I take nothing on sheer faith, no matter who does it before me. So, if you’re ever up for a murder supported by popular opinion, look me up.

MT: Our mind is the best we can do. But this does not mean that our mind is all there is.

NS: No it doesn’t, but I won’t assume a universe full of stuff, any more than believe in actual gods and unicorns until and unless they can be proven as true. I do accept the presence of mental impressions (i.e. dreams, illusions) about: worlds, persons, acts, etc.; and these seem more than sufficient for my mind’s recreation. I see no need for an independent replica of the idea prototype. Why exactly do you feel the necessity for one?

MT: we are potential and not simply mind.

Ns: “Potential” is still not actual, is it.

[stilltrucking]

What I am not anymore

Not the Übermensch anymore.


Husserl was a mostly Harmless thirty year conceit. I never bled or shed blood for Husserl. .

Nietzsche cost me plenty.

You say acid and mirrors don't mix at all. Nietzsche and LSD is a witches brew. It is hard to read when the words on the page turn into thick black worms that craw off the page. But I scooped them up off the floor and continued to read.

I know twice as much about Nietzsche as I do about Husserl. I have read two books by Nietzsche, acid etched on my brain.
I could have been a Jesus Freak if not for Nietzsche. Down on my knees praying to Jesu for the oblivion of sleep. Jesus been good to me so far.
Amor Fati.

no shitzs sherlock
__________________________________________________
____________________________________________
_____________________________________

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

For manifestly you have long been aware of what
you mean when you use the expressing ‘being.’ We
however, who used to think we understood it, have now
become perplexed..—

Sein und Zeit



I very interested in hearing more about Heidegger.
"what canst thou say?"

What is peddled about nowadays as philosophy, especially that of N.S.(National Socialism), but has nothing to do with the inner truth and greatness of that movement [namely the encounter between global technology and modern humanity] is nothing but fishing in that troubled sea of values and totalities.
Introduction to Metaphysics (1953) — a publication of lectures of 1935.

http://www.studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=18406

[SadLuckDame]

I'll do something I don't too often do, and that is posting outside of my comfort zone. Scary crap, but bah! I'll live it up briefly.

I'm nobody to anybody and I'm a believer in something similar to what is being chatted up. On a lil trip, though I had my precious moments Bible (very amusing how I'd decided to take it camping that one time when never before or after and it proceeded a time where I'd had many heavy dreams of angel visitations). Prolly matters not to anyone but me and my amusement.

Well that lil trip turned into an awareness, I found out I was nothing at all, nor was anyone or anything else; except I'd a soul, the soul being like conscious~very similar to the thinking mind but minus all the jibber jabber we weigh down with thoughts of the weather, heat, friendly faces, etc. just soul and very tender, serious and natural. It's to be tapped into during occasion cause once all else disappeared except soul I was too familiar with it already and 'recognized' it or didn't 'not know it' or something odd in that way.

Anything else existing 'here' hadn't ever truly existed, but was more so dream-like or with a playfulness in a playground to have trial and error of how well I could tap into my soul and pay attention to it within such reality distractions or with being led to it better because of a reality based experience even though the experience doesn't truly exist.

A mushroom road. That is why I've developed such a liking for dream life, for if this is to not truly exist but to be played in, then why not put just as much emphasis on my dream-life where I'm to play and let my soul nourish as well, both places just as good an environment for it and both providing similar utilities for my soul and so to make just as much use of both and their differences they offer with strengths and weaknesses.

I do differ in that though naught exists except soul, God and Satan exist outside as well and they watch how the souls are doing, or the only thing I know; they're watching how my soul is doing, I didn't see any other souls out there in the nothingness and all faces I know here were let known to me to not have truly existed. So beats me, I've no idea.

No clue if I think others are in this in their souls along side mine or on separate plans elsewhere, I really haven't the slightest idea.

[stilltrucking]

I Was going to put a footnote above to "What canst thou say"

You will say, 'Christ saith this, and the apostles say this;' but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of the Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from God?" &c. This opened me so, that it cut me to the heart; and then I saw clearly we were all wrong. So I sat down in my pew again, and cried bitterly: and I cried in my spirit to the Lord, "We are all thieves; we are all thieves; we have taken the scriptures in words, and know nothing of them in ourselves."


http://www.qis.net/~daruma/foxfell.html

SorryI had to back edit this post because I gave too much information

Nietzsche in one ear, Chirst in the other.

[SadLuckDame]

Sorry for my above edit, my mind was still rambling on and I didn't yet see your post Jack. My apologies.
Though words don't exist in my thinking, but they still play an important role, all this illusion is of an importance for it is what we're 'exposing' our soul to, which has the effect even though it's not solid stuffs we might see it as now. May only be to my thinking, but that's what I'm thinking.

[stilltrucking]

Though words don't exist in my thinking,

I am a word kook, it is all I got.

The Word Made Flesh
The Moment of Complexity

I had to edit some personal info I gave because it was not that germane.
It had to do when I was down and out and living in The Union Gospel Mission on lower Broadway in Nashville and getting preached at every night. I found a refuge with The Quakers. (aka The Religious Society of Friends) I used to be a member but I have not been to a Meeting in years.

Now I am a Quacker (the religious society of ducks)

Thanks for the reply Dame.

I have never read Flowers of Evil,

[mtmynd]

Howdy, NS... hoping your day was worth every moment...

NS: Of the many biblical writers, there were mystics too:
“The Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.”
“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

You neglected, much to my dismay, who said these things, my mystic friend. Being an admitted lover of the world and all that it provides, I must plead guilty to not having a subordination to 'the Father' within me at all times. However, I can say assuredly that 'the Father' is always within me and all living things that populate the universe.

NS: Sense objects lie within the senses themselves, not in external objects. Else, dreams would be devoid of any sensation. All sensation occurs within the mind, as does their external projection.

Indeed, all senses occur within Mind but that proves little in and of itself other than where senses occur. That's the natural state.

NS: All “perception” is only projected ‘conception.’

Had you not injected the word 'only' I would have agreed with your analysis. But adding that singular word takes this sentence out of the realm of the believable and enter it into the absurd. It's as if you're saying something as profound as perception is nothing in comparison to the Great No-thingness... dismissing it as an annoyance, like a fly buzzing about you while your eating your favorite meal.

”Space is not something objective and real, but subjective and ideal.” (Kant)

Do you believe this due to the proof it was provided to you at some point in your life? If so, what is your proof, may I ask...

NS: No, I am taking no-thing on faith, while you are taking ‘every thing’ on pure unquestioned faith.

Isn't this a bit presumptuous on your part to conclude by all the conversations we've had over the years that I take everything on pure unquestioned faith? And your declaration that you take no-thing on faith..? I can only take your word for that as I don't know all that your are (much less who you are). Are you not a man of faith regarding anything at all? Not one single thing in your life you have any faith in? But yet you have quite possibly one of the largest collections of quotes I'm aware of, that you obviously have some degree of faith in some of them without requiring proof, yes?

NS: I take nothing on sheer faith, no matter who does it before me.

Why wouldn't you have one iota of faith in your fellow man, amigo..? I find this statement sad. It's sad you have no trust in mankind or at least strongly suggest this with this declaration. What will happen to you, amigo, if you had faith in someone and they let you down? Would your character be shot? Nobody would be worth having faith in from that time onwards, forever and ever? What was taken from you or in what way would you be injured if you held faith in somebody that cheated you or stole from you..?

NS: No it doesn’t, but I won’t assume a universe full of stuff, any more than believe in actual gods and unicorns until and unless they can be proven as true.

If you believe this I have to assume you have no credence towards any of the sciences hu'manity has developed over the years of study unless every single theory is proven to you, eh? Has every philosophical idea, has every metaphysical proposition been proven to you, my good man? Or is it only these people you have quoted that have the 'real truth' of life?

Ns: “Potential” is still not actual, is it.

Actually, you're right, NS. Let's scrap potential as being unprovable and therefore useless to the mystic as another annoyance that interrupts the mystical experience from being a constant state of perfection where things and stuff are illusions that get in the way of 'the Father.'

[SadLuckDame]

I've never read it either. I did a quick search and found this...
Poems by Charles B.
Haven't read more than a few, but I'm thinking it looks good enough to share.

I likes words too Jack. Have enjoyed our back and forths, look forward to it even and you know.