Getting Real

[Lou Gold]

Perhaps you are referring to my Nietzschean critique of compulsion, and, as usual, referencing the lowest of the low hanging fruit as a "response". To which I respond, I have made clear the issue is metaphysical-spiritual freedom, which is focused on how we are perceiving and thinking about our-Self and our actions, rather than focusing on how societies are following this or that rule at this or that time for this or that 'benefit'. There is a huge difference between the two which should be rather obvious to anyone who takes the slightest interest in metaphysics.

Perhaps you were a politician in a previous life, Lou, because you are damn good at "responding" without actually saying anything of substance.

Perhaps that's how process deals with substance.

Perhaps metaphysical-spiritual freedom can be oblivious to the obvious truths of the low-hanging fruits.

Perhaps... or it's just you derailing every metaphysical discussion you disagree with, finding a way to make it only about what you think is important, which weirdly excludes everything metaphysical on Meta Kastrup forum... oh well, to each his own I guess.

"Derailing models" may be a better term. Do you think mocking the king is unsacred?

[SanteriSatama]

To which I respond, I have made clear the issue is metaphysical-spiritual freedom, which is focused on how we are perceiving and thinking about our-Self and our actions, rather than focusing on how societies are following this or that rule at this or that time for this or that 'benefit'. There is a huge difference between the two which should be rather obvious to anyone who takes the slightest interest in metaphysics.

Metaphysical and spiritual are not same, their difference and connection requires deep thought. Spiritual freedom is inseparable from spiritual responsibility. With more freedom comes more responsibility, and the other way around. That is the Law in spirit. Here the Law does not mean Rule of law, rule-following. Another kind of responsibility.

[Lou Gold]

To which I respond, I have made clear the issue is metaphysical-spiritual freedom, which is focused on how we are perceiving and thinking about our-Self and our actions, rather than focusing on how societies are following this or that rule at this or that time for this or that 'benefit'. There is a huge difference between the two which should be rather obvious to anyone who takes the slightest interest in metaphysics.

Metaphysical and spiritual are not same, their difference and connection requires deep thought. Spiritual freedom is inseparable from spiritual responsibility. With more freedom comes more responsibility, and the other way around. That is the Law in spirit. Here the Law does not mean Rule of law, rule-following. Another kind of responsibility.

Exactly!

[Soul_of_Shu]

You guys are doing an good job of avoiding getting real here, now that those of us in the ivory tower who don't follow Lou, our foreign correspondent, on Facebook have been brought up to speed on the tragic situation in Brazil

[AshvinP]

To which I respond, I have made clear the issue is metaphysical-spiritual freedom, which is focused on how we are perceiving and thinking about our-Self and our actions, rather than focusing on how societies are following this or that rule at this or that time for this or that 'benefit'. There is a huge difference between the two which should be rather obvious to anyone who takes the slightest interest in metaphysics.

Metaphysical and spiritual are not same, their difference and connection requires deep thought. Spiritual freedom is inseparable from spiritual responsibility. With more freedom comes more responsibility, and the other way around. That is the Law in spirit. Here the Law does not mean Rule of law, rule-following. Another kind of responsibility.

It is under "my" view, meaning the view informed by a great number of idealist philosophers. I know many will claim there is nothing within objective idealism which necessitates a spiritual reality, i.e. conscious beings which are influencing us and the world we live in, but I disagree. Anyway, the point was, we can strive for spiritual freedom independent of any external agents while also adhering to societal rules, which should be rather obvious, and therefore Lou's claim that it was "utter nonsense" based on the need for Covid regulations is a terrible counter-point, so terrible that it makes me think he has no interest in metaphysics whatsoever.

[Soul_of_Shu]

... so terrible that it makes me think he has no interest in metaphysics whatsoever.

I wouldn't go that far, but in this case I must question the ostensible attempt at making the link to the Covid article somehow relevant to the specific focus of this forum, when it seems the real intent was all too transparent in its so-called 'poking'.

[Lou Gold]

... so terrible that it makes me think he has no interest in metaphysics whatsoever.

I wouldn't go that far, but in this case I must question the ostensible attempt at making the link to the Covid article somehow relevant to the specific focus of this forum, when it seems the real intent was all too transparent in its so-called 'poking'.

'Poking' indeed, which is what the heyoka nature does to see if there's a shadow formed by a reaction. If there's no reaction quite possibly truth has been revealed in silence. If not, I'll let you be the judge.

[AshvinP]

... so terrible that it makes me think he has no interest in metaphysics whatsoever.

I wouldn't go that far, but in this case I must question the ostensible attempt at making the link to the Covid article somehow relevant to the specific focus of this forum, when it seems the real intent was all too transparent in its so-called 'poking'.

'Poking' indeed, which is what the heyoka nature does to see if there's a shadow formed by a reaction. If there's no reaction quite possibly truth has been revealed in silence. If not, I'll let you be the judge.

So if no one responds then it must be true, and if anyone responds then the responder must be unconsciously projecting shadow desires? It's a win-win for Lou and a lose-lose for everyone else

[Soul_of_Shu]

"Poking' ... 'Bating' ... 'Flaunting' ... I remain unconvinced.

[Lou Gold]

I wouldn't go that far, but in this case I must question the ostensible attempt at making the link to the Covid article somehow relevant to the specific focus of this forum, when it seems the real intent was all too transparent in its so-called 'poking'.

'Poking' indeed, which is what the heyoka nature does to see if there's a shadow formed by a reaction. If there's no reaction quite possibly truth has been revealed in silence. If not, I'll let you be the judge.

So if no one responds then it must be true, and if anyone responds then the responder must be unconsciously projecting shadow desires? It's a win-win for Lou and a lose-lose for everyone else

I believe the silent ones are 'winning'. The tao that is spoken is not the Eternal Tao.