Belief & Faith

February 12, 2009

Hi,most posters here, and in other spiritual groups, are in my opinion believers just like Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Jews. The only difference between mystics, gnostics and all the other New Age disciples is that the term 'God' has been replaced by some other concept or concepts. We apparently can't live without some sort of ideology. The concept of 'enlightenment' is a

paradigm for ideology. Ideology always tries to delimit itself and its attenders from an 'other' that is considered as ignorant, barbaric or unillumined. People unified by a ideology also tend to develop a certain language, a code that not always is understandable by people outside the circle. Another typical characteristic of ideology is that its members believe to be able to substantiate their believes by using science. Since the postmodern revolution of science (the term science has been replaced by 'technology') even Christians try to find explanations to the alleged miracles of Jesus by using the 'verborrhea' popular science applies as regards quantum mechanics.. It appears to be impossible to live and go on with the fundamental idiocy of objectivity, lie and reality. We continue to ignore evolution, ie. individual beings are less important than their singular genetic make up at this particular moment, not to mention subjectivity that emerged in

the species homo sapiens sapiens. Psychoanalytic stance continues to be relevant to all this questions, because it assumes the inherent incompleteness of the individual, subject, the other and (M)Other. The Other with capital 'O' stands for the social, cultural, economic and political texture in which the subject is embedded. Today, more than ever before, due to the financial crisis, we are able to see that the 'Other' lacks, desires and fails. This Other, so nicely described by Orwell in '1984' as "Big Brother", eg., actually doesn't know what it really desires. Like all subjects it desires desire. The purpose of desire is this desire. It is, thus, more than futile to try to find

out what the Other expects from me, because I don't know what I should expect from me. However, we constantly believe the Other expects something from us. In 'our case' this expectation, we believe the Other projects, is the achievement of 'enlightenment'. As long as we don't achieve 'enlightenment the (M)Other will not be satisfied. One of the most important questions is to figure out from where this obsession for 'enlightenment' comes. We all agree perhaps in that people like Buddha, Jesus or Nisargadatta, at least, behaved themselves like obsessives. Jesus got crucified and the others died too. What remains is their history, their body of thoughts and believes, and their

symbolic significance for a bunch of different ideologies, religions and philosophies. No matter in which social construct the subject immerse itself, it always will be 'something there' that the subject experiences as a demand, an expectation coming from the (M)Other. To fulfill this demand, however, often doesn't constitute a 'need' to the subject. The subject, e.g., doesn't need 'enlightenment' to go on living; it 'needs' food, clothes and shelter. Because the subject never completely merges in the (M)Other, ie. in the social structure in which it is integrated, it always remains some 'otherness' which the subject perceives in relation to the Other. This sense of 'otherness' is illustrated by the subject's demand, to satisfy it's needs (shelter, work, food, etc.) addressed towards the (M)Other. Desire is always the desire of the (M)Other, according to Lacan. Thus, if a subject desires 'enlightenment' (many subjects do that in these forums, but are not sincere enough to admit or confess it) it tries to accomplish what he/her believes that are expected from him/her. The subject desires what he/she believes the (M)Other desires or has desired. Desire, however, never finds satisfaction. It is not the objective of desire to be satisfied by an 'object' (enlightenment, eg). As soon the alleged object of desire has been reached, the 'vacuum', the 'void', in which this desire was located becomes apparent and for a short time we believe to have found what we were searching for, but it was only what we believed the (M)Other desires. Propaganda, for example, works excellently by converting desires in needs: you

have to have this BMW, buy this and that, and if you do or can not, your are not worth to belong to this or that group, social stratum, confession, etc. But, as I said above, for the subject it is impossible to merge completely in the (M)Other. Even having a this BMW, you do not feel to satisfied, some other has not only your BMW, but also a mansion in the French Riviera.....and you then, might desires this, too.'Enlightenment' constitutes the paradigm of what Lacan called 'objet a'. 'Object a', inexistent, points to something we desire, but never will get and we never want to get. 'Objet a' keeps the wheel going on, lights the flame of desire up again and again. As long as we are

not aware of the unexistence of 'objet a', we believe our desire has a goal, an aim or an objective, but desire desires desire and nothing else more. To abandon completely all possible 'objet a' dismantles desire, but the subject, despite all, continues desiring, at that's good.Ricardo

February 12, 2009

Nisargadatta , Loewe C <loewe2009 wrote:

>

> Hi,

>

> most posters here, and in other spiritual groups, are in my opinion

believers just like Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Jews. The only

difference between mystics, gnostics and all the other New Age

disciples is that the term 'God' has been replaced by some other

concept or concepts. We apparently can't live without some sort of

ideology. The concept of 'enlightenment' is a paradigm for ideology.

Ideology always tries to delimit itself and its attenders from an

'other' that is considered as ignorant, barbaric or unillumined.

People unified by a ideology also tend to develop a certain language,

a code that not always is understandable by people outside the circle.

Another typical characteristic of ideology is that its members believe

to be able to substantiate their believes by using science. Since the

postmodern revolution of science (the term science has been replaced

by 'technology') even Christians try to find explanations to the

alleged miracles of

> Jesus by using the 'verborrhea' popular science applies as regards

quantum mechanics. It appears to be impossible to live and go on with

the fundamental idiocy of objectivity, lie and reality. We continue to

ignore evolution, ie. individual beings are less important than their

singular genetic make up at this particular moment, not to mention

subjectivity that emerged in the species homo sapiens sapiens.

>

> Psychoanalytic stance continues to be relevant to all this

questions, because it assumes the inherent incompleteness of the

individual, subject, the other and (M)Other. The Other with capital

'O' stands for the social, cultural, economic and political texture in

which the subject is embedded. Today, more than ever before, due to

the financial crisis, we are able to see that the 'Other' lacks,

desires and fails. This Other, so nicely described by Orwell in '1984'

as " Big Brother " , eg., actually doesn't know what it really desires.

Like all subjects it desires desire. The purpose of desire is this

desire. It is, thus, more than futile to try to find out what the

Other expects from me, because I don't know what I should expect from

me. However, we constantly believe the Other expects something from

us. In 'our case' this expectation, we believe the Other projects, is

the achievement of 'enlightenment'. As long as we don't achieve

'enlightenment the (M)Other

> will not be satisfied.

>

> One of the most important questions is to figure out from where this

obsession for 'enlightenment' comes. We all agree perhaps in that

people like Buddha, Jesus or Nisargadatta, at least, behaved

themselves like obsessives. Jesus got crucified and the others died

too. What remains is their history, their body of thoughts and

believes, and their symbolic significance for a bunch of different

ideologies, religions and philosophies. No matter in which social

construct the subject immerse itself, it always will be 'something

there' that the subject experiences as a demand, an expectation coming

from the (M)Other. To fulfill this demand, however, often doesn't

constitute a 'need' to the subject. The subject, e.g., doesn't need

'enlightenment' to go on living; it 'needs' food, clothes and shelter.

Because the subject never completely merges in the (M)Other, ie. in

the social structure in which it is integrated, it always remains some

'otherness' which the

> subject perceives in relation to the Other. This sense of

'otherness' is illustrated by the subject's demand, to satisfy it's

needs (shelter, work, food, etc.) addressed towards the (M)Other.

>

> Desire is always the desire of the (M)Other, according to Lacan.

Thus, if a subject desires 'enlightenment' (many subjects do that in

these forums, but are not sincere enough to admit or confess it) it

tries to accomplish what he/her believes that are expected from

him/her. The subject desires what he/she believes the (M)Other desires

or has desired. Desire, however, never finds satisfaction. It is not

the objective of desire to be satisfied by an 'object' (enlightenment,

eg). As soon the alleged object of desire has been reached, the

'vacuum', the 'void', in which this desire was located becomes

apparent and for a short time we believe to have found what we were

searching for, but it was only what we believed the (M)Other desires.

Propaganda, for example, works excellently by converting desires in

needs: you have to have this BMW, buy this and that, and if you do or

can not, your are not worth to belong to this or that group, social

stratum, confession,

> etc. But, as I said above, for the subject it is impossible to

merge completely in the (M)Other. Even having a this BMW, you do not

feel to satisfied, some other has not only your BMW, but also a

mansion in the French Riviera....and you then, might desires this, too.

>

> 'Enlightenment' constitutes the paradigm of what Lacan called 'objet

a'. 'Object a', inexistent, points to something we desire, but never

will get and we never want to get. 'Objet a' keeps the wheel going on,

lights the flame of desire up again and again. As long as we are not

aware of the unexistence of 'objet a', we believe our desire has a

goal, an aim or an objective, but desire desires desire and nothing

else more. To abandon completely all possible 'objet a' dismantles

desire, but the subject, despite all, continues desiring, at that's good.

>

> Ricardo

sounds like mystical bullshit.

believe nothing.

there's nothing to believe in..

not even disbelief.

just chuck the whole goddamn thing and get on with it.

whatever it is for you.

it's all you got and all you ever will have.

eat..drink...saw wood.

..b b.b.

February 12, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Loewe C <loewe2009@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi,

> >

> > most posters here, and in other spiritual groups, are in my

opinion

> believers just like Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Jews. The only

> difference between mystics, gnostics and all the other New Age

> disciples is that the term 'God' has been replaced by some other

> concept or concepts. We apparently can't live without some sort of

> ideology. The concept of 'enlightenment' is a paradigm for ideology.

> Ideology always tries to delimit itself and its attenders from an

> 'other' that is considered as ignorant, barbaric or unillumined.

> People unified by a ideology also tend to develop a certain

language,

> a code that not always is understandable by people outside the

circle.

> Another typical characteristic of ideology is that its members

believe

> to be able to substantiate their believes by using science. Since

the

> postmodern revolution of science (the term science has been replaced

> by 'technology') even Christians try to find explanations to the

> alleged miracles of

> > Jesus by using the 'verborrhea' popular science applies as

regards

> quantum mechanics. It appears to be impossible to live and go on

with

> the fundamental idiocy of objectivity, lie and reality. We continue

to

> ignore evolution, ie. individual beings are less important than

their

> singular genetic make up at this particular moment, not to mention

> subjectivity that emerged in the species homo sapiens sapiens.

> >

> > Psychoanalytic stance continues to be relevant to all this

> questions, because it assumes the inherent incompleteness of the

> individual, subject, the other and (M)Other. The Other with capital

> 'O' stands for the social, cultural, economic and political texture

in

> which the subject is embedded. Today, more than ever before, due to

> the financial crisis, we are able to see that the 'Other' lacks,

> desires and fails. This Other, so nicely described by Orwell

in '1984'

> as " Big Brother " , eg., actually doesn't know what it really desires.

> Like all subjects it desires desire. The purpose of desire is this

> desire. It is, thus, more than futile to try to find out what the

> Other expects from me, because I don't know what I should expect

from

> me. However, we constantly believe the Other expects something from

> us. In 'our case' this expectation, we believe the Other projects,

is

> the achievement of 'enlightenment'. As long as we don't achieve

> 'enlightenment the (M)Other

> > will not be satisfied.

> >

> > One of the most important questions is to figure out from where

this

> obsession for 'enlightenment' comes. We all agree perhaps in that

> people like Buddha, Jesus or Nisargadatta, at least, behaved

> themselves like obsessives. Jesus got crucified and the others died

> too. What remains is their history, their body of thoughts and

> believes, and their symbolic significance for a bunch of different

> ideologies, religions and philosophies. No matter in which social

> construct the subject immerse itself, it always will be 'something

> there' that the subject experiences as a demand, an expectation

coming

> from the (M)Other. To fulfill this demand, however, often doesn't

> constitute a 'need' to the subject. The subject, e.g., doesn't need

> 'enlightenment' to go on living; it 'needs' food, clothes and

shelter.

> Because the subject never completely merges in the (M)Other, ie. in

> the social structure in which it is integrated, it always remains

some

> 'otherness' which the

> > subject perceives in relation to the Other. This sense of

> 'otherness' is illustrated by the subject's demand, to satisfy it's

> needs (shelter, work, food, etc.) addressed towards the (M)Other.

> >

> > Desire is always the desire of the (M)Other, according to Lacan.

> Thus, if a subject desires 'enlightenment' (many subjects do that in

> these forums, but are not sincere enough to admit or confess it) it

> tries to accomplish what he/her believes that are expected from

> him/her. The subject desires what he/she believes the (M)Other

desires

> or has desired. Desire, however, never finds satisfaction. It is not

> the objective of desire to be satisfied by an 'object'

(enlightenment,

> eg). As soon the alleged object of desire has been reached, the

> 'vacuum', the 'void', in which this desire was located becomes

> apparent and for a short time we believe to have found what we were

> searching for, but it was only what we believed the (M)Other

desires.

> Propaganda, for example, works excellently by converting desires in

> needs: you have to have this BMW, buy this and that, and if you do

or

> can not, your are not worth to belong to this or that group, social

> stratum, confession,

> > etc. But, as I said above, for the subject it is impossible to

> merge completely in the (M)Other. Even having a this BMW, you do not

> feel to satisfied, some other has not only your BMW, but also a

> mansion in the French Riviera....and you then, might desires this,

too.

> >

> > 'Enlightenment' constitutes the paradigm of what Lacan

called 'objet

> a'. 'Object a', inexistent, points to something we desire, but never

> will get and we never want to get. 'Objet a' keeps the wheel going

on,

> lights the flame of desire up again and again. As long as we are not

> aware of the unexistence of 'objet a', we believe our desire has a

> goal, an aim or an objective, but desire desires desire and nothing

> else more. To abandon completely all possible 'objet a' dismantles

> desire, but the subject, despite all, continues desiring, at that's

good.

> >

> > Ricardo

>

sounds like mystical bullshit.

>

> believe nothing.

>

> there's nothing to believe in..

>

> not even disbelief.

>

> just chuck the whole goddamn thing and get on with it.

>

> whatever it is for you.

>

> it's all you got and all you ever will have.

>

> eat..drink...saw wood.

>

> .b b.b.

>

you don't like Lacan?

bbb n'en a rien à foutre de Lacan?....

bonne attitude!...

Marc

February 12, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , Loewe C <loewe2009@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi,

> > >

> > > most posters here, and in other spiritual groups, are in my

> opinion

> > believers just like Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Jews. The only

> > difference between mystics, gnostics and all the other New Age

> > disciples is that the term 'God' has been replaced by some other

> > concept or concepts. We apparently can't live without some sort of

> > ideology. The concept of 'enlightenment' is a paradigm for ideology.

> > Ideology always tries to delimit itself and its attenders from an

> > 'other' that is considered as ignorant, barbaric or unillumined.

> > People unified by a ideology also tend to develop a certain

> language,

> > a code that not always is understandable by people outside the

> circle.

> > Another typical characteristic of ideology is that its members

> believe

> > to be able to substantiate their believes by using science. Since

> the

> > postmodern revolution of science (the term science has been replaced

> > by 'technology') even Christians try to find explanations to the

> > alleged miracles of

> > > Jesus by using the 'verborrhea' popular science applies as

> regards

> > quantum mechanics. It appears to be impossible to live and go on

> with

> > the fundamental idiocy of objectivity, lie and reality. We continue

> to

> > ignore evolution, ie. individual beings are less important than

> their

> > singular genetic make up at this particular moment, not to mention

> > subjectivity that emerged in the species homo sapiens sapiens.

> > >

> > > Psychoanalytic stance continues to be relevant to all this

> > questions, because it assumes the inherent incompleteness of the

> > individual, subject, the other and (M)Other. The Other with capital

> > 'O' stands for the social, cultural, economic and political texture

> in

> > which the subject is embedded. Today, more than ever before, due to

> > the financial crisis, we are able to see that the 'Other' lacks,

> > desires and fails. This Other, so nicely described by Orwell

> in '1984'

> > as " Big Brother " , eg., actually doesn't know what it really desires.

> > Like all subjects it desires desire. The purpose of desire is this

> > desire. It is, thus, more than futile to try to find out what the

> > Other expects from me, because I don't know what I should expect

> from

> > me. However, we constantly believe the Other expects something from

> > us. In 'our case' this expectation, we believe the Other projects,

> is

> > the achievement of 'enlightenment'. As long as we don't achieve

> > 'enlightenment the (M)Other

> > > will not be satisfied.

> > >

> > > One of the most important questions is to figure out from where

> this

> > obsession for 'enlightenment' comes. We all agree perhaps in that

> > people like Buddha, Jesus or Nisargadatta, at least, behaved

> > themselves like obsessives. Jesus got crucified and the others died

> > too. What remains is their history, their body of thoughts and

> > believes, and their symbolic significance for a bunch of different

> > ideologies, religions and philosophies. No matter in which social

> > construct the subject immerse itself, it always will be 'something

> > there' that the subject experiences as a demand, an expectation

> coming

> > from the (M)Other. To fulfill this demand, however, often doesn't

> > constitute a 'need' to the subject. The subject, e.g., doesn't need

> > 'enlightenment' to go on living; it 'needs' food, clothes and

> shelter.

> > Because the subject never completely merges in the (M)Other, ie. in

> > the social structure in which it is integrated, it always remains

> some

> > 'otherness' which the

> > > subject perceives in relation to the Other. This sense of

> > 'otherness' is illustrated by the subject's demand, to satisfy it's

> > needs (shelter, work, food, etc.) addressed towards the (M)Other.

> > >

> > > Desire is always the desire of the (M)Other, according to Lacan.

> > Thus, if a subject desires 'enlightenment' (many subjects do that in

> > these forums, but are not sincere enough to admit or confess it) it

> > tries to accomplish what he/her believes that are expected from

> > him/her. The subject desires what he/she believes the (M)Other

> desires

> > or has desired. Desire, however, never finds satisfaction. It is not

> > the objective of desire to be satisfied by an 'object'

> (enlightenment,

> > eg). As soon the alleged object of desire has been reached, the

> > 'vacuum', the 'void', in which this desire was located becomes

> > apparent and for a short time we believe to have found what we were

> > searching for, but it was only what we believed the (M)Other

> desires.

> > Propaganda, for example, works excellently by converting desires in

> > needs: you have to have this BMW, buy this and that, and if you do

> or

> > can not, your are not worth to belong to this or that group, social

> > stratum, confession,

> > > etc. But, as I said above, for the subject it is impossible to

> > merge completely in the (M)Other. Even having a this BMW, you do not

> > feel to satisfied, some other has not only your BMW, but also a

> > mansion in the French Riviera....and you then, might desires this,

> too.

> > >

> > > 'Enlightenment' constitutes the paradigm of what Lacan

> called 'objet

> > a'. 'Object a', inexistent, points to something we desire, but never

> > will get and we never want to get. 'Objet a' keeps the wheel going

> on,

> > lights the flame of desire up again and again. As long as we are not

> > aware of the unexistence of 'objet a', we believe our desire has a

> > goal, an aim or an objective, but desire desires desire and nothing

> > else more. To abandon completely all possible 'objet a' dismantles

> > desire, but the subject, despite all, continues desiring, at that's

> good.

> > >

> > > Ricardo

> >

> > sounds like mystical bullshit.

> >

> > believe nothing.

> >

> > there's nothing to believe in..

> >

> > not even disbelief.

> >

> > just chuck the whole goddamn thing and get on with it.

> >

> > whatever it is for you.

> >

> > it's all you got and all you ever will have.

> >

> > eat..drink...saw wood.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> you don't like Lacan?

>

> bbb n'en a rien à foutre de Lacan?....

>

> bonne attitude!...

>

> Marc

>

he was hung up on Freudian sex psychology..

and worst of all..

he was into French Philosophy.

and the fuc**er was Catholic!

a dip-shit.

:-)

..b b.b.

February 12, 2009

> > sounds like mystical bullshit.

> >

> > believe nothing.

> >

> > there's nothing to believe in..

> >

> > not even disbelief.

> >

> > just chuck the whole goddamn thing and get on with it.

> >

> > whatever it is for you.

> >

> > it's all you got and all you ever will have.

> >

> > eat..drink...saw wood.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> you don't like Lacan?

>

> bbb n'en a rien à foutre de Lacan?....

>

> bonne attitude!...

>

> Marc

Hi

yes, both of you are right, in my opinion. I also don't give a shit about Lacan

(anyway, the

guy is dead), but some of his messages were OK. The bullshit I wrote can also

be maybe of some value for people, who are not advanced in their path to

enlightenment like you

both, hahaha!

However, already to post is bullshit, but a nice pastime, as well as to read

what messages

people write.....comunication, storytelling, mythopoiesis!!!

Yours,

CL

February 12, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , Loewe C <loewe2009@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi,

> > > >

> > > > most posters here, and in other spiritual groups, are in my

> > opinion

> > > believers just like Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Jews. The only

> > > difference between mystics, gnostics and all the other New Age

> > > disciples is that the term 'God' has been replaced by some other

> > > concept or concepts. We apparently can't live without some sort of

> > > ideology. The concept of 'enlightenment' is a paradigm for ideology.

> > > Ideology always tries to delimit itself and its attenders from an

> > > 'other' that is considered as ignorant, barbaric or unillumined.

> > > People unified by a ideology also tend to develop a certain

> > language,

> > > a code that not always is understandable by people outside the

> > circle.

> > > Another typical characteristic of ideology is that its members

> > believe

> > > to be able to substantiate their believes by using science. Since

> > the

> > > postmodern revolution of science (the term science has been replaced

> > > by 'technology') even Christians try to find explanations to the

> > > alleged miracles of

> > > > Jesus by using the 'verborrhea' popular science applies as

> > regards

> > > quantum mechanics. It appears to be impossible to live and go on

> > with

> > > the fundamental idiocy of objectivity, lie and reality. We continue

> > to

> > > ignore evolution, ie. individual beings are less important than

> > their

> > > singular genetic make up at this particular moment, not to mention

> > > subjectivity that emerged in the species homo sapiens sapiens.

> > > >

> > > > Psychoanalytic stance continues to be relevant to all this

> > > questions, because it assumes the inherent incompleteness of the

> > > individual, subject, the other and (M)Other. The Other with capital

> > > 'O' stands for the social, cultural, economic and political texture

> > in

> > > which the subject is embedded. Today, more than ever before, due to

> > > the financial crisis, we are able to see that the 'Other' lacks,

> > > desires and fails. This Other, so nicely described by Orwell

> > in '1984'

> > > as " Big Brother " , eg., actually doesn't know what it really desires.

> > > Like all subjects it desires desire. The purpose of desire is this

> > > desire. It is, thus, more than futile to try to find out what the

> > > Other expects from me, because I don't know what I should expect

> > from

> > > me. However, we constantly believe the Other expects something from

> > > us. In 'our case' this expectation, we believe the Other projects,

> > is

> > > the achievement of 'enlightenment'. As long as we don't achieve

> > > 'enlightenment the (M)Other

> > > > will not be satisfied.

> > > >

> > > > One of the most important questions is to figure out from where

> > this

> > > obsession for 'enlightenment' comes. We all agree perhaps in that

> > > people like Buddha, Jesus or Nisargadatta, at least, behaved

> > > themselves like obsessives. Jesus got crucified and the others died

> > > too. What remains is their history, their body of thoughts and

> > > believes, and their symbolic significance for a bunch of different

> > > ideologies, religions and philosophies. No matter in which social

> > > construct the subject immerse itself, it always will be 'something

> > > there' that the subject experiences as a demand, an expectation

> > coming

> > > from the (M)Other. To fulfill this demand, however, often doesn't

> > > constitute a 'need' to the subject. The subject, e.g., doesn't need

> > > 'enlightenment' to go on living; it 'needs' food, clothes and

> > shelter.

> > > Because the subject never completely merges in the (M)Other, ie. in

> > > the social structure in which it is integrated, it always remains

> > some

> > > 'otherness' which the

> > > > subject perceives in relation to the Other. This sense of

> > > 'otherness' is illustrated by the subject's demand, to satisfy it's

> > > needs (shelter, work, food, etc.) addressed towards the (M)Other.

> > > >

> > > > Desire is always the desire of the (M)Other, according to Lacan.

> > > Thus, if a subject desires 'enlightenment' (many subjects do that in

> > > these forums, but are not sincere enough to admit or confess it) it

> > > tries to accomplish what he/her believes that are expected from

> > > him/her. The subject desires what he/she believes the (M)Other

> > desires

> > > or has desired. Desire, however, never finds satisfaction. It is not

> > > the objective of desire to be satisfied by an 'object'

> > (enlightenment,

> > > eg). As soon the alleged object of desire has been reached, the

> > > 'vacuum', the 'void', in which this desire was located becomes

> > > apparent and for a short time we believe to have found what we were

> > > searching for, but it was only what we believed the (M)Other

> > desires.

> > > Propaganda, for example, works excellently by converting desires in

> > > needs: you have to have this BMW, buy this and that, and if you do

> > or

> > > can not, your are not worth to belong to this or that group, social

> > > stratum, confession,

> > > > etc. But, as I said above, for the subject it is impossible to

> > > merge completely in the (M)Other. Even having a this BMW, you do not

> > > feel to satisfied, some other has not only your BMW, but also a

> > > mansion in the French Riviera....and you then, might desires this,

> > too.

> > > >

> > > > 'Enlightenment' constitutes the paradigm of what Lacan

> > called 'objet

> > > a'. 'Object a', inexistent, points to something we desire, but never

> > > will get and we never want to get. 'Objet a' keeps the wheel going

> > on,

> > > lights the flame of desire up again and again. As long as we are not

> > > aware of the unexistence of 'objet a', we believe our desire has a

> > > goal, an aim or an objective, but desire desires desire and nothing

> > > else more. To abandon completely all possible 'objet a' dismantles

> > > desire, but the subject, despite all, continues desiring, at that's

> > good.

> > > >

> > > > Ricardo

> > >

> > > sounds like mystical bullshit.

> > >

> > > believe nothing.

> > >

> > > there's nothing to believe in..

> > >

> > > not even disbelief.

> > >

> > > just chuck the whole goddamn thing and get on with it.

> > >

> > > whatever it is for you.

> > >

> > > it's all you got and all you ever will have.

> > >

> > > eat..drink...saw wood.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> >

> > you don't like Lacan?

> >

> > bbb n'en a rien à foutre de Lacan?....

> >

> > bonne attitude!...

> >

> > Marc

> he was hung up on Freudian sex psychology..

>

> and worst of all..

>

> he was into French Philosophy.

>

> and the fuc**er was Catholic!

>

> a dip-shit.

>

> :-)

>

> .b b.b.

yep! shit, anal orifices, genitals, gazes, other orifices.....all that mixed

with catholic super-

egos with dandruff and carrion beetles running upon their hands - a smell of

blood,

excrements, stale urine, pus is in the air....all of it sick, corrupt, stinky,

scruffy, shameful,

lacking any sort of dignity, sinful, unworthy, filthy, cold and humid.

CL

February 12, 2009

Nisargadatta , " loewe2009 " <loewe2009

wrote:

>

> > > sounds like mystical bullshit.

> > >

> > > believe nothing.

> > >

> > > there's nothing to believe in..

> > >

> > > not even disbelief.

> > >

> > > just chuck the whole goddamn thing and get on with it.

> > >

> > > whatever it is for you.

> > >

> > > it's all you got and all you ever will have.

> > >

> > > eat..drink...saw wood.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> >

> > you don't like Lacan?

> >

> > bbb n'en a rien à foutre de Lacan?....

> >

> > bonne attitude!...

> >

> > Marc

>

> Hi

>

> yes, both of you are right, in my opinion. I also don't give a shit

about Lacan (anyway, the

> guy is dead), but some of his messages were OK. The bullshit I wrote

can also be maybe of some value for people, who are not advanced in

their path to enlightenment like you

> both, hahaha!

>

> However, already to post is bullshit, but a nice pastime, as well as

to read what messages

> people write.....comunication, storytelling, mythopoiesis!!!

>

> Yours,

> CL

>

there is no such thing as enlightenment.

the so called " advanced on the path " are mental cripples.

it's all a pastime.

killing time is the only thing the species knows how to do.

glad to see you're on board.

backgammon anyone?

:-)

..b b.b.

February 12, 2009

Nisargadatta , " loewe2009 " <loewe2009

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

> > <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , Loewe C <loewe2009@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi,

> > > > >

> > > > > most posters here, and in other spiritual groups, are in my

> > > opinion

> > > > believers just like Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Jews. The only

> > > > difference between mystics, gnostics and all the other New Age

> > > > disciples is that the term 'God' has been replaced by some other

> > > > concept or concepts. We apparently can't live without some sort of

> > > > ideology. The concept of 'enlightenment' is a paradigm for

ideology.

> > > > Ideology always tries to delimit itself and its attenders from an

> > > > 'other' that is considered as ignorant, barbaric or unillumined.

> > > > People unified by a ideology also tend to develop a certain

> > > language,

> > > > a code that not always is understandable by people outside the

> > > circle.

> > > > Another typical characteristic of ideology is that its members

> > > believe

> > > > to be able to substantiate their believes by using science. Since

> > > the

> > > > postmodern revolution of science (the term science has been

replaced

> > > > by 'technology') even Christians try to find explanations to the

> > > > alleged miracles of

> > > > > Jesus by using the 'verborrhea' popular science applies as

> > > regards

> > > > quantum mechanics. It appears to be impossible to live and go on

> > > with

> > > > the fundamental idiocy of objectivity, lie and reality. We

continue

> > > to

> > > > ignore evolution, ie. individual beings are less important than

> > > their

> > > > singular genetic make up at this particular moment, not to mention

> > > > subjectivity that emerged in the species homo sapiens sapiens.

> > > > >

> > > > > Psychoanalytic stance continues to be relevant to all this

> > > > questions, because it assumes the inherent incompleteness of the

> > > > individual, subject, the other and (M)Other. The Other with

capital

> > > > 'O' stands for the social, cultural, economic and political

texture

> > > in

> > > > which the subject is embedded. Today, more than ever before,

due to

> > > > the financial crisis, we are able to see that the 'Other' lacks,

> > > > desires and fails. This Other, so nicely described by Orwell

> > > in '1984'

> > > > as " Big Brother " , eg., actually doesn't know what it really

desires.

> > > > Like all subjects it desires desire. The purpose of desire is this

> > > > desire. It is, thus, more than futile to try to find out what the

> > > > Other expects from me, because I don't know what I should expect

> > > from

> > > > me. However, we constantly believe the Other expects something

from

> > > > us. In 'our case' this expectation, we believe the Other

projects,

> > > is

> > > > the achievement of 'enlightenment'. As long as we don't achieve

> > > > 'enlightenment the (M)Other

> > > > > will not be satisfied.

> > > > >

> > > > > One of the most important questions is to figure out from where

> > > this

> > > > obsession for 'enlightenment' comes. We all agree perhaps in that

> > > > people like Buddha, Jesus or Nisargadatta, at least, behaved

> > > > themselves like obsessives. Jesus got crucified and the others

died

> > > > too. What remains is their history, their body of thoughts and

> > > > believes, and their symbolic significance for a bunch of different

> > > > ideologies, religions and philosophies. No matter in which social

> > > > construct the subject immerse itself, it always will be 'something

> > > > there' that the subject experiences as a demand, an expectation

> > > coming

> > > > from the (M)Other. To fulfill this demand, however, often doesn't

> > > > constitute a 'need' to the subject. The subject, e.g., doesn't

need

> > > > 'enlightenment' to go on living; it 'needs' food, clothes and

> > > shelter.

> > > > Because the subject never completely merges in the (M)Other,

ie. in

> > > > the social structure in which it is integrated, it always remains

> > > some

> > > > 'otherness' which the

> > > > > subject perceives in relation to the Other. This sense of

> > > > 'otherness' is illustrated by the subject's demand, to satisfy

it's

> > > > needs (shelter, work, food, etc.) addressed towards the

(M)Other.

> > > > >

> > > > > Desire is always the desire of the (M)Other, according to Lacan.

> > > > Thus, if a subject desires 'enlightenment' (many subjects do

that in

> > > > these forums, but are not sincere enough to admit or confess

it) it

> > > > tries to accomplish what he/her believes that are expected from

> > > > him/her. The subject desires what he/she believes the (M)Other

> > > desires

> > > > or has desired. Desire, however, never finds satisfaction. It

is not

> > > > the objective of desire to be satisfied by an 'object'

> > > (enlightenment,

> > > > eg). As soon the alleged object of desire has been reached, the

> > > > 'vacuum', the 'void', in which this desire was located becomes

> > > > apparent and for a short time we believe to have found what we

were

> > > > searching for, but it was only what we believed the (M)Other

> > > desires.

> > > > Propaganda, for example, works excellently by converting

desires in

> > > > needs: you have to have this BMW, buy this and that, and if

you do

> > > or

> > > > can not, your are not worth to belong to this or that group,

social

> > > > stratum, confession,

> > > > > etc. But, as I said above, for the subject it is impossible to

> > > > merge completely in the (M)Other. Even having a this BMW, you

do not

> > > > feel to satisfied, some other has not only your BMW, but also a

> > > > mansion in the French Riviera....and you then, might desires

this,

> > > too.

> > > > >

> > > > > 'Enlightenment' constitutes the paradigm of what Lacan

> > > called 'objet

> > > > a'. 'Object a', inexistent, points to something we desire, but

never

> > > > will get and we never want to get. 'Objet a' keeps the wheel

going

> > > on,

> > > > lights the flame of desire up again and again. As long as we

are not

> > > > aware of the unexistence of 'objet a', we believe our desire has a

> > > > goal, an aim or an objective, but desire desires desire and

nothing

> > > > else more. To abandon completely all possible 'objet a' dismantles

> > > > desire, but the subject, despite all, continues desiring, at

that's

> > > good.

> > > > >

> > > > > Ricardo

> > > >

> > > > sounds like mystical bullshit.

> > > >

> > > > believe nothing.

> > > >

> > > > there's nothing to believe in..

> > > >

> > > > not even disbelief.

> > > >

> > > > just chuck the whole goddamn thing and get on with it.

> > > >

> > > > whatever it is for you.

> > > >

> > > > it's all you got and all you ever will have.

> > > >

> > > > eat..drink...saw wood.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > >

> > > you don't like Lacan?

> > >

> > > bbb n'en a rien à foutre de Lacan?....

> > >

> > > bonne attitude!...

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> >

> > he was hung up on Freudian sex psychology..

> >

> > and worst of all..

> >

> > he was into French Philosophy.

> >

> > and the fuc**er was Catholic!

> >

> > a dip-shit.

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> yep! shit, anal orifices, genitals, gazes, other orifices.....all

that mixed with catholic super-

> egos with dandruff and carrion beetles running upon their hands - a

smell of blood,

> excrements, stale urine, pus is in the air....all of it sick,

corrupt, stinky, scruffy, shameful,

> lacking any sort of dignity, sinful, unworthy, filthy, cold and humid.

>

> CL

oh quit trying to be so poetic.

pretty story though.

..b b.b.

February 12, 2009

Nisargadatta , " loewe2009 " <loewe2009

wrote:

>

> > > sounds like mystical bullshit.

> > >

> > > believe nothing.

> > >

> > > there's nothing to believe in..

> > >

> > > not even disbelief.

> > >

> > > just chuck the whole goddamn thing and get on with it.

> > >

> > > whatever it is for you.

> > >

> > > it's all you got and all you ever will have.

> > >

> > > eat..drink...saw wood.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> >

> > you don't like Lacan?

> >

> > bbb n'en a rien à foutre de Lacan?....

> >

> > bonne attitude!...

> >

> > Marc

>

> Hi

>

> yes, both of you are right, in my opinion. I also don't give a shit

about Lacan (anyway, the

> guy is dead), but some of his messages were OK. The bullshit I

wrote can also be maybe of some value for people, who are not

advanced in their path to enlightenment like you

> both, hahaha!

>

> However, already to post is bullshit, but a nice pastime, as well

as to read what messages

> people write.....comunication, storytelling, mythopoiesis!!!

>

> Yours,

> CL

>

sure....bullshit is of some value for many appearent " enlightened "

and " non-enlightened " people....

Marc

February 12, 2009

all existence crows, dogs, donkeys, humans, birds, ants, insects, trees, butterflies, gods, demons, ghosts, sun, air, fire, water, moon, stars are undergoing the process of enlightenment in my mind. it makes my world appear vast, boundless, splendid & beautiful. i created them in my mind out of love. they are all part of me & i am part of them. i live they live, i die they die. i & the whole existence that i created live togather as made for each other. i cannot be seperated from them & neither they can be seperated from me. i enlighten them by admiring their presence. they enlighten me by making me aware that i coexist with them in solitude.

-mahesh

roberibus111 <Roberibus111Nisargadatta Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:22:54 PM Re: Belief & Faith

Nisargadatta, "loewe2009@. .." <loewe2009@. ..>wrote:>> Nisargadatta, "roberibus111" <Roberibus111@ >wrote:> >> > Nisargadatta, "dennis_travis33"> > <dennis_travis33@ > wrote:> > >> > > Nisargadatta, "roberibus111" > > > <Roberibus111@ >

wrote:> > > >> > > > Nisargadatta, Loewe C <loewe2009@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Hi,> > > > > > > > > > most posters here, and in other spiritual groups, are in my > > > opinion> > > > believers just like Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Jews. The only> > > > difference between mystics, gnostics and all the other New Age> > > > disciples is that the term 'God' has been replaced by some other> > > > concept or concepts. We apparently can't live without some sort of> > > > ideology. The concept of 'enlightenment' is a paradigm forideology.> > > > Ideology always tries to delimit itself

and its attenders from an> > > > 'other' that is considered as ignorant, barbaric or unillumined.> > > > People unified by a ideology also tend to develop a certain > > > language,> > > > a code that not always is understandable by people outside the > > > circle.> > > > Another typical characteristic of ideology is that its members > > > believe> > > > to be able to substantiate their believes by using science. Since > > > the> > > > postmodern revolution of science (the term science has beenreplaced> > > > by 'technology' ) even Christians try to find explanations to the> > > > alleged miracles of> > > > > Jesus by using the 'verborrhea' popular science applies as > > > regards> > > > quantum mechanics. It appears to be

impossible to live and go on > > > with> > > > the fundamental idiocy of objectivity, lie and reality. Wecontinue > > > to> > > > ignore evolution, ie. individual beings are less important than > > > their> > > > singular genetic make up at this particular moment, not to mention> > > > subjectivity that emerged in the species homo sapiens sapiens. > > > > > > > > > > Psychoanalytic stance continues to be relevant to all this> > > > questions, because it assumes the inherent incompleteness of the> > > > individual, subject, the other and (M)Other. The Other withcapital> > > > 'O' stands for the social, cultural, economic and politicaltexture > > > in> > > > which the subject is embedded. Today, more than ever before,due

to> > > > the financial crisis, we are able to see that the 'Other' lacks,> > > > desires and fails. This Other, so nicely described by Orwell > > > in '1984'> > > > as "Big Brother", eg., actually doesn't know what it reallydesires.> > > > Like all subjects it desires desire. The purpose of desire is this> > > > desire. It is, thus, more than futile to try to find out what the> > > > Other expects from me, because I don't know what I should expect > > > from> > > > me. However, we constantly believe the Other expects somethingfrom> > > > us. In 'our case' this expectation, we believe the Otherprojects, > > > is> > > > the achievement of 'enlightenment' . As long as we don't achieve> > > > 'enlightenment the (M)Other> > > > >

will not be satisfied. > > > > > > > > > > One of the most important questions is to figure out from where > > > this> > > > obsession for 'enlightenment' comes. We all agree perhaps in that> > > > people like Buddha, Jesus or Nisargadatta, at least, behaved> > > > themselves like obsessives. Jesus got crucified and the othersdied> > > > too. What remains is their history, their body of thoughts and> > > > believes, and their symbolic significance for a bunch of different> > > > ideologies, religions and philosophies. No matter in which social> > > > construct the subject immerse itself, it always will be 'something> > > > there' that the subject experiences as a demand, an expectation > > > coming> > > > from the (M)Other. To fulfill this

demand, however, often doesn't> > > > constitute a 'need' to the subject. The subject, e.g., doesn'tneed> > > > 'enlightenment' to go on living; it 'needs' food, clothes and > > > shelter.> > > > Because the subject never completely merges in the (M)Other,ie. in> > > > the social structure in which it is integrated, it always remains > > > some> > > > 'otherness' which the> > > > > subject perceives in relation to the Other. This sense of> > > > 'otherness' is illustrated by the subject's demand, to satisfyit's> > > > needs (shelter, work, food, etc.) addressed towards the(M)Other. > > > > > > > > > > Desire is always the desire of the (M)Other, according to Lacan.> > > > Thus, if a subject desires 'enlightenment' (many subjects

dothat in> > > > these forums, but are not sincere enough to admit or confessit) it> > > > tries to accomplish what he/her believes that are expected from> > > > him/her. The subject desires what he/she believes the (M)Other > > > desires> > > > or has desired. Desire, however, never finds satisfaction. Itis not> > > > the objective of desire to be satisfied by an 'object' > > > (enlightenment,> > > > eg). As soon the alleged object of desire has been reached, the> > > > 'vacuum', the 'void', in which this desire was located becomes> > > > apparent and for a short time we believe to have found what wewere> > > > searching for, but it was only what we believed the (M)Other > > > desires.> > > > Propaganda, for example, works excellently by

convertingdesires in> > > > needs: you have to have this BMW, buy this and that, and ifyou do > > > or> > > > can not, your are not worth to belong to this or that group,social> > > > stratum, confession,> > > > > etc. But, as I said above, for the subject it is impossible to> > > > merge completely in the (M)Other. Even having a this BMW, youdo not> > > > feel to satisfied, some other has not only your BMW, but also a> > > > mansion in the French Riviera....and you then, might desiresthis, > > > too.> > > > > > > > > > 'Enlightenment' constitutes the paradigm of what Lacan > > > called 'objet> > > > a'. 'Object a', inexistent, points to something we desire, butnever> > > > will get and we never want to get.

'Objet a' keeps the wheelgoing > > > on,> > > > lights the flame of desire up again and again. As long as weare not> > > > aware of the unexistence of 'objet a', we believe our desire has a> > > > goal, an aim or an objective, but desire desires desire andnothing> > > > else more. To abandon completely all possible 'objet a' dismantles> > > > desire, but the subject, despite all, continues desiring, atthat's > > > good.> > > > > > > > > > Ricardo> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds like mystical bullshit.> > > > > > > > believe nothing.> > > > > > > > there's nothing to

believe in..> > > > > > > > not even disbelief.> > > > > > > > just chuck the whole goddamn thing and get on with it.> > > > > > > > whatever it is for you.> > > > > > > > it's all you got and all you ever will have.> > > > > > > > eat..drink.. .saw wood.> > > > > > > > .b b.b.> > > >> > > > > > > > > you don't like Lacan?> > > > > > bbb n'en a rien à foutre de Lacan?....> > > > > > bonne attitude!...> > > > > > > > > > > > Marc> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > he was hung up on Freudian sex psychology..> > > > and

worst of all..> > > > he was into French Philosophy.> > > > and the fuc**er was Catholic!> > > > a dip-shit.> > > > :-)> > > > .b b.b.> > > yep! shit, anal orifices, genitals, gazes, other orifices.... .allthat mixed with catholic super-> egos with dandruff and carrion beetles running upon their hands - asmell of blood, > excrements, stale urine, pus is in the air....all of it sick,corrupt, stinky, scruffy, shameful, > lacking any sort of dignity, sinful, unworthy, filthy, cold and humid.> > CLoh quit trying to be so poetic.pretty story though..b b.b.

February 12, 2009

Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat

wrote:

>

> all existence crows, dogs, donkeys, humans, birds, ants, insects,

trees, butterflies, gods, demons, ghosts, sun, air, fire, water,

moon, stars are undergoing the process of enlightenment in my mind.

it makes my world appear vast, boundless, splendid & beautiful. i

created them in my mind out of love. they are all part of me & i am

part of them. i live they live, i die they die. i & the whole

existence that i created live togather as made for each other. i

cannot be seperated from them & neither they can be seperated from

me. i enlighten them by admiring their presence. they enlighten me by

making me aware that i coexist with them in solitude.

> -mahesh

>

.....sounds like somebody talking....during sleep....

Marc

>

> ________________________________

> roberibus111 <Roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:22:54 PM

> Re: Belief & Faith

>

> Nisargadatta, " loewe2009@ .. "

<loewe2009@ ..>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111@ >

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta, " dennis_travis33 "

> > > <dennis_travis33@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 "

> > > > <Roberibus111@ > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta, Loewe C <loewe2009@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hi,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > most posters here, and in other spiritual groups, are in

my

> > > > opinion

> > > > > believers just like Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Jews.

The only

> > > > > difference between mystics, gnostics and all the other New

Age

> > > > > disciples is that the term 'God' has been replaced by some

other

> > > > > concept or concepts. We apparently can't live without some

sort of

> > > > > ideology. The concept of 'enlightenment' is a paradigm for

> ideology.

> > > > > Ideology always tries to delimit itself and its attenders

from an

> > > > > 'other' that is considered as ignorant, barbaric or

unillumined.

> > > > > People unified by a ideology also tend to develop a certain

> > > > language,

> > > > > a code that not always is understandable by people outside

the

> > > > circle.

> > > > > Another typical characteristic of ideology is that its

members

> > > > believe

> > > > > to be able to substantiate their believes by using science.

Since

> > > > the

> > > > > postmodern revolution of science (the term science has been

> replaced

> > > > > by 'technology' ) even Christians try to find explanations

to the

> > > > > alleged miracles of

> > > > > > Jesus by using the 'verborrhea' popular science applies

as

> > > > regards

> > > > > quantum mechanics. It appears to be impossible to live and

go on

> > > > with

> > > > > the fundamental idiocy of objectivity, lie and reality. We

> continue

> > > > to

> > > > > ignore evolution, ie. individual beings are less important

than

> > > > their

> > > > > singular genetic make up at this particular moment, not to

mention

> > > > > subjectivity that emerged in the species homo sapiens

sapiens.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Psychoanalytic stance continues to be relevant to all this

> > > > > questions, because it assumes the inherent incompleteness

of the

> > > > > individual, subject, the other and (M)Other. The Other with

> capital

> > > > > 'O' stands for the social, cultural, economic and political

> texture

> > > > in

> > > > > which the subject is embedded. Today, more than ever before,

> due to

> > > > > the financial crisis, we are able to see that the 'Other'

lacks,

> > > > > desires and fails. This Other, so nicely described by

Orwell

> > > > in '1984'

> > > > > as " Big Brother " , eg., actually doesn't know what it really

> desires.

> > > > > Like all subjects it desires desire. The purpose of desire

is this

> > > > > desire. It is, thus, more than futile to try to find out

what the

> > > > > Other expects from me, because I don't know what I should

expect

> > > > from

> > > > > me. However, we constantly believe the Other expects

something

> from

> > > > > us. In 'our case' this expectation, we believe the Other

> projects,

> > > > is

> > > > > the achievement of 'enlightenment' . As long as we don't

achieve

> > > > > 'enlightenment the (M)Other

> > > > > > will not be satisfied.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > One of the most important questions is to figure out from

where

> > > > this

> > > > > obsession for 'enlightenment' comes. We all agree perhaps

in that

> > > > > people like Buddha, Jesus or Nisargadatta, at least, behaved

> > > > > themselves like obsessives. Jesus got crucified and the

others

> died

> > > > > too. What remains is their history, their body of thoughts

and

> > > > > believes, and their symbolic significance for a bunch of

different

> > > > > ideologies, religions and philosophies. No matter in which

social

> > > > > construct the subject immerse itself, it always will

be 'something

> > > > > there' that the subject experiences as a demand, an

expectation

> > > > coming

> > > > > from the (M)Other. To fulfill this demand, however, often

doesn't

> > > > > constitute a 'need' to the subject. The subject, e.g.,

doesn't

> need

> > > > > 'enlightenment' to go on living; it 'needs' food, clothes

and

> > > > shelter.

> > > > > Because the subject never completely merges in the (M)Other,

> ie. in

> > > > > the social structure in which it is integrated, it always

remains

> > > > some

> > > > > 'otherness' which the

> > > > > > subject perceives in relation to the Other. This sense of

> > > > > 'otherness' is illustrated by the subject's demand, to

satisfy

> it's

> > > > > needs (shelter, work, food, etc.) addressed towards the

> (M)Other.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Desire is always the desire of the (M)Other, according to

Lacan.

> > > > > Thus, if a subject desires 'enlightenment' (many subjects do

> that in

> > > > > these forums, but are not sincere enough to admit or confess

> it) it

> > > > > tries to accomplish what he/her believes that are expected

from

> > > > > him/her. The subject desires what he/she believes the (M)

Other

> > > > desires

> > > > > or has desired. Desire, however, never finds satisfaction.

It

> is not

> > > > > the objective of desire to be satisfied by an 'object'

> > > > (enlightenment,

> > > > > eg). As soon the alleged object of desire has been reached,

the

> > > > > 'vacuum', the 'void', in which this desire was located

becomes

> > > > > apparent and for a short time we believe to have found what

we

> were

> > > > > searching for, but it was only what we believed the (M)

Other

> > > > desires.

> > > > > Propaganda, for example, works excellently by converting

> desires in

> > > > > needs: you have to have this BMW, buy this and that, and if

> you do

> > > > or

> > > > > can not, your are not worth to belong to this or that group,

> social

> > > > > stratum, confession,

> > > > > > etc. But, as I said above, for the subject it is

impossible to

> > > > > merge completely in the (M)Other. Even having a this BMW,

you

> do not

> > > > > feel to satisfied, some other has not only your BMW, but

also a

> > > > > mansion in the French Riviera....and you then, might desires

> this,

> > > > too.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 'Enlightenment' constitutes the paradigm of what Lacan

> > > > called 'objet

> > > > > a'. 'Object a', inexistent, points to something we desire,

but

> never

> > > > > will get and we never want to get. 'Objet a' keeps the wheel

> going

> > > > on,

> > > > > lights the flame of desire up again and again. As long as we

> are not

> > > > > aware of the unexistence of 'objet a', we believe our

desire has a

> > > > > goal, an aim or an objective, but desire desires desire and

> nothing

> > > > > else more. To abandon completely all possible 'objet a'

dismantles

> > > > > desire, but the subject, despite all, continues desiring, at

> that's

> > > > good.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ricardo

> > > > >

> > > > > sounds like mystical bullshit.

> > > > >

> > > > > believe nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > there's nothing to believe in..

> > > > >

> > > > > not even disbelief.

> > > > >

> > > > > just chuck the whole goddamn thing and get on with it.

> > > > >

> > > > > whatever it is for you.

> > > > >

> > > > > it's all you got and all you ever will have.

> > > > >

> > > > > eat..drink.. .saw wood.

> > > > >

> > > > > ..b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > you don't like Lacan?

> > > >

> > > > bbb n'en a rien à foutre de Lacan?....

> > > >

> > > > bonne attitude!...

> > > >

> > > > Marc

> > > >

> > >

> > > he was hung up on Freudian sex psychology..

> > >

> > > and worst of all..

> > >

> > > he was into French Philosophy.

> > >

> > > and the fuc**er was Catholic!

> > >

> > > a dip-shit.

> > >

> > > :-)

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > yep! shit, anal orifices, genitals, gazes, other orifices.... .all

> that mixed with catholic super-

> > egos with dandruff and carrion beetles running upon their hands -

a

> smell of blood,

> > excrements, stale urine, pus is in the air....all of it sick,

> corrupt, stinky, scruffy, shameful,

> > lacking any sort of dignity, sinful, unworthy, filthy, cold and

humid.

> >

> > CL

>

> oh quit trying to be so poetic.

>

> pretty story though.

>

> .b b.b.

>

February 13, 2009

i am unable to see the glory of existence it is shrouded by my pride, i am always right, i am smarter than others, i know everything, i am enlighetened, making me blind forever.

-mahesh

Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamatNisargadatta Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:09:28 PMRe: Re: Belief & Faith

all existence crows, dogs, donkeys, humans, birds, ants, insects, trees, butterflies, gods, demons, ghosts, sun, air, fire, water, moon, stars are undergoing the process of enlightenment in my mind. it makes my world appear vast, boundless, splendid & beautiful. i created them in my mind out of love. they are all part of me & i am part of them. i live they live, i die they die. i & the whole existence that i created live togather as made for each other. i cannot be seperated from them & neither they can be seperated from me. i enlighten them by admiring their presence. they enlighten me by making me aware that i coexist with them in solitude.

-mahesh

roberibus111 <Roberibus111@ aol..com>NisargadattaThursday, February 12, 2009 8:22:54 PM Re: Belief & Faith