Spirit And Matter

Irony - I've read some of your other posts on this site and you speak of dreams fairly often. Maybe you have some insight regarding a strange thought I had recently...what if death is merely a separation between this experience and its exact converse? In other words, what constitutes my subconscious experience in this life is my conscious reality in the next and when I dream in the next life it constitutes my experience of consciousness in this one. Maybe all of my conscious experiences in this life will be my nighmares and euphorias in the next. (Makes me want to toe the line in all of my actions and intentions here.)

Consider being dead as being absent from this plane of existence. Water knows different aggregate states of being, so does your spirit. So does your subconscious mind, only that it is not really *yours*. It's an independent (animal) spirit which shares shelter with you in the physical body here on earth. The Shaman calls it your *small brother* family. You have your fate and your brother his own. What makes a big difference to your dreaming skills is to befriend your brother spirit. Some say I am nuts.... yeah and recently some famous scientist brainsurgeons were able to proove that there are two separate streams of consciousness operating the brain.

Consider being dead as being absent from this plane of existence.

O.K. But what about ghosts? I've never had any experiences with them myself, but many others claim to have. Are they on this plane of existence as well? Or maybe their appearances are areas of overlapping vibrations between planes of existence?

But I'm getting side-tracked. Thank you for your insight. Your response tells me you speak from experience, not just from something you read that someone else experienced. Although there's nothing wrong with that if its good insight, but you sound like you're speaking from a deeper level than simply borrowing from others' ideas.

I, on the other hand, have not been able to break through the consciousness barrier, but not for a lack of trying. I've practiced meditation for years without much success until lately. My most recent success came from a hint I picked up from David Wilcock on YouTube, talking about the pineal gland. (It begins at about 2.00)





I think a lot of the stuff he talks about is very strange, but I reference him strictly for the points he makes regarding the pineal gland. Since I saw the video I started focusing on my own pineal gland (or where I imagine it would be in my head) while meditating and found this "inner eye thingy" appear in my mind which has led to much more significant meditation experiences for me. It sounds weird, but I can't explain it any better.

The reason I bring up meditation in a discussion about dreaming is that I was under the impression that through meditation I might be able to access this subconscious space, or as you say, "animal spirit", with my conscious mind. I don't know how else I may "befriend my brother spirit" as you suggest. Once I fall asleep, I lose all control of my ability to negotiate through this "inner" world, so I've been thinking that meditation is the key to my reconciliation with my brother spirit.

Water knows different aggregate states of being, so does your spirit. So does your subconscious mind, only that it is not really *yours*. It's an independent (animal) spirit which shares shelter with you in the physical body here on earth.

Water is a good analogy for what you are talking about. I've heard it used often for things of the "spirit" but never for the subconscious. That was very helpful. I think I see what you're talking about. I was always perceiving my "dreamscape" as real estate that lies within the boundaries of my own entitlement, but now I see the greater reality of the subconscious extends far beyond myself.

Your reference of the subconscious to the "animal spirit" reminded me of a book I've been trying to comprehend, but its been difficult for me to understand, (probably because it was written by a shaman and I'm just not evolved enough yet).

"Seven Arrows" by Hyemeyohsts Storm talks much about animal spirit(s) and how western civilization has lost touch with their inherent connection with this animal spirit because of the overwhelming demands for material consciousness through science and technology. But he also talks about how among all the creatures in the animal kingdom, "Only Man is illuminated through Mind, through Wisdom, and through his Gift of Thought."

I like this quote from Will Durant in "The Story of Philosophy" as well, "Man is an animal that makes Utopias. We look before and after and pine for what is not."

For what its worth, I'm sure both of these authors wrote with the assumption of the "understood" female inclusion to the statements, but both were written long before it was politically incorrect to do so.

In regards to my critical essay of Emerson's "Intellect", upon further review I have determined that I was full of shit when I wrote that. (Mostly). Emerson is a towering weild of inspiration and intellect, whereas I am but a half-sprouted sapling of hapless ideas and vain declarations.

I'm not fishing for sympathy here; just calling it like I see it. If I was to delete my own post of it now, then I would be quite the hypocrite for I'm the one who's been so adamantly professing that the past blunders of your experience should not be tossed out, but remembered so as not to forget the errors of which you were once so certain.

Don't bother reading it unless you find the progression of a fool to be good entertainment. By the way, here's a book worth reading - "A Fool's Progress" by Edward Abbey

I stood up too fast...

Happy Halloween

http://ak.imgag.com/imgag/product/preview/flash/bws8Shell.swf?ihost=http://ak.imgag.com/imgag&brandldrPath=/product/full/el/&cardNum=/product/full/ap/3125133/graphic1

On Emerson, I have only read the Oversoul and Self Reliance and i thought these were incredibly inspirational and written by a mind of immense layers of understanding, but thats not to say that i am then saying Emerson is the answer to all problems as some people "not" on this forum may presume whenever someone puts forth a writer that they recognised gold in . So i clarify my own interpretation for future ghosts.
Its always a question of specific timing for me with reading, i came upon Emersons Oversoul and Self Reliance under my own steam so to speak, or at least under my own conscious steam , just like somebody taking a walk in the woods and then happening across a most beautiful discovery.
At the moment of reading, it was for sure that my state of contemplating aligned with "some" of the many points that he so beautifully constructs and encapsulates within these 2 essays, and at that moment , he was not dead for me, he was alive and affecting me like so few humans could do.
That is the power of great art wherever a person may find it, and then the after-effect of such an encounter leaves one charged up with re-newed inspiration about areas of thought and contemplations that not many seem to care about, but the truth being , is that few have been given the opportunity to care about, because these type of writings are not widely publicised , they have to be sought out by the inquiring self on the alone journey of the mystery of ones soul .

In regards to my critical essay of Emerson's "Intellect", upon further review I have determined that I was full of shit when I wrote that. (Mostly). Emerson is a towering weild of inspiration and intellect, whereas I am but a half-sprouted sapling of hapless ideas and vain declarations.

I took an initial glance over it and it seems it would have taken a lot of applied thought to write it and i think i would need about 4 hours to read emersons intellect and then read your critique and form my feedback if im capable , so i hope you dont mind that i copied it for the moment in case you delete , because i will take the effort when i get the window (: not to say that my opinion will be any true gauge of its value or point of view , but you did ask (:so i will try to accomodate with my amateur simplespeak

Hi Bobdog,

One night when you finally snap out of it you crash eveything that you thought was real, you will see that what you do during the day is sleepwalking and what you do at night is weaving. Unite day and night and the pheonix will rise. What I am saying is this: treat the day as if it were a dream...and see that everything is dreaming, then you wake up at night and see how you weave the flying carpet. It's much more fulfilling to navigate through life in this way.





Writing a dream diary for a year is a good idea. Keeping it for another year and then reading it is great fun.

One night when you finally snap out of it you crash eveything that you thought was real, you will see that what you do during the day is sleepwalking and what you do at night is weaving. Unite day and night and the pheonix will rise. What I am saying is this: treat the day as if it were a dream...and see that everything is dreaming, then you wake up at night and see how you weave the flying carpet. It's much more fulfilling to navigate through life in this way.

Irony - Yes! Yes! Yes! That's it, exactly! For about two years now I've been feeling like I was "intoxicated" (I don't know how to better describe it) while I am completely sober and awake.

I got there by reminding myself all day for months about the illusion of substance. There's more empty space between the particles that make up physical reality than the space occupied by those particles, but because of their velocities everything seems so substantial. Having said that, I do understand you're not talking about physical science, but metaphysics, maybe. That just happened to be the way I stumbled upon the experience of living in the waking dream experience.

But I'm still in spiritual kindergarten. I can't "unite the day and night" because even with my new "awareness" of day, I haven't found the power sufficient to vanquish my demons at night. I've kept a dream journal on and off for twelve years, hoping to discover how to overcome those demons. I think I can honestly say that I've had less than twenty good night's sleeps with pleasant dreams. Nightmares abound upon my subconscious domain for as long as I can remember.

Don't mean to make this dialog "personal" if you don't care to go there, but I haven't really any other way to describe it.

Now, when I treat the day as a dream, that's no problem. The nightmares only come when I fall asleep. So I thought that if I could become a better meditator I could start channeling some of my positive wakeful energy unto the other side. I think its working but its beginning to look like the task of a lifetime.

The funny think about that for me is everything bad that happens in my life seems like an event and everything good seems like a process. I don't think time chooses sides, but it doesn't appear to be on mine.

There've only been a handful of times in my life when I've experienced a discrete local presence of dynamic energy that wasn't mechanical in nature and your video post was certainly one of them. I could almost feel it jump out of my monitor. Powerful! I'd love to be able to conjugate that spoken magic myself, but I wouldn't know where to begin. Besides, I think the power resides in the one speaking, not the words spoken. He could probably just as easily transmit that power in any utterance he wanted to.

But the translations were very helpful. Reading them while listening to the (shaman?) brought me immediately to that transcendental place you talk about where my awareness perceives consciousness in a dream-state. I had the vision that somehow the (shaman?) was uniting heaven and earth like waves from a cosmic ocean rushing upon my senses and then retreating just as vigorously. It was awesome.

Thank you.

Kapis - The main problem I see now with my critique of Emerson is in misapplication and misinterpretation. His writing has profound implications for those considering intelectual matters and his philosophy is Christian-based. When I wrote it I was just awakening from the slumber of a childhood of dogmatic religious teachings so I was spoiling for a fight, trying to develop some self-confidence in my decision to forsake the instruction of my youth. What resulted was me taking cheap shots at a much better and published writer who isn't even here to defend himself against my ridicule. If anything, the essay is a good example of my evolution and in which case, as you have pointed out in other threads about other things, is really only of any value to me alone. I won't delete it though. What's done is done, but you're welcome to print whatever I'm reckless enough to put on the site.

Don't worry about Emerson, he was the one who said: A friend is one before whom I may think aloud. One of my favorite qoutes.

A true friendship is held together by faith which is first presented through the whispers of intuition then reveals its fruits in the experience , which in turn empowers faith and intuition and the circle is complete giving life meaning
But a distasteful broken friendship reveals that one of the parties has been compromised by devious influences

Bobdog - I think youve elaborated and reflected on your emerson critique in an impressive manner in the realms "the study of the self"
Im still looking forward to reading it soon , just too knackered at the moment to tackle both of them then comment but i will get there maybe after next week .

Have faith

A true friendship is held together by faith which is first presented through the whispers of intuition then reveals its fruits in the experience , which in turn empowers faith and intuition and the circle is complete giving life meaning

Unite day and night and the pheonix will rise.

Seraphim, Kapis and Irony, thank you for your insights in the quotes above.

There has been some discussion of "faith" in various threads here lately. It has been a bitter pill for me to swallow, what with my slow spiritual awakening thus far. As I began to forsake the staunch religious teachings of my childhood I was all too enthusiastic to throw out faith with the rest of the "false" doctrine. It's no mystery to me now why intuition has been difficult for me to develop.

But I am re-learning the importance of faith and the role it plays in my life. Here's the best my intuition can give me at the moment:



I imagine a black gospel choir singing the back up chants, but they're hard to come by down here in Inca land.

Great song Bob

A true friendship is held together by faith which is first presented through the whispers of intuition then reveals its fruits in the experience , which in turn empowers faith and intuition and the circle is complete giving life meaning
But a distasteful broken friendship reveals that one of the parties has been compromised by devious influences

Faith is trust, and if your trust is being used against you, when somebody who you considered to be your friend lies to you
about others to instigate against you, all the faith in the world won't help you to forget and forgive.

Even if it only concerns a friendship that developed via the internet technology.

Friendship lives in the heart as well you know, just as conscience does.

If your heart is messed up.....how could anyone ever develop faith in you.

I may not matter to you, but I represent this lost principle to you.

Faith is trust, and if your trust is being used against you, when somebody who you considered to be your friend lies to you about others to instigate against you, all the faith in the world won't help you to forget and forgive.

Trust is just one element of faith, as is hope, there are different levels of faith , one most common type of faith is just undercover ego-enforcement , another type of rarer faith may be a request from intuition to observe a future act of magical transformation that is "cultivated in time through dramatic change" thus a certain faith is maintained by the observer even although occurences in present time by the subject of the magic act may absolutely oppose any form of actualization , but eventually , in time, a dramatic change to the subject may occur, and the observer reflects back to the moment they intuited its arrival .
If they had held onto the faith that it was always going to come about , and it does, then that is a true faith cultivated by the mystery of intuition , if they had lost faith then their intuitive connection is still being compromised by doubts , these doubts often at the hands of the ego or even ignorance
But there are many impostors into the operation of faith, especially if the intuition threatens the established order of the ego

Even if it only concerns a friendship that developed via the internet technology.
Friendship lives in the heart as well you know, just as conscience does.
If your heart is messed up.....how could anyone ever develop faith in you.
I may not matter to you, but I represent this lost principle to you.

An example of "heart messed up " ?
And can u elaborate on "but i trepresnt this lost principle to you " ?

only if u feel like it off course

There cannot be friendship without trust. I think you would agree with me on that.

Or do you have friends you know you can't trust but have somehow faith in? I doubt that.

There cannot be friendship without trust. I think you would agree with me on that.
Or do you have friends you know you can't trust but have somehow faith in? I doubt that.

Well in my world there could be, if the faith was strong and true, because sometimes some people can go off the rails a bit due to x circumstances, and that may lead a friend to betray a friend, but the betrayed friend may have faith through intuition that the betrayer was acting under abnormal extremes or even an inflamed ego etc, and if the betrayer was a genuine developing soul, then they may realise the dishonourable actions they had taken and make amends , so a trust had been broken, but because of a faith, the trust was then repairable
But there would be limits, because certain betrayals might be beyond forgiveness from one friend to another in the realms of regaining an intimate connection , everyone has either constantly re-defining limits, or steadfast limits

In modern times, what i witness with people is they have little faith or patience, once a trust is broken, thats it, end of connection . But actually its worse than that, the trust isnt even established, you have people that expect , and if their expectations are not met, they just dump on that person and move onto another

I see this problem directly relating to intuition , because true friendship is completly bonded by intuition
But because people are out of touch with their selfs, their true intiuition, and obsessed with their social reputation , they become much more suspicious and constantly are worrying about their so called friendships

A true friendship happens instantly or slowly in time, but the friendship is felt before you ever realise it in words
I think the skill is in realising the depth and limitations of any friendship, because time and exposure rate really does constantly alter the parameters , from warm to ice to warm again , its just a case of following the signals regarding the current state of the weather and acting accordingly in the friendship

People get stuck in habitual patterns if relating , the idea that friend is a friend will always be a friend , is crazy , a so called friend could be your worst enemy , in subtle ways that may stop you developing as a person

BUt thats not to say that a friend could and can be a lifelong benevolent influence , anything is always possible for those that seek it

And in fact there are 2 types of people regarding friendships, one type monitors the friend and allows the friend freedom to act as they genuinely want to at all times, even if that means breaking off the friendship
The other type has a secret credit account where they believe the friend owes them just for being a friend , and one day they call in their debt through emotional blackmail

People get stuck in habitual patterns if relating , the idea that friend is a friend will always be a friend , is crazy , a so called friend could be your worst enemy , in subtle ways that may stop you developing as a person

You took the words out of my mouth, Kapis. In my opinion, the meaning of the word 'friend' has been totally raped. One problem is simply, that, we're raised by the public education establishment, that promotes competition. I'd argue, an "artificial" competition.

Although, we are wired for tribal community, there are no more "tribe" like qualities left. Just loose social contact, for a lot of people, it's simply dudes and ladies to get drunk with or something. There is something fundamentally human about a tribe, and I believe we are seeing the moral decay, from observing this morally decaying society we live in today.

Want to get that awesome job? Be better than the next guy. "Fuck the next guy!!" "The next guy is an asshole!!" I find it interesting that most of my true guy friends are introverted, artistic dudes, who are so anti social, and into their own world, that they don't make as much time for hanging out, because they exist in their own heads. But they have been the more long lasting friendships in my life. I am kind of like this too.

There are just too many broken people out there in the world, who were raised by shitty parents, and these people grow up, believing that treating other people like shit is normal. I see it all of the time.

I mentioned the lack of general compassion in another thread. It applies to general friendship as well. Just take a look at how many divorced people you know. It seems, none of those spouses even really considered their mate a 'friend', which is totally weird to me. I know, for me personally, I've had ex girlfriends, where we had our own set of friends, who of course, would never hang out with each other. The lack of trust being a big issue, and the irony, of not feeling like I was friends with those ex's, on some level.

I know that, woman seem to be highly suspicious of other woman. So much so, that they pretty much write all woman off as cunts, so they tend to have more guy 'friends', who in turn treat them as sluts, or potential sex mates, and that is all. This I see a lot. Where as men, seem to be okay with having shitty men friends.

Unfortunately, a lot of my guy "friends", are more interested in who's playing who, next Sunday, NFL games, rather then, having any genuine care about anyone else. There is definitely some weird disconnect going on with the human race altogether. I can't quite figure it all out.

*edit* Another thing that comes to mind, is that so many people are so stressed out right now, trying to make ends meat, that this baggage is carried around, and converted into toxic energy, that spreads like wild fire. No surprise.

I would forgive somebody if they turn out to be mentally sick if such a person would show remorse.

Some asshole that just acts as if she'd done nothing wrong makes me puke.

Just tell me one thing Kapis and Flames,

what would you do if you would catch one of your "women" or "male" friends intrigue against you,

telling you lies about somebody else to manipulate you?

How would you feel about that and what would be the consequences for you?

Good points about the competition and tribe FLames , its almost as if whats happened today is that people have been harnessed into a collective of non-individuals , lacking both security and soul confidence , and beating each other up in the hope of achieving such

what would you do if you would catch one of your "women" or "male" friends intrigue against you,
telling you lies about somebody else to manipulate you?
How would you feel about that and what would be the consequences for you?

As always, it would depend on the particular circumstances of the particular situation

Yes, ethical ideologies can get quite personal. I always thought they should.

The thing with ethical ideologies , is that they are permitted to exert influence on the present moment , and any influence on the present moment has to be considered very carefully as it can be life changing in a positive or negative manner

So although i for example may have my own operative ethical ideology , at any specific moment, i have to retain the capability to realise that its software requires an update, otherwise i may restrict the unexpected knock of destiny on my door , because that is sometimes not so predictable and allied to any ideology, and such oppurtunity can be denied by the over-restrictive confines of any active ideology

So the ethical ideology is always a guide, never a rule

Sure , but imagine how bad it would be if you would not follow your own ethical rules (or guidance)...
to be the measure on how far you let other people influence you.
We all draw the line and on that line we also fix the point of no return, the point at which we say "adios"
I am always very conscious about this, that's why I don't play Poker with my friends.

[quote="Bobdog"]
Kapis - Having read your posts above, this might be an excellent forum for me to put forth an old essay I wrote some years ago on Ralph Waldo Emerson. He is one of my favorite authors and an important source of my own inspiration. Having said that, ironically, my essay is very critical and the voice that speaks through my writing is very arrogant. (I was much younger and on the cusp of intellectual escape from a childhood of fanatical Christianity.) Maybe someday I'll rewrite it, but I would gratefully welcome any and all remarks, scathing or otherwise, from any who care to comment. I am aware of its many faults but I still think it would serve some purpose herein, albeit won't make me any friends.

(Sentences contained by "quotes" are Emerson's.)


Bobdog, I just read Emersons Intellect, and my feeling is similar to when i read the 2 emerson pieces above, that this is writing of the highest excellence of quality.
Emerson doesnt shine a torch, emerson holds a floodlight upon the hidden workings of the imagination and attempts to illustrate its mechanics , which without that light, are disguised in the transcendental .
I am truly inspired or should i say my soul is moved reading this mans work.
Literally every sentence or at least paragraph, demands reflection as these arrangements of words in themselfs attempt to release themselfs from what emerson brilliantly attempts to form and encapsulate them for , to momentarilly illuminate the mechanics of transcendental consciousness , they default to the transcendental even as they are encapsulated with the intention to illuminate this transcendental

So even as emerson uses clarity of language to floodlight the hidden side of the imagination and its roots, that very choice of language he uses , itself , is innately attempting to re-propogate itself back into the transcendental , but when i read emerson, i feel he articulates portions of my own understanding of being in a most crafted manner.
If the Emerson spirit hovers in the ether, i send it my most grateful salutations again and again for such efforts and endeavours , i put him in the genius bracket in my own appreciations of quality .

I am really afraid to quote any of that piece, as every part is wonderful, but i have forced myself to cherry pick this area that caught my attention on first reade although if i read again i know other parts will catch me.

God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please, -- you can never have both. Between these, as a pendulum, man oscillates. He in whom the love of repose predominates will accept the first creed, the first philosophy, the first political party he meets, -- most likely his father's. He gets rest, commodity, and reputation; but he shuts the door of truth. He in whom the love of truth predominates will keep himself aloof from all moorings, and afloat. He will abstain from dogmatism, and recognize all the opposite negations, between which, as walls, his being is swung. He submits to the inconvenience of suspense and imperfect opinion, but he is a candidate for truth, as the other is not, and respects the highest law of his being.

The circle of the green earth he must measure with his shoes, to find the man who can yield him truth. He shall then know that there is somewhat more blessed and great in hearing than in speaking. Happy is the hearing man; unhappy the speaking man. As long as I hear truth, I am bathed by a beautiful element, and am not conscious of any limits to my nature. The suggestions are thousandfold that I hear and see. The waters of the great deep have ingress and egress to the soul. But if I speak, I define, I confine, and am less. When Socrates speaks, Lysis and Menexenus are afflicted by no shame that they do not speak. They also are good. He likewise defers to them, loves them, whilst he speaks. Because a true and natural man contains and is the same truth which an eloquent man articulates: but in the eloquent man, because he can articulate it, it seems something the less to reside, and he turns to these silent beautiful with the more inclination and respect. The ancient sentence said, Let us be silent, for so are the gods. Silence is a solvent that destroys personality, and gives us leave to be great and universal. Every man's progress is through a succession of teachers, each of whom seems at the time to have a superlative influence, but it at last gives place to a new. Frankly let him accept it all. Jesus says, Leave father, mother, house and lands, and follow me. Who leaves all, receives more. This is as true intellectually as morally. Each new mind we approach seems to require an abdication of all our past and present possessions. A new doctrine seems, at first, a subversion of all our opinions, tastes, and manner of living. Such has Swedenborg, such has Kant, such has Coleridge, such has Hegel or his interpreter Cousin, seemed to many young men in this country. Take thankfully and heartily all they can give. Exhaust them, wrestle with them, let them not go until their blessing be won, and, after a short season, the dismay will be overpast, the excess of influence withdrawn, and they will be no longer an alarming meteor, but one more bright star shining serenely in your heaven, and blending its light with all your day.

Now i will make some comments on your own critique


The Decomposition of Emerson’s “Intellect”
(A critical examination of Ralph Waldo Emerson's “Intellect”)

Submitted by Bobdog



“As a ship aground is battered by the waves, so man imprisoned in mortal life, lies open to the mercy of coming events.”
Emerson insightfully describes the tragedy of the human condition and in so-doing, reveals the need to overcome it.
JUst before that emerson quote, is the root of the quote which to me is not an absolute condition ...so i did not interpret that as "the tragedy" just an aspect, a degree ..which is a tragic part of the human condition

Every man beholds his human condition with a degree of melancholy

But even as he captures this truth, he sets it free again in the next sentence.
“But a truth, separated by the intellect, is no longer a subject of destiny. We behold it as a god upraised above care and fear. And so any fact in our life, or any record of our fancies or reflections, disentangled from the web of our unconsciousness, becomes an object impersonal and immortal. It is the past restored, but embalmed.”
emerson contimues from that into ............

A better art than that of Egypt has taken fear and corruption out of it. It is eviscerated of care. It is offered for science. What is addressed to us for contemplation does not threaten us, but makes us intellectual beings.

The growth of the intellect is spontaneous in every expansion. The mind that grows could not predict the times, the means, the mode of that spontaneity. God enters by a private door into every individual. Long prior to the age of reflection is the thinking of the mind. Out of darkness, it came insensibly into the marvellous light of to-day. In the period of infancy it accepted and disposed of all impressions from the surrounding creation after its own way. Whatever any mind doth or saith is after a law; and this native law remains over it after it has come to reflection or conscious thought. In the most worn, pedantic, introverted self-tormenter's life, the greatest part is incalculable by him, unforeseen, unimaginable, and must be, until he can take himself up by his own ears. What am I? What has my will done to make me that I am? Nothing. I have been floated into this thought, this hour, this connection of events, by secret currents of might and mind, and my ingenuity and wilfulness have not thwarted, have not aided to an appreciable degree.

Our spontaneous action is always the best. You cannot, with your best deliberation and heed, come so close to any question as your spontaneous glance shall bring you, whilst you rise from your bed, or walk abroad in the morning after meditating the matter before sleep on the previous night. Our thinking is a pious reception. Our truth of thought is therefore vitiated as much by too violent direction given by our will, as by too great negligence. We do not determine what we will think. We only open our senses, clear away, as we can, all obstruction from the fact, and suffer the intellect to see. We have little control over our thoughts. We are the prisoners of ideas. They catch us up for moments into their heaven, and so fully engage us, that we take no thought for the morrow, gaze like children, without an effort to make them our own. By and by we fall out of that rapture, bethink us where we have been, what we have seen, and repeat, as truly as we can, what we have beheld. As far as we can recall these ecstasies, we carry away in the ineffaceable memory the result, and all men and all the ages confirm it. It is called Truth. But the moment we cease to report, and attempt to correct and contrive, it is not truth.

My interpretation of that piece is that emerson was highlighting that truth exists in all experiences , and can be "reported" by the intellect through writing or the artist through other means , but something in the intellect ceases to report the actual experiential truth and "attempts to correct and contrive" and then it is not truth, and i would say that culprit is the undisciplined EGOs signature

The human intellect is able to sift the silt of its experience to discover the treasures buried there-in. Each precious deposit is weighed and measured to its precise value and utility. Facts do we find to remain without our persons and are terribly cold, impersonal things, but truths cannot cease to take purchase upon our souls, both invigorating and exhausting us from the inside, out.
Such is the constitution of truth that it maintains its integrity when tested within the fires of the human spirit.
In moralogically identifying a “truth”, it now develops to our growing awareness, a building block with which to lay a foundation, whereupon still greater truths may be erected.
This phenomenon becomes a means of destiny if ever there was one; it requires worship no more than does its distant cousin, the cold, hard fact. The mere observance of truth is sufficient to form an adequate relationship with it, and its integrity is then added to our own.
A person’s constitution is both made and measured by his integrity and his willingness to embrace the truths that establish and expand that integrity. These truths are no more “gods” than are those of us who hold to them. Even so, do they lend an aspect to conceptions of immortality, but may we not mistake them for things impersonal.
This is to say nothing of fancies or reflections, which have no business in such a discourse. Fancies are neither facts nor truths, but feelings. We may choose to feel any way at all and while these feelings may indeed be very real, they are not necessarily “true.” Even those that are true succeed only in adding depth to the experience that sparked the feelings in the first place, for all feelings find their source in experience of some sort, particularly those of reflection.
I relate to some of your observations above bobdog
Ultimately, it is the truths regarding the experiences that have relevance and value to our destinies, for they are irrevocable. We can no more change such truths than we can go back and change the experiences that revealed them, but we can grow into better understandings regarding the effects our feelings have on future experiences.
Do u have an example of an irrevocable truth ?
This is the inherent difference between real truth and real feeling. Truth, observed and applied, can help us to change our experiences, which in turn helps us to change our feelings, but feelings, real or not, cannot change truth.
Personally i interpret truth as a variable but i appreciate that certain truth variables can in certain stages of time, give the impression of being invariable
When applying truth to change or recreate an experience, the past is not restored nor repeated, but fulfilled in the wondrous splendor of life’s enchantment.
I would require an example here (:
Misappropriation of feelings, applied and replayed, may serve only to carve deep chasms of fear and unreason upon our hearts and minds, where we are left to wander in self-revolving ignorance, blinding us all the more from recognizing the truths that must be so urgently apprehended in order to set us free.
Often times, truth that cannot be realized is substituted by misdirected inspiration. It is a penalty we pay for trying to purchase things of a spiritual nature on poor credit, using our souls for collateral.
Every man strives to collect his due before he’s earned it. We think that simply because we have first suffered pain, we are now entitled to inspiration. This is an unfounded assumption.
Inspiration has been so long directly associated with things of a “spiritual nature” that its presence in ideology is never questioned. This is the tragically repeating folly of humanity since its origins.
I concur completly with your perception above
When we speak of theological doctrine, we do not cease to become embroiled in fear and hope, love and hate, forgiveness and resentment, salvation and damnation. But if we are to find the subtle path of truth and stay its course, we cannot be persuaded by emotions, thoughts or actions that lend themselves to irrationality, that contradict the very means of intellect by which we discovered truth in the first place.
I see irrationality as sometimes slotting into the "mysticism" bracket, yet to be made rational , but still could serve a positive persuasion to a positive experience of self truth

Thats all i could fit in at this moment bobdog, but who am i to contradict your truth of the past , but these are my current opinions

Do u have an example of an irrevocable truth ?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I might have one.........
What is the one thing that a person can depend on and can depend on to keep one physically (of course you can go into the energetics but I keep it simple) alive.
You are living and walking right on it............

Do you refer to the "eArth" if so, it could also kill you if u in an earthquake zone, sunami zone, dont have correct clothing or electricity in a frost zone, in a high sun zone etc .

My interpretation of that piece is that emerson was highlighting that truth exists in all experiences , and can be "reported" by the intellect through writing or the artist through other means , but something in the intellect ceases to report the actual experiential truth and "attempts to correct and contrive" and then it is not truth, and i would say that culprit is the undisciplined EGOs signature

Very astute, Kapis. I would have to say that that is exactly what I am guilty of to some extent: "attempting to correct and contrive". In my defense, I'd offer that it is much easier to see the mistake once I've made it.

Ultimately, it is the truths regarding the experiences that have relevance and value to our destinies, for they are irrevocable. We can no more change such truths than we can go back and change the experiences that revealed them, but we can grow into better understandings regarding the effects our feelings have on future experiences.
Do u have an example of an irrevocable truth ?

I might defer to the reasoning that the vast majority of truth is subjective. Being so, its "irrevocability" is only applicable to the individual on a personal level. Hence, you interpreted Emerson accurately in this regard, whereas I attempted to identify some grounds for making truth more universal without actually qualifying it as such.

Although, I believe there are examples of irrevocable or objective truth. Often, the best means to establishing an assertion is to establish its converse. I'll borrow a portion of your own quote from Eco on the "Theory of Semiotics":

If something cannot be used to tell a lie, conversely it cannot be used to tell the truth; it cannot in fact be used 'to tell' at all.

By the way, if you can understand the writings of Eco you're a better man than I. I've been wrestling my way through Focault's Pendulum for some time now. In his account of the Illuminati he does not speak highly of them.

Getting back to the subject, if I can substantiate the irrevocability of a lie, can we agree that its converse can then be considered an "irrevocable truth?"

The first example that comes to mind is the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."
The converse of such a premise might be, "Do unto others as you wouldn't do unto yourself."

I think the falsehood in such a statement becomes clear if we can fairly associate truth with logic, for it is entirely illogical to expect to be treated well from someone whom you've treated poorly. But many times this is exactly what happens which demonstrates that universal truth is a paradox because while it may be universal, it is also subjective.

For example, take two individuals, one living by the Golden Rule and the other living conversely to it. Maintaining the assumption of the "consciously sane" we may conclude that no one purposely lives their lives based on a lie and therefore, both individuals are living by their own subjective truth.

Thus, upon interaction between them, the latter will feel his truth to be validated while the former will not. What I mean is, someone living by the Golden Rule will be treated poorly by someone living conversely to it. Such an experience betrays the expectations of the one following such precepts.

This in turn, may persuade some to abandon the Golden Rule but it doesn't refute it, for expectations belong to the human condition, not to the paradigm of universal truth.

This example reveals why the lowest common denominator most often prevails amongst groups in society. It is much easier to be convinced of your experiences that the Golden Rule is folly because it is many times more likely that one pursuing a higher ideal will feel invalidated than one who is not.

So in order to live by universal truth one must forego expectation and this then, is the epitomy of "irrevocability". It is the quality of being intrinsic, which is value in and of itself.

Therefore, in order for the Golden Rule to be an irrevocable truth it must be demonstrated towards others regardless of others' behavior. To me, this is the warriors' path because while it is easy to be kind to someone who's being kind in return, it's damn near impossible to be kind to someone who's not.

There's a hundred reasons I may give myself not to be kind to a cruel person but none of them can detract from the truth of the Golden Rule. It does not become anything less simply because one is treated poorly while following it. But the one following it becomes less by forsaking it.

Another example of irrevocable truth identiied through its converse is slavery. The justification of slavery is an irrevocable lie.

I'll use a quote from Eldridge Cleaver in "Soul on Ice", writing from Folsom prison, who in turn, quotes Frederick Douglass. Cleaver is a self-confessed rapist who became a muslim and then later denounced it. I've selected such a poor example of humanity to quote because it demonstrates an aspect of the irrevocability of truth because it remains a truth regardless of who's expressing it.

From the beginning, America has been a schizophrenic nation. Its two conflicting images of itself were never reconciled, because never before has the survival of its most cherished myths made a reconciliation mandatory. Once before, during the bitter struggle between North and South climaxed by the Civil War, the two images of America came into conflict, although whites North and South scarcely understood it. The image of America held by its most alienated citizens was advanced neither by the North nor by the South; it was perhaps best expressed by Frederick Douglass, who was born into slavery in 1817, escaped to the North, and became the greatest leader-spokesman for the blacks of his era. In words that can still, years later, arouse an audience of black Americans, Frederick Douglass delivered, in 1852, a scorching indictment in his Fourth of July oration in Rochester:

What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to him, more bombast, fraud, deception, impiety and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages...

You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great political parties) is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your countrymen. You hurl your anathemas at the crown-headed tyrants of Russia and Austria and pride yourselves on your democratic institutions, while you yourselves consent to be the mere tools and bodyguards of the tyrants of Virginia and Carolina.

You invite to your shores fugitives of oppression from abroad, honor them with banquets, greet them with ovations, cheer them, toast them, salute them, protect them, and pour out your money to them like water; but the fugitive from your own land you advertise, hunt, arrest, shoot, and kill. You glory in your refinement and your universal education; yet you maintain a system as barbarous and dreadful as ever stained the character of a nation - a system begun in avarice, supported in pride, and perpetuated in cruelty.

You shed tears over fallen Hungary, and make the sad story of her wrongs the theme of your poets, statesmen and orators, till your gallant sons are ready to fly to arms to vindicate her cause against the oppressor; but, in regard to the ten thousand wrongs of the American slave, you would enforce the strictest silence, and would hail him as an enemy of the nation who dares to make these wrongs the subject of public discourse!

This lie advocating slavery has plagued our species since the beginning of recorded history. Even the bible itself discusses it without ever expressing condemnation of it. If this one simple truth were to be apprehended by all, it would likely spell the end of economic oppression worldwide.

Personally i interpret truth as a variable but i appreciate that certain truth variables can in certain stages of time, give the impression of being invariable

I think the invariability of truth is found in principle, so yes, you're right. In action it is more often a variable based on our own individual, subjective understanding. But I believe I've adequately identified two examples that remain true no matter how they are approached.

When applying truth to change or recreate an experience, the past is not restored nor repeated, but fulfilled in the wondrous splendor of life’s enchantment.
I would require an example here (:

I don't blame you! That's quite a tangle I've stitched there. It's about linking truth with destiny. If "destiny" rubs you wrong then maybe "higher purpose" is better (and by that I don't mean "god" or anything ethereal, I mean the elevation of one's own purpose.)

I feel that there is generally a limited set of possible experiences to have at any given level of awareness. As long as one's awareness does not increase, the "set" of experiences one has at the level he's on will repeat themselves ad infinitum.

The evidence of this is the dumbing down of society we observe all around us. It encourages us to become creatures of habit. But what is the catalyst which can propel us to greater senses of being? Inspiration? Introspection?

These are the actions which are involved in the dynamics of personal growth, but the object of inspiration or introspection is nearly always truth, however often subjectively discovered. And when the realized truth is applied to a given threshold of experience, it then increases one's awareness and in turn, extends one's scope of experience.

This is how we become active contributors to our own existence, or co-creators of our reality (experience), if you will.

The "dumbed-down" I mentioned typically feel that whatever happens just happens; that they have no say in determining their own circumstances. This creates a dependent society.

But if one is looking for lessons in life and has an open mind and heart to take correction where it's needed, find truth where he may and apply it to his "experience set", then his experiences will change, he will grow and he will have himself to thank for it.

So, in a sense, a willingness to seek and apply truth, both subjective and intrinsic, is a means to manifesting one's destiny. To me that's "enchanting".

A specific example of this might be someone who overeats. Possibly, the time comes when the pain of his circumstances becomes great enough for him to accept the truth of his malady and he can then begin the journey towards better experiences with health and self-worth. And these truths build upon eachother once they are applied.

For instance, in the example the first truth he realized was that he had an eating disorder. Applying this truth means attempting to influence his actions through his awareness of that truth. So he tries to eat less. If he doesn't succeed but still maintains his willingness to pursue truth in order to increase his sense of purpose, then he will eventually accept the truth that he cannot stop overeating on his own.

Upon seeking help he will discover many more personal truths which he may build upon to elevate both his experiences and his awareness.

I see irrationality as sometimes slotting into the "mysticism" bracket, yet to be made rational , but still could serve a positive persuasion to a positive experience of self truth

I agree. Also, the greatest irrationality (to me) is not being true to oneself. If a truth somehow becomes self-apparent and yet it is not embraced, this is not only irrational, but self-defeating as well.

Thanks very much for your thoughts and considerations. You do me a great service in offering your candid reply. It's difficult to get honest feedback about Emerson because I don't know anyone (else) who reads it.

For all men live by truth, and stand in need of expression. The man is only half himself, the other half is his expression. - RWE "The Poet"

The gentleman is a man of truth, lord of his own actions, and expressing that lordship in his behavior, not in any manner dependent and servile either on persons, or opinions, or possessions. - RWE "Manners"

Do you refer to the "eArth" if so, it could also kill you if u in an earthquake zone, sunami zone, dont have correct clothing or electricity in a frost zone, in a high sun zone etc .

A person has got to accept death as much as they do life.

Getting back to the subject, if I can substantiate the irrevocability of a lie, can we agree that its converse can then be considered an "irrevocable truth?"

That which makes you live can also kill you.

Wish I could be more lighthearted in replying but it's an irrevocable truth that's taken for granted.