Comments on The Theory of O by Scott Miller

What I'm really looking for is a poem by CK. Just as an otherwise fat self-superior complacent bourgeois Mozart found his higher consciousness in music, I believe that CK finds his in poetry. Emerson and Thoreau could philosophize on a high level because they also spent time with outdoor rightbrain experiencing. Meditation accesses the rightbrain present moment that qualifies in our present condition as higher consciousness. If someone doesn't do any rightbrain experiencing, they better, in my opinion, do higher consciousness through art and after all this time on the blog, the fat self-superior complacent bourgeois part of my being is convinced that CK should take advantage of his artistic genius and be more poet than anything else. Music takes both left and right brain activity. Poems are said to be the only right brain word thing that we do. Constant and practically exclusive activation of the left brain makes us authority heavy along with fat self superior complacent and bourgeois. We reject that idea at our own peril. It's all a dodge if we stick to one side of the brain. We're dodging the other side.
Check out the Jill Bolte Taylor video again on YouTube for further confirmation. Remember, she's a left brain neuro-anatomist who has a full left brain stroke and is forced to experience life as a right brainer. You could say our whole communicative issue here is a question of my left brain attempts to explain right brain perspectives being rejected by left brain resistance.

CK, there's some truth to your Gandhi's Jew point, but it's also a dodge. It's the usual dodge. I'll try something different. You know the Einstein quote about a problem not be solvable on the same level of consciousness on which it occurs. So we must ask ourselves to elevate our consciousness because we can't expect rational, real level consciousness to work out the issues that occur on that level. So even we recent being talked down to by own elevated consciousness or the assumed elevated consciousness of another, or even some make believe Gandhi's Jew, in my opinion it's okay, because no matter how well we perceive things ordinarily, it will always go negative and that's my point. Consciousness always affects our ideas and a negative consciousness is not only a problem to itself, it is also never right about anything. Maybe that's the case here with what I'm conveying now. It probably is because I'm just Gandhi's Jew.

Well, every system has its weaknesses, and fortunately you have me to keep making it hard for you to just sink into self-superior complacency. Since we're both bourgeois we'll have to pray for someone else to help us there. The loss of house and home would take care of it, but it still might be better than our continued going along to get along. Maybe.

That is one positive possibility, yes. But you still didn't answer the main question. In every relative situation, whether it is being experienced by a realized being or not, shouldn't the predictive consideration of any dialectically perceived eventuality be balanced? Buddhists would say no because Samsara and Nirvana are split realities until they are perceived correctly in connection with a non-dualist realization and we're predicting things in Samsara now, and we don't have to waste time considering things in that way because you don't recognize the split reality. If I understand your world view correctly, you don't recognize Nirvana, just what you have somewhat insultingly referred to as the "real world," so that positivity of a Buddhist kind is not there. I'm asking where is it? You have mentioned that Hegel was a happy guy. Why? Did is happiness have anything to do with his dialectical world view, and if so, could you provide some insight into that consciousness raising accomplishment?

There are lots of possibilities. The one you describe is one possibility. But shouldn't a truly objective dialectical theorizing include the possibility that there are at least as many positive possible accomplishments as negative? And, yes, it would be negative of you to try and argue that negativity is positivity, or some such thing. I get duality. I get duality in lots of spiritual ways, which do connect with Hegelian dialectics some, but I do also know that consciousness matters. When we can't see through our own negatively oriented consciousness, it taints all our perceptions and understandings. Personal consciousness matters. No matter how objective we think we are, are actually are, our personal consciousness impacts what we say and write. So one person can say or write something almost identical to someone else, but because of the impact that personal consciousness has on things, the two people will communicate very different things, and since happiness elevates consciousness toward what yogis refer to as Satchitinanda (the Truth of Being is Bliss), blissful people convey the truth through their communications in ways that the rest of us can't. And that's why the Gandhi thing is not an even bigger deal to me. He was never thought of in the spiritual world as a realized being. He was not expressing from a state of bliss. He never claimed to be in Samadhi (Bliss), or even to have experienced Samadhi it as far as I know, and no one ever credited him with having experienced it. So the truths he conveyed were relative, not ultimate.

Good clarification. Politically, I am in the desperation faction. But, admittedly, I would be regretful when the reality of a desperate present opting disappeared house, home, etc. Still wouldn't make it wrong and I like to believe that I would handle the suffering and accept that there might never be any pieces picked up. Not having kids would be advantage there. If I had kids, I would be all the more desperate for the opting, be ready to suffer more, and thinking about how to pick up the pieces more ahead of the opting.

As usual, I enjoyed the way this post is written. The observational reasonableness in it is also high, and it gave me an idea. The practical reason Obama should have pushed a truly progressive, what would have been really radical agenda in the eyes of the conservatives was that it would have moved everything to the left. Just as so-called conservatives credit themselves with moving things to the right even as the actual moving agent (Tea Party, etc) is seen as ridiculous even by fellow Rs. Then, Obama would still be supported by his original supporters, and unlike the pushing down by radical conservatives, a truly progressive far left mover would have linked up and stayed linked up with an always defensible degree of socially directed compassion.