Kelly's Truth Paper

[MKFaizi]

Jason.

The tire iron posts were classic. That is why I remember them.

Anyway, I reckon your presence is needed here.

Good to see you, dude.

Ma

[David Quinn]

I can't recall those posts. What were they about?

-

[sue hindmarsh]

Marsha wrote:

I don't believe that wisdom has anything to do with giving up. Giving up implies that one does something because one feels that he must or because he has been intstructed to do so. I do think, however, there is such a thing as shedding.

People are being instructed all the time to “give up” things that they hold dear, but will only do so if the benefits outweigh the pain. The list is endless; give up alcohol, fatty foods, sugar, smoking, women, delusions, and so on.

“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”

One attachment is replaced by another, but only when it is thought to be better in some way. This makes it an easier adjustment.

It is the same for the spiritual person. When starting out, you may decide to become attached to sitting quietly in a room, thinking; instead of chattering the day away. You consider the one will be of more service than the other, in your desire to make some philosophical progress.

You may also decide to take from those that have already made some progress, anything you deemed useful. Whatever you decide to take though, will be of little use to you, unless you already have some idea of its significance.

Understanding cause and effect, for example, will be of little use to you if you are not ready to have all your attachments destroyed by that understanding.

Truth is ‘foolish’ to the foolish, and ‘joyful’ to the joyous.

Shedding is a process that takes years. You don't do it overnight.

Depending on your strength of mind and how attached you are to wisdom, shedding attachments can occur in one fell swoop - or never at all.

I get the feeling that you are yet attached to men, Kelly. You credit them too much. You seem so dazzled by Rhett Hamilton and Kevin Solway.

You could be correct in your assessment of Kelly’s attachment to men, but because the calibre of the men is quite high, this attachment may be a beneficial one.

Sue

[Leyla Shen]

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:

Understanding cause and effect, for example, will be of little use to you if you are not ready to have all your attachments destroyed by that understanding.

Luckily humanity is still hanging on by a thread due to the efforts of the few humans left.

So, out of all the possible combined causes that have caused humanity to hang on, you know that the one cause is "the few 'humans' left."

Amazing.

You think rather highly of yourself. Even more highly than the QSR, it seems. Is that because you are a woman?

[MKFaizi]

David,

I don't recall exactly what they were about either. I think they were written about the time that I was writing about Sade on Genius-L. The posts were actually bonding between Jason and myself. How I came to have respect for him.

Well, bonding might be too strong a word. More like coming to understand. Understanding -- maybe -- a mutual regard for the absurd and the sardonic.

That is the way I see it, in retrospect, anyway. Jason may see it differently. It was a battle. In those days, I regularly engaged in battle.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Sue Hindmarsh:

Depending on your strength of mind and how attached you are to wisdom, shedding attachments can occur in one fell swoop - or never at all.

I don't believe it can happen in one fell swoop. I think it is a process of erosion. Thinking that relinquishing of attachments can happen in one fell swoop kind of sounds like the belief in love at first sight; magical thinking; belief in fairy tales. Romantic. Chick Flick enlightenment.

I think that relinquishing of attachment is arduous and long work.

You could be correct in your assessment of Kelly’s attachment to men, but because the calibre of the men is quite high, this attachment may be a beneficial one.

I know that I am correct.

With that assessment, I am not discounting Kelly's efforts. What I do discount is her claim to wisdom on the same level now. I don't think she is an enlightened sage, as it seems I -- and all of us -- are supposed to think.

I would never have discouraged her from sterilization. I think that is a smart move and I would encourage both of my children toward that. I have always told them that, though I love them, I do not advise them to have children.

The choice not to have children is a wise choice. Even a receptionist can have that much wisdom. I know a couple of such women who chose not to have children. Beyond that, they are pretty stupid.

Kelly is young and has a big world before her. When I was twenty-nine, I thought I was old, too.

I admire her determination. I hope she does what she sets out to do. She is a good writer and expresses herself well. The hardest thing, I think, is to find an identity that is apart from QSR and Rhett Hamilton that is also apart from woman.

She should not be a follower.

She could probably go over fairly well on Oprah.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Kelly,

Stake your life on your values. How many dollars do you really need to survive? If you're serious about wisdom, give up your kids, electricity, phone, internet, entertainment, cooked foods, private washing and sleeping facilities --- since they can't be giving you pleasure or ego gratification. I'm not trying to play one-up. I'm just seeing if you're bluffing or not.

I touched on this previously.

I don't need much money to survive. I have been at it alone for fifteen years. I have survived just above the poverty line. As I wrote before, I am not going to "give up" water or cooked foods or telephone or internet. I don't mind going to a laundromat. Generally, I sleep on the floor of the living room of my house. I have no qualms about sleeping on the floor with many people. I have done that many times. I have slept in the woods with many, many people.

Kids are a responsibility. You don't just give them up. You are stuck with them. You can be irresponsible about them, of course, but I do not think that shirking the consequences of one's past decisions has anything to do with wisdom. Why would I give my kids up to some assholes?

I never claimed to be depressed, schizotypal or psychotic. Everything about my quest to become perfectly enlightened was above-board. I explained my reasoning in great depth, in two-hour sessions with a psychiatrist, roughly every 2-3 weeks, for 10 months. Two welfare system psychologists also examined my ideas in three other appointments. The latter assessed me to have depression, a schizotypal personality disorder and a prodromal psychotic illness, disregarding my direct and well-reasoned disagreement.

Nevertheless, you knew that you were saying things that go against the grain for the purpose of gaining a pension. Had you not been interested in gaining a pension, you could have easily said things that would have led them to believe that you are "normal" and ready for the workforce.

Both ways are deceptive. You chose the way that was beneficial to your intentions. Why pretend otherwise? I am sure that you well knew that your "reasoning" would grant you a diagnosis.

You are not a nut. But you whored yourself before psychiatrists and psychologists whom you knew would determine that you are too mentally incapacitated to work -- due to your reasoning that you knew well they would deem madness. Just mad enough to keep you from the workforce. But not mad enough to medicate you into a vegetable garden.

I have no problem with you working the system. However, it would be refreshing to see you say so.

I'd have no problem with toiling for a buck if I thought it would be a wise thing to do.

Yet, you will whore yourself for a buck -- to psychiatry/psychology. How is working the system wise, exactly? It buys you time to write and to think but it is deceptive. You have said here that you would toil for a buck if it was the wise thing to do. How is kissing up to psychiatrists/psychologists wise?

busking with a hat in front with coins, might bring a person closer. I might have some of my Truth Papers there. It could put them at ease, enough to listen to the music or what I might say, without social guilt bothering them. Having money and working for it has a very strong influence on a person's sense of self. Done intelligently, working for money could be useful lesson about spirit.

If you could make a living that way, why did you think that you needed a pension from psychology?

Well, next July I may not have a pension any longer. The Australian welfare system is being reformed to put workable bums on seats. My "freedom" wouldn't change, you know. I'd still appear like a vagrant, and give my occupation as Thinker, dedicated to becoming as wise as possible, and helping as many people as possible come to understand what is ultimately true. I've tested dumpster-diving, roaming for food late at night, begging for food, sleeping in very cold outdoors conditions, and being ill at the same time. It would be a strong challenge also for others, to witness someone relaxed, thoughtful, and fairly healthy, with a great sense of humour, yet having nothing they consider essential.

As a street person without shelter or food, you would be too preoccupied with survival to give much time to thought. You would not have internet access for intellectual stimulation. You would have no means for bathing or for other considerations of basic hygiene. Your mind would decay as your body would decay.

Years of dumpster diving and street roaming and begging take a toll, the same or more than toil for a dollar.

Survival is a monkey on your back, just as survival is a monkey on my back.

Your pension keeps you from clawing for it. Rather than putting on a fake Jesus act for working the system -- your great reason and logic that is deemed various psychological maladies by the infidels -- why not just own it -- take responsibility. You saw an opportunity and you took it.

By the way, this thread is not completely dedicated to Kelly. It's subject matter is the Truth Paper. I'd like a bit of feedback on it.

It is well written and organized. Otherwise, the same information can be better gleaned from the old Minefield page.

Faizi

Back to top

[sue hindmarsh]

Kelly wrote:

Of course masculinity is sexual. Traits like rationality, intelligence, perseverence, honesty, aggression, imagination, and so on, are sexualised as masculine when they're more common to men than to women. When both men and women equally and commonly have these traits, then they're not sexual. So, until humanity is so masculine as to no longer be masculine, rationality will be known as a masculine sexual trait. The causes create it.

I just want to check something with you Kelly? Are you saying that masculinity, in any form, is a good thing?

The reason I ask, is that masculinity, as displayed by a lot of men, can be quite unsavoury. Men have been known to; rape, kill, plunder, rampage, destroy and try to conquer everything? They have also been known to sit in front of the TV all day watching sport, drinking beer and farting. In other cases men have been known to be caring and thoughtful; helping people as doctors, teachers, nurses, husbands, fathers, and religious leaders.

Women are more in line with the caring, thoughtful chaps. Women are prepared to suffer and toil for their loved ones. They work hard to maintain stability for themselves and others, by helping to foster the morals and mores of their societies. This more gentle approach in the world is meant to promote peace and harmony for all.

So, are you recommending that women give up their vision of the world and start running amok like men? And the reason they would do this, is so they’d become more “masculine”, and after which, they might just wake up one morning and see the benefits of a philosophic life?

Is that what you’re advising?

Sue

[Leyla Shen]

Hallelujah -- she's dropped the pom poms.

PS: don't think Kelly's conscious of it, yet. But that IS what she is saying.

PPS: But even you did it, sue:

Kelly: It goes to show that women aren't concerned about the survival of the species at all.

sue: What has the survival of the species got to do with women?

[Leyla Shen]

Yet, you will whore yourself for a buck -- to psychiatry/psychology. How is working the system wise, exactly? It buys you time to write and to think but it is deceptive. You have said here that you would toil for a buck if it was the wise thing to do. How is kissing up to psychiatrists/psychologists wise?

Exactly.

Reckon I'd rather be getting a fuck for my money every now and then, as well. (And not a head one, at that.)

[Blair]

Yet, you will whore yourself for a buck -- to psychiatry/psychology. How is working the system wise, exactly? It buys you time to write and to think but it is deceptive. You have said here that you would toil for a buck if it was the wise thing to do. How is kissing up to psychiatrists/psychologists wise?

Why make it an ultimatum? Neither option is wise. You either make yourself a slave to a system in order to survive, or you end your own life, it's that simple. Every one has the choice, that is the only true free choice a human has.

[Leyla Shen]

It's not about the ultimatum, prince, it's about the deception -- the hypocrisy.

[sue hindmarsh]

Leyla Shen wrote:

So, out of all the possible combined causes that have caused humanity to hang on, you know that the one cause is "the few 'humans' left."

People are of little consequence, being human is all that matters. What people do is rubbish. There is no other existence for them except the hell of life and death. But every so often, a human appears and lends a hand to those that also want to be human.

Humans have a chequered history:
Being human is so rare, that when they do appear in amongst the mob, they are usually; ignored, killed, or pushed into the dirt, so that a religion can be built on top of them – something Jesus and Buddha could attest to. In more recent times, they have helped keep academic philosophy alive – though they would vomit if they could see the horrors they’ve inspired. These days, the few that hang out on forums and write books also can’t be sure what will happen to their work, but like their predecessors, all they can do is their best, and along the way maybe help a fledgling human reach their potential.

You think rather highly of yourself. Even more highly than the QSR, it seems. Is that because you are a woman?

Being a woman, I’m not sure I want to get into philosophy.

Sue

[sue hindmarsh]

Marsha wrote:

Thinking that relinquishing of attachments can happen in one fell swoop kind of sounds like the belief in love at first sight; magical thinking; belief in fairy tales. Romantic. Chick Flick enlightenment.

Letting your attachments drop away in one fell swoop can be thought of as “love at first sight”. Those attachments that keep your mind racing are stopped with a jolt when the infinite comes into view. Then you and your “love” are one. You want no other and everything is pure bliss.

Magical? – Reality doesn’t sleep with the enemy.

Fairy tales? – Giving up all attachments because you want something more fulfilling than happiness; sounds to most people terrifyingly unnatural.

Chick Flick entertainment? – Being set afloat, on a cloud of fuzzy emotions, doesn’t quite gel with the idea of attachments being cast aside in favour of absolute certainty.

I think that relinquishing of attachment is arduous and long work.

It is only “arduous” when you are not ready to give up an attachment. Once you’ve outgrown the attachment, it just drops away. The possibility of outgrowing all attachments, in one feel swoop, increases dramatically when you’ve decided that it is too arduous to keep them alive.

Sue

[Blair]

As a street person without shelter or food, you would be too preoccupied with survival to give much time to thought. You would not have internet access for intellectual stimulation. You would have no means for bathing or for other considerations of basic hygiene. Your mind would decay as your body would decay.

This is nonsense.

What street person survives without shelter or food? There are always ways around this. Food and shelter is abundant anywhere, you just have to be motivated enough to find it.

Access to internet is free in many places, Libraries etc. Not that the internet is even remotely neccessary.

Bathing and so on is somewhat optional, going without a shower for a week at a time is not going to have any significant
impact on your health, (although it may more so for a female), Dentistry is largely a scam.

[Leyla Shen]

Being a woman, I’m not sure I want to get into philosophy.

So, by your definition, does that make you a people or a human?

[sue hindmarsh]

Marsha wrote:

I am not discounting Kelly's efforts. What I do discount is her claim to wisdom on the same level now. I don't think she is an enlightened sage, as it seems I -- and all of us -- are supposed to think.

How does it affect you, Marsha, if Kelly is an enlightened sage? Will you be inspired, to push yourself even harder than before, now that there is proof that a female sage is a possibility?

Or do you consider her an interloper, of very small standing, when set beside Kevin, David and Dan. If yes, then is that discrimination based on her work or on her being a woman, or both?

I know that you think Kelly’s work -

is well written and organized

but you also think that -

the same information can be better gleaned from the old Minefield page

Is this because the information she writes of, is so important to humanity, that you do not want her to muddy those crystal clear pools of thought, written by the likes of Kevin?


Sue

[sue hindmarsh]

Sue wrote:
Being a woman, I’m not sure I want to get into philosophy.

Leyla wrote:

So, by your definition, does that make you a people or a human?

A person who thinks, that by becoming human, I might be given the opportunity to enter onto the path of wisdom.

Sue

[Leyla Shen]

Kelly Jones: Yes, to be sexually attractive, people often use a shallow type of masochism or sadism. Or a shallow type of misogyny. So I'm not surprised that many think this is what I'm doing.

This isn't what I'm doing. Undermining my ego is a logical response to understanding the nature of Reality. (Being intelligent is the same as being wise, of course). Knowing that the boundaries of me, or of anything, are all caused, it's truthful of me to keep remembering this. This is what I understand by spiritual masochism.

Misogyny is an extension of this, because it counters my instincts to be sexually attractive, which I know is an illogical instinct. It's not about building up a self-image, but remembering how to overcome the preoccupation with self.

Kelly defined "spiritual" as follows:

Spirit is Ultimate Truth, it's nothing in particular. It is what is always true. It's the absolute opposite of ego. Spirit has useful connotations, in that there's no body to grasp onto. It's the substance of everything, the true nature of all bodies, and has no separate existence of its own. Matt Gregory mentioned the idea of conceptualising of Reality as everything, and said he couldn't do it. This is the key to using dualism to understand nonduality. Trying to picture Reality as a particular finite thing is faulty, the thought of Reality must itself be everything that appears. It can't be grasped as something separate, but be recognised in everything, including the recognition.

This is why realising Ultimate Truth is so mind-blowing. It doesn't matter what appears, that is Reality. It won't change, regardless of who one is, what kind of consciousness one has, the civilisation, or lack thereof. It's absolute, and totally reliable.

Masochism: 1 : a sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or humiliation especially by a love object -- compare SADISM
2 : pleasure in being abused or dominated : a taste for suffering

(scratches her head...)

[Leyla Shen]

Sue wrote:
Being a woman, I’m not sure I want to get into philosophy.

Leyla wrote:

So, by your definition, does that make you a people or a human?

A person who thinks, that by becoming human, I might be given the opportunity to enter onto the path of wisdom.

Sue

Then, I can safely dismiss anything you say as unwise.

[sue hindmarsh]

Leyla Shen wrote:

Then, I can safely dismiss anything you say as unwise.

Is that because "I think", or because "I'm consciously considering becoming human", or is it because "one day I may be able to take up a philosophic life"?

Sue

[Leyla Shen]

Well, let’s have a look, here:

sue: What has the survival of the species got to do with women?
[insert edit] sue: Women are prepared to suffer and toil for their loved ones. They work hard to maintain stability for themselves and others, by helping to foster the morals and mores of their societies.
sue: Luckily humanity is still hanging on by a thread due to the efforts of the few humans left.
sue: Being a woman, I’m not sure I want to get into philosophy.
sue: People are of little consequence, being human is all that matters.
Leyla: So, by your definition, does that make you a people or a human?
sue: A person who thinks, that by becoming human, I might be given the opportunity to enter onto the path of wisdom.
Leyla: Then, I can safely dismiss anything you say as unwise.
sue: Is that because "I think"…

Well, no. What you said was, you are "a person who thinks that by becoming human…"

I don’t think you think at all. You appear to be a very good parrot, though.

Sue: …, or because "I'm consciously considering becoming human", or is it because "one day I may be able to take up a philosophic life"?

Really, I don’t think it’s that hard to see if you pay attention to your own speak.

Comment on edit: what type of woman are you, sue hindmarsh?

[sevens]

Kelly -

Trying to circumnavigate a self-image leads to defeat, at this stage. By visiting with psychologists and sages, you are, in essence - attempting to construct a greater self-image. Continue onward with introspection. Remove the ego that binds, and breaks - and you will construct yourself.

One that is all the more conscious of itself.

<<>>

"Continue onward with awareness" - Buddha

[David Quinn]

Leyla wrote:

I don’t think you think at all. You appear to be a very good parrot, though.

It's funny how women are the always the first to accuse other women of not having a mind of their own. There is a saying, "A misogynist is someone who hates women as much as women do". So true.

Sue has a good understanding of these matters, particularly about women. She always has done, even before Kevin and I met her. I've learned a lot about women from her. Indeed, some of the things I have said on this forum have been parroted from her.

-

[Leyla Shen]

Ah, "love."

David Quinn, if I had any regard for your opinion on this issue previously, I certainly have much less for it now.

If sue's quotes in my last post are a demonstration of her ability to think on the subject (and I see no reason why they should not be used as such) and you are in agreement with them, I hardly think either of you are in a position to decide what a misogynist is.

Are they an example of fine reasoning, David Quinn?