The Sexes

[Orenholt]

The dictionary definition isn't useful in consideration of the ultimate. While we can determine that ultraviolet light existed before our perceiving of it, it still nonetheless exists as ultraviolet light strictly due to our perceptions. Otherwise, there is no ultraviolet light. (Remember my computer screen/conglomerate of atoms example.)

So you're saying that it didn't exist until we could see it for practical reasons?

All things are psychological perceptions, in the end. If you experience the beauty of a statue, to the degree that you ignore (i.e. are unconscious to) the reality that beauty is an illusionary projection, you are prone to egotistical suffering of longing for that experience. Full implementation of this realization would likely lead to you ceasing in using such illusionary projections onto objects.

I know that seeing beauty in thing is all because of the mind itself but what's the alternative to seeing beauty in a statue or every day life? Is there a reason to deny the fact that I can project feelings of beauty onto an object of my liking? Is is completely impractical to see some things a "beautiful" and somethings as "ugly"?

[Getoriks]

That's like saying the ego exists beyond our conception of it.

That's because it does. The ego is basically the reward system in the brain. But the concept of "self" is just a concept.

The brain is just a concept, too, Orenholt.

[Orenholt]

The brain is just a concept, too, Orenholt.

The brain is real, the only part of it that's a "concept" is the concept of the brain.
Yes, the brain is also just a manifestation of the universe making it the universe but that doesn't mean that it isn't real and further more that doesn't mean that the brain doesn't function like a brain.

[Russell Parr]

Dennis might have a point in regards to take it slow with Orenholt particularly on the Woman issue. I remember very well how painful it was for me to read David's essay the first time. It wasn't until I gained a pretty good understanding of his views (along with Kevin and Dan) on reality/enlightenment before was I able to stomach the essay and take it in properly. There's a reason why it's called 'An Exposition for the Advanced Mind'.

But regardless, if she asks, she deserves an answer.

[Russell Parr]

The brain is real, the only part of it that's a "concept" is the concept of the brain.
Yes, the brain is also just a manifestation of the universe making it the universe but that doesn't mean that it isn't real and further more that doesn't mean that the brain doesn't function like a brain.

Something funny about this viewpoint is that it's almost the polar opposite, yet identical to John's (SeekerOfWisdom) approach when he first got here; that the mind surely exists, even if purely as an abstraction.

Understanding where thought and mind meet (and their relation) might be one of the hardest tasks ever put forth for the human mind.

[Orenholt]

Dennis might have a point in regards to take it slow with Orenholt particularly on the Woman issue. I remember very how painful it was for me to read David's essay the first time. It wasn't until I gained a pretty good understanding of his views (along with Kevin and Dan) on reality/enlightenment before was I able to stomach the essay and take it in properly. There's a reason why it's called 'An Exposition for the Advanced Mind'.

But regardless, if she asks, we deserves an answer.

:\

I think I can handle a bit of information and if need be correction. I just want to be totally sure that I'm wrong before I switch sides.

[Russell Parr]

I think I can handle a bit of information and if need be correction. I just want to be totally sure that I'm wrong before I switch sides.

As you should. You seem to show a great deal of willingness to learn, so kudos for that.

[Orenholt]

As you should. You seem to show a great deal of willingness to learn, so kudos for that.

Thank you.

[Getoriks]

Dennis might have a point in regards to take it slow with Orenholt particularly on the Woman issue. I remember very how painful it was for me to read David's essay the first time. It wasn't until I gained a pretty good understanding of his views (along with Kevin and Dan) on reality/enlightenment before was I able to stomach the essay and take it in properly. There's a reason why it's called 'An Exposition for the Advanced Mind'.

But regardless, if she asks, we deserves an answer.

Taboo truths, let alone Truth, take time to register fully, even with logical, alert, stable, and open minds. So, yes, there needs to be an element of just letting time work its magic, so to speak. However, we can still share information and gain knowledge now, which is like sowing the seeds of a plant, and while her understanding and character may not yet appear to grow, we should still be sure the conditions are good, so that it can grow, and knowing that we have done our best, trust that her understanding and character will germinate and sprout and grow, just as ours' did. Advanced psychological and metaphysical knowledge requires multiple attempts at understanding for most persons.

I remember being scared in the beginning too, but I was far more scared looking back and thinking, "What if I had let my fear hold me back?" As for Orenholt, I know her in person, and she is a brave one, and need not be babied. No giving up my brothers and sisters. Onward!

[Russell Parr]

I almost didn't see this.

So you're saying that it didn't exist until we could see it for practical reasons?

I'm saying it didn't exist as "ultraviolet light" until our consciousness perceived it as such. Maybe saying it didn't exist at all is a bit extreme on my part, but for all intents and purposes, it might as well not have existed, just as all the other causal processes of reality in our surrounding that are beyond perception.

I know that seeing beauty in thing is all because of the mind itself but what's the alternative to seeing beauty in a statue or every day life?

Pure, seamless thought of non-attachment.

Is there a reason to deny the fact that I can project feelings of beauty onto an object of my liking?

The reason you "like" it is due to an unconscious process of projection. You shouldn't deny it as a fact, but you should wise up to what is really happening.

Is is completely impractical to see some things a "beautiful" and somethings as "ugly"?

No, it's not completely impractical, but the ultimate reality of such projections should be respected at all times, if we are to remain logical about it.

[Russell Parr]

I remember being scared in the beginning too, but I was far more scared looking back and thinking, "What if I had let my fear hold me back?" As for Orenholt, I know her in person, and she is a brave one, and need not be babied. No giving up my brothers and sisters. Onward!

Ah, so you're the mysterious friend!

[Kunga]

something is ONLY beautiful because there is something ugly

if there was no ugliness...there could be no beauty.

one is dependant on the other....without which...there would be no contrast (neither beautiful or ugly)

get it ?

[Leyla Shen]

Kelly Jones:

"Ugh", says Woman. "That sounds terribly boring, and therefore illogical."

I disagree in this instance. That sounds like abstracting everything into utter meaninglessness, and therefore illogical (unless logic is devoid of meaning and content of any kind):

That dependency is causality. Think of it this way. A building is made of lots of elements pinned together, and creating strength as a mass. If certain elements are missing, including the ground it rests on, the building could collapse. The building exists only as interdependent elements.

If certain elements are missing, you don’t have a building (I could ask you really, based on your reasoning, "But where is the building?"); if the ground a building is resting on disappears (you know, “poof”?), the building not only could but most definitely would collapse—this is a logically and empirically demonstrable fact.

But this is a false picture [...]

Yeah, I agree.

Look at the very thing called interdependence. Where is it? If an interstitial force, or causal boundary between elements, is also a causal element helping to tie a thing together, then there are no elements at all. There is only causality. Or rather, there is nothing one can grasp or separate into intrinsic things --- and thus, no causality.

OR: Causality can only exist if things inherently exist.

Illogic.

[Orenholt]

I'm saying it didn't exist as "ultraviolet light" until our consciousness perceived it as such. Maybe saying it didn't exist at all is a bit extreme on my part, but for all intents and purposes, it might as well not have existed, just as all the other causal processes of reality in our surrounding that are beyond perception.

Well what about bees? They can see ultraviolet light and bees were around WAY before humans.
Isn't saying that "well humans couldn't observe the ultraviolet light so therefor it may have not existed at all" a very human centric way of thinking? You may as well be saying "Well I couldn't observe it (even though Bill can) so therefore it must not exist" and that would be very ego centric and apparently being ego centric is bad.

Pure, seamless thought of non-attachment.

If you're not attached to anything good or bad then what makes you think that the good feelings would prevail?
If not, why would you offer this as an alternative?

The reason you "like" it is due to an unconscious process of projection. You shouldn't deny it as a fact, but you should wise up to what is really happening.

No, I'm pretty sure I have logical reasons for thinking things are beautiful. Sure it may be an instantaneous assessment but there are still reasons. It's not completely unconscious. I might say think that a statue's face is beautiful because it has symmetrical features. This isn't something I have to think about a lot because I can perceive it in an instant, but there is still a reason behind it.

No, it's not completely impractical, but the ultimate reality of such projections should be respected at all times, if we are to remain logical about it.

Well if it is practical then why abandon it?
What if we're judging something like the beauty of a food item? Wouldn't it be useful to say whether it looked good or not?
If it looks rotten and bad then it would be unhealthy to eat it.
That seems pretty logical to me.

[Kunga]

What if we're judging something like the beauty of a food item? Wouldn't it be useful to say whether it looked good or not? If it looks rotten and bad then it would be unhealthy to eat it. That seems pretty logical to me.

I know you will find this hard to believe....but I've been eatting this Indian chutney (lemon pickle), that's at least 40 years old...it's BLACK...and actually healthy to eat according to ancient Indian Ayurvedic medicine.

It's also very delicious !

[Orenholt]

I know you will find this hard to believe....but I've been eatting this Indian chutney (lemon pickle), that's at least 40 years old...it's BLACK...and actually healthy to eat according to ancient Indian Ayurvedic medicine.

It's also very delicious !

Lol Kunga, that sounds gross. Ok there are some exceptions but I mean over all you wouldn't eat meat that was fuzzy and green.

[Kunga]

Yes, there are exceptions.....also meat is gross to some people fuzzy or not....but yeah...i know what your saying....i'd never eat anything if it was all moldy or if i knew it was spoiled & would make me sick.....but they use to eat moldy bread before penicillin was available !

[Dennis Mahar]

there's no real reason why the sobriquet 'woman' is parlayed as unconsciousness

There is a real reason: it's true.

it's true for you.
and yet inherent existence has never been found.

the quibble seems to be about 'Woman' conditioned of preferences/aversions.

I'll bet you 20 bucks Quinn and Rowden have preferences/aversions and indulge them, albeit recognising the ephemeral nature of them.

[Dan Rowden]

Well I'm certainly averse to your writing style and have said so in the past, so I don't think you'll get a taker for that bet.

[Dennis Mahar]

case proven.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Imagine a Genius Forum fight live, that would be entertainment.

Since that is almost impossible, someone should think of an easy online competition we could enter. I'll give it some thought, maybe.

[Dennis Mahar]

As you should. You seem to show a great deal of willingness to learn, so kudos for that.

Orenholt's Inquiry displays some radiant intelligence.

So the question is, if a human understands the workings of the dual mind and tasting pleasure is a possibility.
Why not, if it's possibility is free of harmful consequences.

Those who swoop in here and declare 'womanly'.
have a little think about your own preferences/aversions and indulgence thereof first.

[Tomas]

Orenholt,

As Diebert recommended, I think you should cut back on the posts, and spend more time thinking. But for both of us to have recommended this, doesn't bode well.

The newbie thing wears off on us all.

Diebert and Kelly know this first hand.

They blabbered (thought) on when they first arrived.

Do what you must do and do quickly.
~ Jesus talking with Judas.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

They blabbered (thought) on when they first arrived.

Then again, you never stopped, if you ever arrived ;)

Actually I wrote a few short posts per week after reading for a year around here. With "here" being the old Ezboard which was mostly lost. Then again, it might have been different then if I had been unemployed.

[Russell Parr]

Well what about bees? They can see ultraviolet light and bees were around WAY before humans.
Isn't saying that "well humans couldn't observe the ultraviolet light so therefor it may have not existed at all" a very human centric way of thinking? You may as well be saying "Well I couldn't observe it (even though Bill can) so therefore it must not exist" and that would be very ego centric and apparently being ego centric is bad.

What you said is true, but I said "might as well have not existed." In this instance, the existence of all the of sounds that we humans hear and utilize mean nothing to bees.

If you're not attached to anything good or bad then what makes you think that the good feelings would prevail?

It's not so much as "good feelings" as it is a calm peace and tranquility, due to the absence of the fluctuations accompanied with samsaric realms.

No, I'm pretty sure I have logical reasons for thinking things are beautiful. Sure it may be an instantaneous assessment but there are still reasons. It's not completely unconscious. I might say think that a statue's face is beautiful because it has symmetrical features. This isn't something I have to think about a lot because I can perceive it in an instant, but there is still a reason behind it.

You may come up with logical reasons for why you like it, but the reason you project your feelings onto the statue as a preference is because of the ego.

Well if it is practical then why abandon it?

It's only becomes practical in knowing why you or others find beauty in things. It's not like you completely forget that things are found to be beautiful, but the impact of such a projection is definitely weakened upon discovering why, and is dropped once the reason is fully implemented.

What if we're judging something like the beauty of a food item? Wouldn't it be useful to say whether it looked good or not?
If it looks rotten and bad then it would be unhealthy to eat it.
That seems pretty logical to me.

Judging if a food is healthy is different than judging how "pretty" it is. Just look at how fast food restaurants present their food in commercials.